Agenda item
63 Christchurch Avenue, London, NW6 7BL (10/2452)
Decision:
Grant planning permission subject to conditions as amended in condition 2, 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.
Planning permission granted subject to a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement as recommended and subject to further amending condition 2 to seek additional landscaping to boundary with Forest Close.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing two-storey dwellinghouse and erection of 2 x three-storey blocks, comprising 6 dwellinghouses, and car-parking with provision of private amenity space and landscaping to site. |
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.
|
With reference to the tabled supplementary report Andy Bates the Area Planning Manager informed members that the list of objections by Councillor Shaw which were similar to those raised by residents had been addressed in the main report. He considered the proposed private access road to be wide enough to accommodate parking and suggested an amendment to condition 2 as set out in the supplementary report to secure 2 additional parking bays and improved landscaping. Andy Bates drew members’ attention to additional conditions on elevational treatment and details of landscape maintenance.
Mr Fabian Sharpe expressed his objection to the proposed development which he added would be built over rear gardens on the grounds that it would constitute an over-development of the site leading to loss of residential amenity. He added that the proposal would have an unsatisfactory relationship with the properties in the area. Mr Sharpe also expressed concerns on communication between residents and the council and alleged that as Councillor Cummins had been approached by the applicant there was a conflict on his part.
Councillor Cummins responded by saying that he had not received any correspondence from the objector and added for the record that had he received such an approach from the applicant as alleged, he would have replied that “as a member of the Planning Committee he would not be able to enter into any form of discussion with the applicant” and would have also declared that at the meeting, in accordance with the Planning Code of Practice.
In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice Councillor Shaw a ward member stated that she had been approached by the applicant and objectors. Councillor Shaw objected to the proposed development on grounds as set out in the supplementary report and also as a back garden development which would be unsympathetic to the area. In order to minimise impact on loss of privacy and amenity, she suggested an amendment to condition 2 requiring additional landscaping to the western boundary with Forest Close and use of the section 106 financial contribution for improving education and the pavements in the area.
Mr Mark Pender the applicant’s agent stated that the application which would make use of an under-use site and would respect the current building line, complied with Council policies including policy CP 17. He added that the applicant had undertaken a series of public consultations the results and comments from which had been taken into account in arriving at the final scheme. On behalf of the applicant, Mr Pender accepted the condition suggested by Councillor Shaw on landscaping.
Steve Weeks Head of Area Planning recommended amending condition 2 relating to landscaping details but noted that the scope for increasing this had been highlighted during the site visit. He advised that Section 106 financial contributions were sought to reflect strategic priorities as set out in the related Supplementary Panning Document. Although there was scope to reflect local priorities where this related to the development, however, he advised that paving repairs may be better considered under normal highway maintenance.
DECISION: Planning permission granted 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 and subject to further amending condition 2 to seek additional landscaping to boundary with Forest Close. |
Supporting documents: