Agenda item
233 Willesden Lane, Willesden, London, NW2 5RP (Ref. 14/1176)
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out after paragraph 12 and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 legal agreement securing planning obligations set out in the Heads of Terms and delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal Services and Procurement and additional pre-commencement condition prior to full planning permission to ensure separation distances and sunlight guidance complied with SPG17.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Outline planning application for demolition of gymnasium block and erection of part 4, part 5 storey extension, creation of additional storey to main building and roof extensions (matters to be determined: layout and scale)
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out after paragraph 12 and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 legal agreement securing planning obligations set out in the Heads of Terms below and delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal Services and Procurement.
Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) clarified that the application was for the layout and scale only and gave an indication of how the extension would look like when built with all other matters reserved. He drew members’ attention to the supplementary report which set out the relationship of the application site with the neighbouring Brondesbury Court. He added that despite the level differences, both blocks would be similar in height and with a 20m separation distance between the two blocks, no adverse impact on light, outlook and privacy would result. He advised members that the proposal would not have significant adverse impact on Henley Court and Honeyman Close. Andy Bates informed members that the applicant had submitted a Transport Statement and a draft Travel Plan which sought to evaluate the likely impact on local transport network. The draft Travel Plan proposed a number of measures to be implemented by a designated Travel Plan Co-ordinator, aimed at keeping the proportion of car journeys amongst staff and visitors to the hostel to very low levels thus increasing the proportion of walking and cycling trips. He then drew attention to key measures of the Travel Plan which would include publicity of travel options through the website, notice boards and welcome packs. The success of the Travel Plan over five years would be monitored in accordance with standard practice.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Warren, ward member stated that he resided at No. 245 Willesden Lane, had been approached by local residents and had had discussions with the management of the hostel. Councillor Warren objected to the proposal on the following grounds:
(i) The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the site.
(ii) The proposal would be out of character with the neighbouring properties due to its height.
(iii) As the Transport survey was conducted during winter months or when parking demand was low, the true picture of the transport impact of the proposal had not been reflected in the report.
(iv) The resulting intensification of use would exacerbate noise nuisance which had in the past attracted the attention of officers from the Council’s Noise Team.
(v) The proposal would result in loss of light, outlook and privacy.
(vi) The application did not propose to achieve carbon emission target.
During the discussions that followed, officers were asked to confirm the expected number of residents when the development was completed and comment on the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties including transport impact.
Andy Bates advised members that the orientation of the proposal and the separation distance would minimise any potential impact on the neighbouring properties. He reiterated that Transport Statement and a draft Travel Plan had been submitted with key measures including publicity of travel options through their website, notice boards and welcome packs for guests. However, Transportation Officers had recommended additional safeguards requiring the provision of coach parking even if this meant during peak hours only.
Robert O’Hara (applicant’s agent) stated that the applicant had operated the premises (Palmers Lodge) for 5 years as a popular hostel for guests from all over the globe without complaints. He clarified that complaints regarding noise nuisance were associated with the gymnasium which was to be demolished. He continued that the proposal had been designed with adequate separation distances to avoid detriment to neighbouring properties. The agent confirmed that a Travel Plan was in place to ensure any such impact was minimised. In conclusion, the applicant’s agent stated that the height and scale of the proposal would be commensurate with the adjoining Brondesbury Court. He confirmed that the maximum number of guests would be 516.
In response to members’ discussion on the potential for light impact on nearby properties, the Head of Planning recommended an additional pre-commencement condition that prior to full planning permission the applicant should confirm the separation distances and sunlight guidance complied with SPG17.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended and additional pre-commencement condition prior to full planning permission to ensure separation distances and sunlight guidance complied with SPG17.
Supporting documents: