Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwellinghouse and erection of a part-3 and part-4 storey development comprising 9 residential units with roof terraces, enlargement of vehicular access on Brondesbury Park and creation of vehicular access on The Avenue, provision of car and cycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping and subdivision of garden space.

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to conditions.

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 Committee reports.

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.

Ms Sarah Dilley (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report and answered Members’ questions. In reference to the supplementary report, she responded to issues raised by members about nearby open spaces and drew Members’ attention to the updated condition 9 as set out within the supplementary report.

Ms Sheery Atkins objector raised a number of concerns including loss of amenity and privacy for surrounding residents, that the design was out of character, too dense, overbearing and that there would be transport impacts, taking into consideration the cumulative impact of developments coming forward in the area including the SEN school in The Avenue.

Ms Claire Lyons, raised a number of objections, including design, scale and character, adding that the proposal would constitute an over-development of the site with unsympathetic design and bulk and out of character within the area.

Councillor Gill ward member addressed the Committee.  Councillor Gill raised objections to the proposed development for a number of reasons including; over-development, out of character with the streetscene, additional pollution within an Air Quality Management Area and danger to pedestrian and vehicular safety at a busy junction without adequate risk assessment.

Ms Laura Jenkinson and Jonathan Cross (agent) addressed the Committee and answered Members’ questions. Ms Jenkinson informed Members that the application had been revised following comments from residents’ engagement.  She added that the application that incorporated private amenity space, would exceed space standards, provide dedicated parking and significant landscaping complied with policies.  Mr Cross highlighted the architectural merits of the scheme.

In the ensuing discussion, members sought clarification on a number of issues including; design, massing, transportation, air quality management and privacy.   Members heard that the application complied with policy CP17 in terms of scale, acceptable materials, height and garden space.  Furthermore, as the application was relatively a small scale development, there was no requirement for transport assessment to be submitted.  The proposal was considered unlikely to give rise to transportation issues of concern and the access was considered to be safe as it was sited about 45 metres from the nearest junction.    Furthermore, only major applications required air quality management assessment and that the Council’s Environmental Health raised no objections to the application.  Officers advised that the application largely complied with SPD1, but did not comply with SPD1 in relation to the 45 degree guidance taken from an adjoining garden.

All Members were minded to grant planning permission except Councillor Maurice who was minded to vote against the recommendation on grounds of bulk and out of character.

DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended and revisions to condition 9 as set out within the supplementary report.

(Voting was recorded as follows: For 7, Against 1, Abstention 0).