Agenda item
147-153 High Street, London, NW10 4TR (Ref. 10/0569)
Decision:
Planning permission refused on the grounds of the scale of the development resulting in a poor relationship with properties on Rucklidge Avenue, lack of amenity space, loss of outlook to the flank of 139 High Street and to dwellings on Rucklidge Avenue and the impact on the frontage of the introduction of lightwells.
Minutes:
Outline application for erection of 3- and 4-storey building with basement to provide 20 affordable flats, consisting of 1 one-bedroom, 12 two-bedroom and 7 three-bedroom flats (matters to be determined: access, appearance, layout and scale). |
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Director of Environmental Services to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor.
|
The Area Planning Manager, Andy Bates, drew Members’ attention to further observations, amendments to the Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms, amendments to conditions 8 and 11 and an additional condition as set out in the supplementary information circulated at the meeting.
Mr Ian Britton introduced himself to the Committee and explained that he was representing the views of residents of Rucklidge Avenue and the High Street. With the agreement of the Chair, he circulated information detailing his objections to the application. He asserted that the application did not meet the following SPGs for the reasons mentioned:-
SPG 17 3.2– overbearing and dominant feature
SPG 17 3.4 – significant loss of sunlight
SPG 5.1 and 5.2 – gardens and outside amenity space not of sufficient size
SPG7 3.3 – loss of privacy caused by site’s windows being 17 metres from a neighbouring property’s bedroom and kitchen windows when it should be at least 20 metres
BE9 – proposals not of sufficient architectural quality
Mr Britton stated that a previous Planning Inspector’s report had expressed concern on the impact of the application on residents’ living conditions and he urged the Committee to refuse the application.
Ms Anne Ellam, in objecting to the application, stated that the development would lead to damage to neighbouring properties and lead to a lower quality of life for residents close to the site. She felt that the proposals represented an over development of the site, that it was overly dense, it did not provide sufficient external recreational space contrary to SPG 5.1, neighbouring garden areas would suffer loss of light, children could be at risk from falling from the proposed balconies and it would exacerbate existing pressure on parking spaces. In addition, Ms Ellam felt that the application would place increased strain on the local infrastructure, including schools and GPs. She felt that the application needed to be significantly smaller in scale to make it more acceptable.
With the agreement of the Chair, a letter from Mrs Mehta outling her objections to the scheme was circulated to Members.
Mr Robin Bretherwick, the applicant’s agent, addressed the Committee. He stated that the application had been improved since the earlier Planning Appeal hearing and there had been a number of revisions since meeting with residents’ associations, ward councillors and Council officers. Mr Bretherwick asserted that the application would assist the Council’s objective in providing sufficient affordable housing and met all the requirements suggested by Planning officers, including exceeding those of SPG 17. Members heard that the site was located within a priority area for Town Centre enhancement and the applicant had appointed an award winning architect to produce a design for the scheme.
In reply to queries from Members, Mr Bretherwick confirmed that there had been a full report on decontaminating the site and that the petrol station site had been fully decontaminated. Mr Bretherwick acknowledged concerns with regard to parking space and children’s play space area but he stated that the site exceeded amenity space requirements, the scheme was car free and the site was well served by public transport.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Powney confirmed that he had been approached by objectors with regard to the application and that he was speaking as a ward member. He felt that the distance of the site in relation to 139 High Road did not meet SPG guidelines as the distance should be 10 metres, not the 6 metres proposed. Councillor Powney stated when the application was previously considered by the Committee, Members may not have been aware that flank windows of 139 High Street were of habitable rooms and therefore would suffer from a poor outlook. He also stated windows of neighbouring properties would suffer significant loss of sunlight. In view of these issues, Councillor Powney felt that planning permission should be refused.
During discussion by Members, Councillor Kataria, whilst acknowledging the need for affordable housing, commented that there appeared to be substantial objections to the application and he sought officers’ observations with regard to this. He also enquired whether the roof could be accessed from the balconies and if so would this represent a risk to children. Councillor Cummins sought comments with regard to signage at the wall of 155 High Road and the presence of a gas meter. Councillor McLennan enquired if there was any guidance in respect of sunlight and height restrictions with regard to maintaining privacy.
In reply to the issues raised, the Area Planning Manager advised that the additional condition in the supplementary information prevented access to the roof from the balconies.
The Head of Area Planning stated that the British Research Establishment provided guidelines in respect of sunlight, although these were not universal. He advised that generally, the applicant met sunlight requirements and it was not considered that the impact on sunlight alone would provide sufficient grounds to refuse the application. Members heard that if signage in respect of the wall along 155 High Road was legal, then a suitable arrangement would need to be made with the applicant, and similarly so with regard to the gas meter. The Head of Area Planning advised that proposals met the minimum standards for distance between windows and he reminded Members to consider the application in the context of a dense, urban site. He acknowledged Councillor Powney’s comments with regard to the flank windows on 139 High Road and the report accepted that there was a restriction of outlook in this respect. Members noted that affordable housing was required to meet high standards.
Members then considered the application and voted to refuse the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation with the following statement of reasons: the scale of the development resulting in a poor relationship with properties on Rucklidge Avenue, lack of amenity space, loss of outlook to the flank of 139 High Street and to dwellings on Rucklidge Avenue .and the impact on the frontage of the introduction of lightwells.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, voting on the officers’ recommendation for approval of this application was recorded as follows:-
FOR: Councillor Hashmi (1)
AGAINST: Councillors Adeye, Cummins, Daly, Hossain, (8)
Kataria, McLennan, R Patel and Sheth
ABSTENTIONS: None (0)
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, voting on the reasons for refusal of this application was recorded as follows:-
FOR: Councillors Adeye, Cummins, Daly, Hossain, (8)
Kataria, McLennan, R Patel and Sheth
AGAINST: None (0)
ABSTENTIONS: Councillor Hashmi (1)
DECISION: Planning permission refused on the grounds of the scale of the development resulting in a poor relationship with properties on Rucklidge Avenue, lack of amenity space, loss of outlook to the flank of 139 High Street and to dwellings on Rucklidge Avenue .and the impact on the frontage of the introduction of lightwells. |
Supporting documents:
- 15, 147-153 High Street London NW10 6TS, item 15. PDF 360 KB
- 15 Supp Info 141-153 High Street NW10, item 15. PDF 52 KB