Agenda item
Storage Land next to 75, St Pauls Avenue, London, NW2 5TG (Ref. 11/0051)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday 16 March 2011 7.00 pm (Item 11.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 11.
Decision:
Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of the site to provide a part 3, part 4, storey building, comprising 10 affordable units and associated access, landscaping, a disabled parking space and cycle parking provision. |
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions, revised plans, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement. |
Andy Bates the Area Planning Manager in responding to objectors’ claim about lack of consultation informed the Committee that the revisions to the application in respect of the area to the ground floor front of the site was not of a scale that warranted any re-consultation with interested parties. With reference to the tabled supplementary report he responded to the following concerns by objectors and Councillor Lesley Jones, ward member:
The limitations of the site were considered to be acceptably addressed and on balance the form of the proposed building would relate acceptably to the streetscene while maintaining pedestrian safety with a designated and defined route. With respect to the concern about the quality and appearance of the proposed white rockwool/rockpanel cladding, the Area Planning Manager stated that a sample of this would be required by condition to ensure a high standard of development which reflected the surrounding character would be achieved. In respect of the road layout, he stated that Highways Engineers having considered the revised road layout of this application concluded that the designation of a pedestrian route to the entrance had removed the potential conflicts identified by the inspector. In addition, the siting of the disabled parking space was not objected to as visibility through the site was considered to be acceptable.
Andy Bates continued that the inspector found that habitable accommodation within the proposed development could be reasonably protected from the garage noise by design and glazing as could the balconies by some kind of screening. In respect of flooding he stated that a condition as suggested by Thames Water was recommended to be addressed by the applicant before work commenced. He reiterated the recommendation for approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 legal agreement.
Mrs BA Glynn in objecting to the proposed development started by saying that the consultation with residents was inadequate. She continued that the proposal would result in an adverse impact on the residents due to conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, unacceptable road layout which would encourage speeding traffic and overall noise nuisance. She added that Genesis Housing Group had agreed to a mediation to take place in April with residents with a view to addressing the concerns raised and urged members to defer the application until after the meeting had taken place.
Ms Jennifer Cameron an objector speaking in a similar vein claimed that the consultation with residents was inadequate for a development which in her view would have an adverse impact on the Victorian enclave by encouraging graffiti and resulting in loss of residential amenity. She continued that the proposed road layout would be unacceptable in terms of exit and egress, resulting in danger to pedestrian and vehicular safety. Ms Cameron also urged members to defer the application until after the mediation meeting with Genesis, the applicant.
Mr Ben Thomas the applicant’s agent stated that the scale, height and massing of the proposal which would be enhanced with improved landscaping and fencing was considered satisfactory. He urged members to take note of the safe pedestrian refuge, improved visibility for the disabled parking bay, speed humps to slow down the speed of traffic and the contribution towards the housing needs of the Borough. He confirmed that the site had been cleaned up to ensure that it was free from contamination and fit for residential purposes. Mr Thomas continued that there would be no direct conflict with the garage and that the planned mediation meeting was not a planning issue. In urging members to approve the application, Mr Thomas added that funding for the proposed development which had been received from the Housing Corporation should be spent this year otherwise it would be clawed back.
The Head of Area Planning advised that the planned mediation between the applicant and the residents was not an issue which required consideration of the application to be deferred. He added that officers did not consider that there was a fundamental flaw in accessing the site which provided clear visibility and speed humps but recommended an additional condition to cover details of the route from the disabled space to the entrance.
DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions, an additional condition requiring the widening of disabled persons’ route, revised plans, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.. |
Note: Councillor Cummins declared a prejudicial interest as a director of a subsidiary company of Genesis Housing, the applicant. Councillor Cummins left the meeting room and did not take part in the voting or discussion on this application.
Supporting documents: