Agenda item

Granted planning permission as recommended and additional conditions for obscure glazing to the balcony and a Section 106 financial contribution towards landscaped improvements to the public space to the north of the site.

PROPOSAL: Demolition of doctor's surgery (Use Class D1) and erection of a 5 storey building comprising 9x self-contained flats (1x 1 bedroom, 6 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom), erection of bin and cycle store and associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice.

Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) clarified the issues raised at the site visit.  He informed members that the existing permission (reference 10/0047) for 3 years would expire on 28/06/16. In respect of the height of the building he stated that the proposed building would be 1m higher than the existing permission.  However, its scale and massing and a top floor set-in of 3.1m from the side boundary was considered acceptable. He informed members that the Daylight and Sunlight report submitted by the applicant concluded that there would not be anunacceptable impactonneighbours, including those opposite to the site and neighboursat197-205Shirland Road.  Furthermore, the separation distance across the road of between 16m and 19m was consideredacceptable and comparable to the relationship undertheapproved scheme, 10/0047.

In respect of the impact of the proposed development on the character of the area, Andy Bates clarified that whilst the proposedbuildingwouldbeclosetoboundariesand significantly higher (fivestoriesinheight), its location withintheSouthKilburnRegenerationArea had specifically been identified as being appropriatefora developmentofthisscaleintheadoptedSouthKilburnMasterplan.  As such it was consideredto be visually acceptableandappropriateto theurbancontextofthesite. Members were advised that matters relating to restrictive covenants were property rather than planning issues and as such should not be consideredasmaterialplanningconsiderationsinthedeterminationofany proposal. In respect of an additional representationreceivedfrom WestminsterCity Councilobjectingtotheproposalonthe groundsof lossofthe D1 use, Andy Bates stated that the report explained why officers did not feel that a D1 use had to be retained on the site.

Sarah Greasley (objector) stated that the proposed building would be excessive in height which would cause a significant loss of daylight as well as result in overlooking to neighbours. She added that there was inadequate separation distances to protect and preserve the amenities of the neighbours.

Graham Murdoch (applicant’s agent) informed members that the proposed development would be an improved scheme on the previous permission.  He continued that the daylight and sunlight report confirmed that the proposed development would have a minimal impact on the neighbours and that residential amenity would not be compromised.  In response to a member’s suggestion, the applicant’s agent confirmed that he would accept further conditions for balcony frosted windows and a requirement to contribute towards landscaped improvements to the public space to the north of the site.

DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended and additional conditions for obscure glazing to the balcony and a Section 106 financial contribution towards landscaped improvements to the public space to the north of the site.