Agenda item

18/0696 Access to 78A Harlesden Road & Yard rear of 1A, Parkfield Road, London, NW10

Minutes:

PROPOSAL: Erection of new block to provide 2 self-contained flats (2 x 1 bed) with refuse and cycle store

 

RECOMMENDATION: That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out within the report.

 

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the committees decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.

 

Mr Damian Manhertz (Area Planning Team Manager) introduced the report and answered Members’ questions.  Members were informed that in order to address local concerns about overlooking and loss of privacy, the primary windows of the proposed flats would face the front and rear with a number of windows located to the side elevation only and the flank wall windows obscure glazed. He also advised that an appropriate condition for the development to be car free had been secured.

 

Mr Ashar Ahmed (objector) raised a number of issues including that having suffered subsidence on two occasions, the foundations of his property had been weakened to the extent that further building work and access of large vehicles to the site would further worsen the structure of his property. He continued that the use of the site as a shared area and a fire exit had been acknowledged by the previous owner and for additional security, he had installed a gate.  Mr Ahmed added that the proposed development would create a terracing effect to his semi-detached house, resulting in devaluation of his property.  In response to members’ questions, Mr Ahmed stated that the site of the proposed development was not in his ownership and that he had the gate installed some 20 years ago.

 

Mr Ian Coward (applicant’s agent) stated that the site which was redundant was not a right of way but rather was in the ownership of the applicant.  He informed the Committee that the proposal would provide adequate standard of accommodation without detrimental impact on adjoining neighbours.  He added that matters relating to structure and damage were covered by other codes, including the Party Wall Act..  In response to Members’ questions, Mr Coward stated that the proposal had been designed to ensure that overlooking and loss of privacy would not result.

 

In the ensuing Members’ discussion, a motion was put forward by Councillor Maurice to defer the application in order to ascertain the issue of right of way.  Mr Manhertz advised that the issue of right of way should not impact on the Committee’s decision as the planning permission, if granted, would not over-ride a right of way if one does exist. 

 

DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended.

(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 7, Against 0, Abstention 1).

 

Supporting documents: