Agenda item

In reference to the request for clarification on the arrangements for refuse storage the Planning Manager Andy Bates informed members that under condition 3, the applicant was required to submit the layout of the entrance to the unit on Brondesbury Road to demonstrate refuse storage.  As this condition required that refuse storage would not be to the rear where the commercial units appeared to store their refuse, there would be no conflict with the neighbouring Addison Court regarding ownership and access.   In respect of the siting, he stated that according to the floor plan of the extension, there would be no encroachment and that the end of the extension would in excess of 10m away from the neighbour’s window.  The Planning Manager suggested an additional condition that there should be no access from the new unit onto the green roof and that the area must not be used for the sitting out of residents.  In the interest of privacy of neighbouring and future occupiers and to ensure that details required would achieve a satisfactory development, he recommended an amendment to conditions 2 and 3 respectively.

Mr Leon Mills an objector questioned the need for the proposed development part of which wall he said would encroach upon his property without prior consultation.  Mr Mills pointed out that there was no access for refuse collections trucks and as there were no rights of access other than to Addison Court, refuse storage to the rear of Kilburn High Road would not be acceptable. He also claimed that the design and access statement for the proposed development was incorrect.

During members’ discussion, Councillor R Moher expressed a view that as lack of access rights could be negotiated it was not sufficient to refuse the application for this reason.  Councillor Cummins felt that the proposal would constitute an over-development of the property and enquired as to how access would be gained to the roof and how officers intended to enforce the condition on refuse arrangements.  Councillor Jackson added that the proposal would lead to loss of light and significantly affect the quality of life of other residents.  Councillor Anwar asked about measures that could be put in place to minimise the resulting impact of the proposed development including overlooking and loss of privacy. 

In responding to the above, the Planning Manager stated that condition 4 made it clear to the applicant to ensure that the green roof was of a solid structure thus making it possible for the emergency services to gain access when required.  He added that with sufficient space to accommodate the needs of the studio flat, he did not think that the proposal would affect the quality of life of other residents.  He also added that a condition could be imposed to prevent any loss of light and loss of privacy. In conclusion he submitted that the proposal complied with Policies contained in Brent's UDP 2004 as well as Supplementary Planning Guidance 17: Design Guide for New Development and Supplementary Planning Document.