Agenda item
Thames Water Utilities, St Michael's London NW2 6XD (Ref 10/2247)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday 24 November 2010 7.00 pm (Item 10.)
- View the background to item 10.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Development to provide 25 dwellings, comprising a three-storey building fronting St Michaels Road (11 x 1-bedroom, 7 x 2-bedroom, 1 x 3-bedroom flats), a two-storey terrace to the rear (2 x 2-bedroom, 4 x 4-bedroom houses), with 16 car-parking spaces, 25 bicycle spaces, associated hard and soft landscaping and provision of a vehicular crossover on land adjacent to the pumping station and Thames Water utilities site. |
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
|
In her introduction the Area Planning Manager Rachel McConnell referred to concerns raised by Councillor Choudary at the site visit, additional objections from local residents and a petition with approximately 180 signatories details of which were set out in the tabled supplementary and mostly covered in the reports. She then submitted responses to the following concerns which had not been previously addressed in the main report:
Highway Safety and Parking
The revisions to the layout could ensure 16 parking spaces on the site. In addition a condition would be attached requiring the submission of a revised parking layout and alterations to the front boundary. This would require the re-positioning of the front gate to allow for two car lengths of space for vehicles entering the site, so as to reduce the likelihood of vehicles waiting on the road. The Council's Highways Engineer and the Transport Consultants had advised that the proposed vehicle movements associated with the proposed development were not considered to be such that they will have a detrimental impact on highway safety during these times.
Density
The applicants had advised that there would be 73 habitable rooms within the development, not 79 as stated in the main report, thus resulting in an overall density of 228hrh and 79 units per hectare.
Relationship of the flats with the Listed Church
The proposed flats were considered to be subservient to the Grade II listed church and were therefore not considered to detract from its setting. The design was considered appropriate in the local area.
Prospective Residents
The applicant had confirmed that the proposed scheme which would be fully affordable housing (shared ownership units and social rent accommodation) would not provide housing for young offenders. She continued that all the units would be allocated in accordance with the West London funding arrangements, providing new homes of particular benefit to those who are unable to afford standard market valued homes in the area.
Disturbance of Bats
Although a condition had been attached requiring a lighting strategy for the site, the ecological consultants for the site had confirmed that there had been only one official recorded sighting of a bat within 730m from the site.
Removal of existing Landscaping next to Japanese Knotweed areas.
The removal of the existing landscaping in the areas of the Japanese Knotweed was considered to be the most effective means of complete removal of Knotweed infestation.
Loss of view
The loss of a view is not a material planning consideration when deciding a planning application however the visual amenity of the existing landscaping on the site is a consideration. This has been discussed in the landscaping section of the main report.
Future of Water Supply
Thames Water had no plans to cease the operation of the water pumping station. In addition as they had put in place appropriate measures to safeguard water supply without restricting access, the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the operation of the pumping station.
Mr Adam Cook speaking on behalf of the St Michaels Road Area Neighbourhood Association claimed that the map attached to the report was inaccurate. Mr Cook added that the proposal did not seek to address the need for increased visibility to the bend and that the contribution under the section 106 legal agreement did not also make any reference to the Local Area Agreement. He continued that in order to ensure that prospective tenants were not young offenders or socially challenged, he requested that constant liaison with the applicant was necessary. Mr Cook requested that trees removed should be replaced with similar ones.
Judith Hirson an objector expressed concerns about the lack of bat survey as part of this application and the harm which she felt would result by lighting and during construction. Ms Hirson continued that according to the Royal Horticultural Society guidance, residual amenity and the townscape of the site would be detrimentally affected and consequently requested that the plans be modified to allow for satisfactory townscape. In response to a member’s question on on-street parking, Ms Hirson stated that residents of St Michaels Road were suffering from displacement parking from the residents of nearby streets which had controlled parking zones provisions.
The applicant’s agent, Linda Aitken re-confirmed that the last recording sighting of bats on the site dated to 1975. She admitted that some trees had been removed but this was done as part of the remediation of the site prior to the imposition of the Tree Preservation Oder (TPO). Linda Aitken continued that transport assessment for the proposal had confirmed the availability of a significant on-street parking. She concluded that the final scheme which would involve only 2-3 storey building had been arrived at as a result of extensive consultations with all interested persons.
In response to members’ question Ms Aitken stated that the development was to be gated in response to a request by local residents. She continued that acoustics and vibration assessment had been conducted and the appropriate mitigating materials were to be used to ensure that the proposal complied with noise standards. Ms Aitken informed members that her client understood that there was no intention for intensification of use of the railway line. In respect of parking for disabled persons she stated that the Borough Engineer had confirmed that the spaces provided for disabled persons parking (2) were adequate and that access and egress for emergency vehicles was satisfactory.
In the ensuing discussion, Councillor Hashmi stated that as the street was heavily parked, close to a local school, nursery and a church and that the building would be out of character with the area, he would not support the application. Councillor Kataria expressed a similar on grounds of under-provision of parking on the site. Councillor Long felt that the traffic problems that could result from the proximity of the site to a school were not dissimilar to other sites in the Borough which were also near to schools. Councillor Cummins sought a confirmation on whether the prospective tenants were likely to be young offenders from ‘Feltham’ thus making the use institutional as had been indicated by some residents who signed a petition of objection.
In responding to the above, the Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks stated that the applicant had clarified that the tenants would not compromise of young offenders. He added that a significant on-street parking was available on St Michaels Road. He took note of the fact that some motorists were using St Michaels Road as a “rat-run” and undertook to inform the Head of Transportation for a review of that situation.
DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to amended conditions, the need for additional details on sound insulation and to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement and the need for additional details on sound attenuation. |
.
Supporting documents: