Agenda item
1-36 inc Marshall House., Albert Road London NW6 5DS (Ref.09/3319)
Minutes:
Demolition of 4- and 5-storey block of flats and erection of 2 new blocks, ranging from 4 storeys to 11 storeys in height, comprising 153 self-contained flats and maisonettes (111 of which are Affordable), 3 communal garden areas, private garden areas to front and rear of proposed ground-floor dwellings and associated landscaping to site.
|
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Agree in principle, but delegate the application to the Chief Planner/Head of Area Planning for his determination (taking into account any further representations received) and subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106, or other legal agreement, having referred the application to the London Mayor under Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 in order for him to confirm that the application is in compliance with the London Plan..
|
In his introduction Andy Bates the Planning Manager made an amendment to the description of the development that the final scheme included 40 private units and 113 affordable units, (and not 42 private units and 111 affordable units as stated in the main report). He then referred to a number of points raised about the methodology of the study that assessed the possible overshadowing from the proposed buildings on the buildings to the north of the railway line. He informed the Committee about the conclusions of the study which confirmed officers’ view that any likely impact would be acceptable and that none of the other properties would suffer an unreasonable impact. This view was reached, in part, as a result of the separation distance between the existing and proposed buildings which was in excess of 70 metres. He added that officers were not aware of an obstruction to light to such an extent as to warrant a refusal based on loss of light and overshadowing to properties to the north of the railway line.
Andy Bates then referred to additional representations from Sarah Teather MP adding that the issues raised did not raise any new issues. He recommended a further condition as set out in the tabled supplementary in order to ensure that the development was sustainable. He also referred to a number of comments and amendments to conditions 5, 10, 11 and the Heads of Terms of the Section 106 legal agreement made by the Borough Solicitor and as set out in the tabled supplementary. In reference to a request for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) officers considered that he stated that having regard having regard to the characteristics of the development, its location and potential impact, the proposal would not have significant environmental effects and, therefore, an EIA was not required.
Mr Kevin Barrett an objector started by saying that the consultation for the development did not follow the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and therefore residents were not given sufficient time to consider the full extent of the proposed development. Mr Barrett also raised objections on grounds of loss of day lighting and noise nuisance that could result from the proposal within a Conservation Area.
Ms Brookes also objected to the proposed development on the following grounds;
· Detrimental impact on privacy and outlook
It would affect the character of Conservation Area
· Inadequate consultation with residents
· Lack of day light assessment for properties on Brondesbury Road
· Excess density, mass and bulk
Ms Brookes submitted that the applicant should be requested to withdraw the application as it failed to comply with South Kilburn Masterplan and consider a re-submission with amended design which met with the Design Policy Statement and the masterplan.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Dunn, a ward member and a member of South Kilburn Partnership Board stated that he had been approached by objectors and the applicant. Councillor Dunn felt that residents had had ample time to consider the proposed development and added that the objections raised on grounds of noise nuisance and overshadowing had not been established. Councillor Dunn continued that the current proposal of between 4 and 11 storeys was an improvement on the original scheme which was for 10 to 20 storeys. He however added that it would be of any help, the application could be deferred to enable residents to digest the ramifications of the scheme.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Green, an adjoining ward member stated that he had been approached by the objectors. Councillor Green stated that due to lack of proper consultation, information was received by Queens Park ward residents only 3 days ago which did not give them enough time to digest the complexities of the proposed development. He urged members to refuse the application on grounds of inadequate consultation and the likely resulting significant impact.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Arnold, a ward member stated that she had been approached by the objectors and some residents who supported the scheme but not by the applicant. Councillor Arnold stated that although the local residents were anxious that the housing programme was kick started, there was a need to address outstanding issues such as noise, vibration and wind. She added that whilst no one wanted to lose this opportunity for housing and regeneration of the area, more work to the scheme was required.
Mr Peter Sherlock the Project Manager stated that the scheme 72% of which would be for affordable housing would replace the current poor quality housing with buildings of high standard of design which was critical to the regeneration of the South Kilburn area. It would enable the Council to decant residents in Bronte and Fielding house. He added that the height and massing of the proposal was within the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for South Killburn and that studies had been commissioned had confirmed that no negative impact would result from the development. Mr Sherlock continued that as a car free development located in an area with good transport links, parking would not be an issue either.
In response to Councillor Hashmi’s question about disabled persons’ parking spaces, Mr Sherlock stated that there would be no need to change the parking configuration of disabled persons’ parking spaces due to high accessibility of the development to good transport links. In response to Councillor Thomas’ request for clarification on consultation, windflow and vibration, Mr Sherlock pointed out that there were extensive and numerous consultations including local advertisements, website information on the South Kilburn Masterplan as well as a comprehensive consultation with the residents of Bronte and Fielding House. He continued that according to the wind study carried out by PRP, there would be no significant impact on windflow, vibration and day lighting. On noise, Mr Sherlock stated that the development would rather diffuse any likely noise and vibration. He urged members to endorse the recommendation for approval adding that the entire South Kilburn regeneration programme could be stifled unless this development was progressed.
During discussion, Councillor Jackson in expressing concerns about the alleged lack of consultation and outstanding issues on wind and noise requested a deferral to the next meeting, a view which was supported by Councillors Anwar and Steel. Councillor Thomas emphasised the need for the development to be progressed for the South Kilburn area. Councillor Powney questioned the efficacy in deferring the application. The Chair added that whilst there may be a few outstanding issues, the application which had been improved from 19 to 11 storeys and supported with wind and light studies complied with the Council’s planning guidelines. He continued that the local residents were fully aware of what was being proposed and therefore did not share the views expressed about lack of consultation.
The Head of Policy and Projects Dave Carroll explained that there would be no significant impact from the railway line and on the houses in Brondesbury Villas. He added that appropriate consultation involving about 877 households both north and south of the railway lines was carried out. Steve Weeks reiterated that the application complied with the Council’s guidelines and advised against its deferral.
Members voted on the amendment for deferral which was declared lost. They then voted on the substantive recommendation for approval (as set out below) which was declared carried.
DECISION: Planning permission agreed in principle, but delegated the application to the Chief Planner/Head of Area Planning for his determination (taking into account any further representations received) and subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106, or other legal agreement, having referred the application to the London Mayor under Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 in order for him to confirm that the application is in compliance with the London Plan. |
Supporting documents:
- 16, 1-36 Marshall House, Albert Road NW6 5DS, item 15. PDF 341 KB
- Supplementary Information Marshall House Albert Road, item 15. PDF 58 KB