Agenda item
36 & 37 Regal Building, 75 Kilburn Lane, North Kensington, London, W10 4BB (Ref. 14/1412)
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Extension to roof of existing four storey building to provide additional living
space for two third floor flats and installation of proposed south facing roof
terraces on third and fourth floor.
RECOMMENDATION:
Refuse planning permission.
Rachel Murrell drew members’ attention to the supplementary report clarifying a number of points raised at the site visit in relation to height of the proposed screen, impact on amenity of neighbouring residential properties, petition and additional comments from members of the public and a letter from the applicant. She also drew members’ attention to comments made by Network Rail in the supplementary report about the application. Rachel Murrell then referred to the detailed plans available at the meeting and advised that the applicant had submitted revised plans on 20 August. She added that the changes to the adjoining building heights on the revised plans had not been verified.
Tom Billings, a local resident, advised the committee that he was speaking on behalf of the 11 properties out of a total of 14 in the block that were in support of the application. He stated that the applicant had consulted the residents throughout the application and the applicant had demonstrated their ability to address any concerns that had been raised. Tom Billings felt that the stepped back nature of the design proposals would be beneficial to the site and he did not think it would have much effect on neighbouring properties’ light other than a possible minor loss of daylight. He also felt that the applicant had already undertaken improvements to the block that were enhancing the quality of life for all of its residents.
In reply to queries from members, Tom Billings confirmed that he was a tenant of the block, however he was also representing views of landlords. He felt that the proposals would not lead to loss of privacy and no residents in the block had made objections to the application. He did not anticipate there being any loss of sunlight to the flats the opposite side of the Noko building.
Jonny Barrett, the applicant, stated that he was looking to increase the size of his property as he was planning to extend his family. He stated whilst there had been engagement between residents and himself during the application, he felt that he had not received sufficient guidance from Planning Services. He asserted that the application complied with planning regulations and loss of sunlight was not an issue. Members heard that the proposed extension was lower than the neighbouring Noko building. Of the 11 out of 14 properties supporting the application, Jonny Barrett stated that all on the lower floor were in support and he had undertaken improvements to the communal areas. He concluded by stating that any concerns raised by planning officers could be addressed by conditions.
In reply to queries from members, Jonny Barrett stated that his proposals were based on the Council’s planning policies and he had tried to address concerns that they had raised. However, he felt that he had not received sufficient feedback despite his request for some. In respect of the rejection of an application on the site in 2010, Jonny Barrett advised that the previous one had been a commercial application from the freeholder that was significantly different to his application which did not overlook any properties.
The Chair noted the concerns the applicant had made at the meeting and at the site visit with regard to engagement with Planning Services and she emphasised the need for more engagement in progressing this application in future.
DECISION:
Refused as recommended.
Supporting documents: