Agenda item

18/2984 6 & 6A Coombe Road, NW10 0EB


PROPOSAL: Demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site comprising the erection of a part three, five and six storey building providing 727 sqm of flexible employment workspace (Use Class B1), 42 self-contained flats (17 x 1bed, 14 x 2bed and 11 x 3bed) with associated car and cycle parking spaces, refuse and recycling stores, amenity space, landscaping and associated development.


RECOMMENDATION: That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out within the report.


That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.


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 Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations 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.


That, if by the expiry date of this application (subject to any amendments/extensions to the expiry date agreed by both parties) the legal agreement has not been completed, the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to refuse planning permission.


That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.


Ms June Taylor (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report and answered Members’ questions.  She outlined the merits of the scheme including delivery of affordable housing, affordable workspace, financial contribution and parking provision.  In reference to the supplementary report, Ms Taylor drew Members’ attention to points of clarification and the applicant's agent further information on the impact of the development on daylight and sunlight received by nearby windows in Roger Stone Court which were found acceptable.


Ms Mary Duffy (Objector) objected to the application on the grounds that its height would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area consisting mainly of low rise properties and the nearby area.  She added that the proposal would not be in keeping with or complement the Conservation Area. Ms Duffy also raised concerns about undue pressure on drainage and  inadequate consultation with the neighbouring residents.


Mr Luke Cadman and Mr Alun Evans (applicant and agent respectively) addressed the Committee.  They outlined the main benefits of the scheme including 26% family-sized housing with affordable housing provision of 35.7%; appropriate design, scale and appearance to the surrounding context; high residential living standard with private and communal amenity space and on-site parking for 69% of the residential units.   Members heard that adequate separation distances to adjoining sites had been allowed as well as an 8m distance from the River Brent, accessible as part of a public footpath along the riverside


In response to members’ questions, Ms Taylor confirmed that 3 neighbour objections were received in response to two consultation exercises each consulting a total of 280 neighbouring properties. The concerns raised had been addressed in the relevant sections of the report.  She added that residents of Braemar Avenue were not within the consultation parameters.  She continued that the applicant had submitted flood risk assessment and subject to the usual conditions, Thames Water Authority had no objections to the proposal.


DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended.

(Voting on the recommendation for approval was unanimous).

Supporting documents: