Agenda item
Ex Willesden New Social Club, Rucklidge Avenue, London, NW10 (Ref. 13/3702)
Decision:
(a) Grant planning permission, subject to amended condition 2, an appropriate form of agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 details section of this report and referral to the Secretary of State, or
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a part three, four and five storey building, with a setback fifth storey, accommodating 21 flats (100% affordable rent) and ground floor A1 retail use, together with associated cycle storage, landscaping and amenity space.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant planning permission subject to amended condition 2, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager, in reference to the tabled supplementary drew members’ attention to the scheme, presented at the site visit, which consisted of minor revisions to ensure the building did not overhang the public highway. In addition, the massing along the Park Parade and Rucklidge Avenue elevations would be reduced by 1.6m and 1.5m respectively. Members heard that most of the objections raised at the site visit had been addressed in the main report. The Area Planning Manager continued that the proposed building represented a relatively minor change to the scheme already approved for the site with relatively similar massing, number of storeys and a marginal increase in height. He drew members’ attention to some significant reductions on the ground floor and third floor on Rucklidge Avenue. The Area Planning Manager continued that the set back of the ground floor from the pavement would be an improvement on the current situation.
In responding to concerns about affordable housing, the Area Planning Manager submitted that as a relatively modestly sized scheme with a single core, 100% affordable rented housing was not considered appropriate however, the Council would have nominations rights to meet local housing needs. He continued that Transportation Officers had confirmed that any disabled resident could apply for an on-street parking bay to be provided in the future. He clarified the amendment to condition 2 to reflect the submission of revised plans and the revised drawing numbers.
Rita Taylor, an objector circulated pictures and expressed concerns about the building lines, loss of daylight particularly to numbers 14-19 Park Parade, overlooking to the rear gardens of adjoining residents and thus loss of privacy. Rita Taylor added that for the above reasons, the proposed development would contravene the Council Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 (SPG17).
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Hector, ward member stated that she had been approached by the local residents in connection with the application. Councillor Hector stated that due to its height the proposed development would result in overbearing, overlooking and lack of privacy. She added that the cantilevered design of the scheme would encourage street drinkers to the site, adding to anti-social behaviour in the area. Councillor Hector expressed a view that the development should be mostly for affordable housing and that there was no need for the scheme to incorporate shops (use class A3).
Dominic Tombs, the applicant’s agent informed members that minor changes made to the scheme complied with the London Plan and overall, would be an improvement to the site. He continued that the officers’ report adequately addressed concerns on density, internal layout and height and added that as a “car free development”, the scheme would not add to the parking problems in the Rucklidge Avenue and Park Parade areas. Members heard that the scheme would provide a much needed family accommodation for which funding had been secured by the applicant.
In responding to issues raised, the Area Planning Manager clarified that the scheme which was similar to the previously approved scheme for the site except in height, complied SPG17 in terms of design, day lighting and amenities
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended.
Supporting documents: