Agenda item
Durham Court and Garages, Kilburn Park Road, London, NW6 & Gloucester House and Garages, Cambridge Road, London, NW6 (Ref. 14/1896)
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of 209 existing dwellings and garages at Gloucester House and Durham Court and erection of 4-8 storey blocks comprising of 236 flats (134
private and 102 affordable (social rent)), an energy centre for the South Kilburn Neighbourhood Decentralised Heating System, basement car-park, associated landscaping and general amenity space, provision of replacement public play space and stopping up of existing public footpath between Cambridge Road and Kilburn Park Road.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out after paragraph 56 and completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement in accordance with the Heads of Terms set out below 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 Services and Procurement.
Stephen Weeks introduced the item and began by stating that the application represented a significant element of the South Kilburn Regeneration Masterplan. The proposals were for blocks of generally four to six storey height with some taller elements and included 102 affordable units. Stephen Weeks drew members’ attention to the supplementary report that responded to issues raised at the site visit. Members heard that a further drawing with regard to the proposed height of the development in relation to the main roof of the Church of St Augustine and the church’s spire had been received. In respect of bell ringing, the applicant had confirmed that the potential impact of this had been considered in the design following acoustic surveys. The applicant had also confirmed their intention to make reference in the developer agreement to the church bells to ensure potential leaseholders were aware of the bell ringing. Stephen Weeks advised that in respect of flood risk to the Church of St Augustine, Sustainable Urban Drainage Solutions had been included in the design proposals. Members also noted the response to concerns raised by Westminster City Council. Members were then shown more detailed plans provided at the meeting.
Father Amos of St Augustine’s Vicarage then addressed the committee to raise objections to certain aspects of the application. Father Amos felt that the applicant had not fully addressed the concerns about the impact the application would have on the Church of St Augustine. Referring to the reference to drainage and flooding in the report, Father Amos stated that there had been two recent occasions where the church had been flooded. In respect of complaints about bell ringing, Father Amos contested the assertion in the report that no complaints had been received, stating that an officer from Environmental Health had confirmed that a complaint had been received. Father Amos asserted that his offer for officers to undertake a noise survey at the church had been declined on the grounds of cost. He also felt that there had not been due engagement and consultation during the process of the application.
Father Amos then responded to a number of queries from the committee. He stated that the church’s foundations were 25m from the proposal’s tallest building. With regard to a query about his concerns about loss of income for the church, Father Amos informed members that the church was often hired out for filming and recording purposes and that these provided a vital income stream. He stated that the developer had been approached with a view to negotiating arrangements so that only silent works were undertaken during such times the church was being hired out externally. Father Amos acknowledged that the proposed open space in front of the church was a positive aspect of the scheme, however there were still a number of issues to address. From his understanding of the plans, the risk of flooding remained and he would need further information as to how condition 14 would address these concerns.
Matthew Chinery introduced himself as the lay vice chair of the Parochial Church Council of St Augustine and spoke in objection to the application. He stated that the church represented one of the finest examples of Gothic architecture in London. In his opinion, the wrong legal test had been applied in the protection of a Grade I listed building. The application had the potential to affect the building and so the ‘strong presumption’ test should apply, as had been determined in a recent case judgement. He also felt that the applicant had not engaged properly and in his view the proposals did not represent a sensible development.
In reply to a query from members concerning the bell ringing, Matthew Chinery stated that residents would be coming to the potential noise nuisance. He informed the committee that the Church of England was legally obliged to ring bells to summon people to service under Canon law. Matthew Chinery acknowledged the observation that there been few instances of structural damage to historic buildings from similar developments involving tall buildings, however he felt more engagement was needed over the plans and that in addition to Building Control regulations, other conditions could have addressed this issue. In response to English Heritage supporting the proposals, Matthew Chinery expressed surprise at the speed of their response. He advised that the recent case judgement he had referred to earlier was the Barnwell Manor Wind Farm Court of Appeal case which had determined that even less than possible harm to a Grade I listed building should be taken into consideration and that there should be a strong assumption against acceptance of such an application.
Councillor Prendergast from Westminster Council, speaking in objection to the application, spoke on behalf of residents from her ward which bordered the application site. She felt that there had been a lack of engagement during the application process and although she welcomed efforts to regenerate the area and provide affordable housing, such an application reflected what she saw as a piecemeal rather than a holistic approach in regenerating the area. Councillor Prendergast felt that there was a lack of information concerning the potential loss of daylight to residents of her ward who would feel the impact of the scheme, as well as the Church of St. Augustine. She concluded by stating that she did not feel the development would leave a suitably proud legacy. In response to a member’s query about whether the development represented an improvement in that there would be demolition of an 18 storey building and the tallest building in the proposals was 8 storeys, she asserted that the 18 storey building was a considerable distance to Westminster residents and the church and so did not have such an impact.
Keith Bradley, architect for the applicant, addressed the committee. Responding to the issues raised by the objectors, he advised that consideration of the Church of St Augustine as a Grade I listed building had been pre-eminent since the beginning of the scheme and the proposed new space in front of the church would improve the setting, a view that English Heritage agreed with. He stated that the closest building in the proposals was 42m from the church, whilst the highest building would also be furthest from the church. The application also included an extra 2,000sqm of absorbent surface and would lead to a 50% reduction of flood water. Keith Bradley stated that there had been extensive consultation with the Church of St Augustine and English Heritage.
Members then asked a number of questions about the application. In reply to a query from a member concerning the proposed energy centre, Keith Bradley confirmed that this would be virtually invisible from the outside. In response to a member’s query about whether there would be pile drilling during construction and his comments that there should be careful consideration to address or mitigate any effects before applying this method as the church was a Grade I listed building, Keith Bradley stated that as the nearest building was some 42m from the church, he was confident that appropriate measures would be put in place to address any issues. He was not sure at this stage whether construction would involve pile drilling, however the church would be consulted over this matter. In response to a query concerning emissions from the site, Keith Bradley advised that an extensive air quality assessment had been undertaken and members heard that there would be a chimney on the tallest building furthest away from the church. With regard to a question about the heat and power system, although natural gas was currently proposed, consideration of other energy sources may be considered in the future. Members noted that 236 parking spaces in total were proposed. In respect of rain water, there would be some harvesting and recycling with roofs on some buildings to collect rain water. However, the main emphasis was to mitigate flooding and there would be an increase in total green space from 4,000sqm to 5,000sqm to help ensure more water ended up under the surface as this was felt to be the most environmentally sound solution. In response to a query about the location of the six storey building on South Kilburn Road facing the church and overlooking existing homes, Keith Bradley advised that this was a significant part of the site and it was felt that six storeys was appropriate for the location and in line with other schemes in South Kilburn. He added that the building was well set back, creating space and would be landscaped and would represent a significant urban improvement in the area.
Members sought further details with regard to the proposed triangular building on plot 5 of the site and raised concerns about this building on the grounds of intrusion, height, loss of trees, impact on the conservation area, its proximity to the footpath and whether any alternative locations had been considered.
In reply, Keith Bradley advised that the proposed triangular building on plot 5 would comprise of seven flats of one or two bedrooms and was suitable for the scheme. The proposals would restore the historic line where the original terrace was and it was felt that the loss of trees was acceptable in order to reinstate the street line. In addition, the best two trees in that location would be retained and by reinstating a green frontage, this would add to the street scene. The committee was advised that it was not feasible to retain the trees that were to be removed and they had not been categorised as important trees. Members heard that the sports centre did not align with the street line and increasing the set back would not enhance the street scene. Keith Bradley advised that because the proposals would create clear and defined public frontages providing greater clarity between public and private space and an enclosed courtyard garden, this would help reduce anti-social behaviour and represented good urban design. Members noted that English Heritage had since received the adopted Character Appraisal for the conservation area and had considered that it would not change their view. With regard to alternative proposals for the seven flats, Keith Bradley advised that alterations to boundaries or increasing the height of the building were other considerations, however he did not feel there were any better locations on the site than what was proposed. In addition, the proposals provided a generous sized footpath and the frontage, while short, represented a more conventional frontage arrangement.
Noreen Twomey, speaking on behalf of the applicant, advised that a decentralised energy system located in the basements of Durham Court and Gloucester House would provide heating and hot water and the procurement of an energy management provider was currently underway. In response to members’ queries concerning parking spaces, Noreen Twomey advised that the site benefitted from excellent public transport links and there were proposals for some blocks to be car free. With regard to plot 5, there had been a thorough trees assessment and each tree lost would be replaced elsewhere on site. The homes on plot 5 would also be enhanced and benefit from an improved street scene.
During members’ discussion, it was queried whether plot 5 would be recommended for approval as a stand alone application if had not been part of a larger scheme. A member also asked if monitoring of nanoparticles could be added to conditions 7 and 8. In respect of bell ringing, it was commented that providing they were rung at a reasonable level for the call to service, that this would not be an issue, especially as they would be rung during the daytime. It was also commented that the open space in front of the church would enhance the area and sufficient reassurance had been provided in respect of flooding, however it was queried whether there could be an informative in relation to flooding and also on how any pile drilling should be conducted.
The Chair enquired whether condition 13 could be revised to include potential impacts to the church as well as the sewer and that there be consultation with the church to consider any impact on it during construction. She also sought legal advice in respect of bell ringing and any implications for this application in respect of the Barnwell Manor Wind Farm Court of Appeal case.
In reply to the issues raised, Stephen Weeks advised that plot 5 was being considered in the context of the whole application that was part of the South Kilburn Regeneration Masterplan. He added that had plot 5 been considered as a separate application, there would have been some aspects of it that would be of greater concern and the possibility of not supporting it would be greater. Stephen Weeks advised that revisions could be made to conditions 7 and 8 to allow for consultation with Environmental Health to determine whether there was a need to incorporate monitoring of nanoparticles. He also advised that condition 13 could be amended to include reference to potential impacts during construction to the Church of St Augustine as well as the sewer and for the applicant to consult with the church about such impacts.
Horatio Chance (Legal Adviser) advised that in respect of bell ringing, whilst the church may well have a statutory right to do this and which may be regarded as a defence in permitted circumstances, residents of the new development could pursue this if the noise generated was considered wholly unreasonable and if appropriate evidence was received. Members were advised that the Council in its capacity as “Environment Authority” could serve an abatement notice under section 79 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 if the bell ringing was considered to be a statutory nuisance. With regard to the possible impact on the decision with regard to the Barnwell Manor Wind Farm Court of Appeal case concerning another Grade I Listed Building, he advised that he would need to research the judgement in greater detail, but during his initial research undertaken during the meeting, members were advised that Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provided that any harm to the heritage asset by the proposed development must be given “considerable weight” in the balance. Horatio Chance advised that members appeared to have taken the special considerations relating to the heritage assets into account in the consideration of the proposal and advised that a resolution could be made pending receipt of legal advice.
Members then discussed whether a decision should made alone or pending legal advice. The Chair indicated that she would be in favour of making a decision pending legal advice. Councillor Kansagra felt that members had sufficient information already about the application to make a decision without the need for further legal advice. Members then voted by majority to make a decision pending receipt of legal advice. Voting on the substantive application, members then agreed the application pending receipt of legal advice and subject to revisions to conditions 7 and 8 for the Head of Planning to consult with Environmental Health to determine whether to incorporate monitoring of nanoparticles and to condition 13 to include reference to potential impacts to the church as well as the sewer and consultation with St Augustine’s Church to consider the impacts during construction on the church.
The Chair added that the concerns of the Church of St Augustine were taken seriously and there was a need for more consultation between the church and the applicant. She also emphasised the importance of Regeneration, Housing and Planning departments to work together to produce cohesive plans for South Kilburn and to reduce the number of isolated applications as part of the Masterplan.
DECISION:
Agreed as recommended subject to an opinion from Legal Services regarding the recent court of appeal decision into the assessment of a Grade I Listed Building with referral back to Planning Committee should advice determine that a further assessment is required; referral to the GLA; revisions to Condition 13 to include reference to potential impacts to the church as well as the sewer and consultation with St Augustine’s Church to consider the impacts during construction on the church; and revisions to Condition 7 and 8 reviewed by the Head of Planning in consultation with Environmental Health to determine whether to incorporate monitoring of nanoparticles.
Note: Councillor Agha was not present for the entire time the application was considered and so took no part in the vote.
Supporting documents: