Agenda item
Garages rear of, Magnolia Court, Harrow, HA3 (Ref.11/2402 )
Decision:
(a) Granted planning permission, subject to an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section of this report, or
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing garages, erection of seven self-contained flats (4 x 1-bedroom, 2 x 2-bedroom, and 1 x 3-bedroom), with associated landscaping, bicycle storage and refuse storage, alterations to existing vehicular access and new pedestrian access and 7 parking spaces (as per revised plans received on 9 November 2011). |
RECOMMENDATION: (a) Grant Planning Permission, subject to an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section of this report, or (b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission
|
Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager, addressed the following issues raised by members at the site visit:
Hedgerow and Ash Tree
The removal of the 4m hedgerow and Ash Tree at the entrance of the site was necessary to meet transportation requirements for a safe access for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. He continued that the loss of 2 Ash Trees which would be removed as a result of the development would be replaced with Ash Trees with semi mature trees in a more suitable location within the site, a proposal that was supported by the Council's Tree Protection Officer and would be secured through condition 7.
Site boundary and security
The Area Planning Manager drew members' attention to an amendment in condition 7 as set out in the tabled supplementary report which required a timber fence of at least 2m plus 0.3m of trellis in height being erected on the site boundary alongside Magnolia Court. In reiterating the recommendation for approval, he added that the other issues raised in respect of the site being in flood zone 2, the impact of the development on outlook and overlooking had been addressed in the main report.
Mr Harsha Padhye, an objector, raised the following concerns on the proposed development:
(i) The height of the two-storey development would be overbearing, leading to loss of daylight and outlook.
(ii) The proposed development would result in loss of security and maintenance.
(iii) As Magnolia Court and the surrounding streets were always fully parked, the proposal would create parking problems in the area.
Mr Robert Dunwell, Chair of Queensbury Area Residents' Group of Associations (QARA) stated that the implications of the site being located within flood zone 2 were not covered. He claimed that under Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25) flood zone assessment statement should have accompanied the report for members' consideration. Mr Dunwell considered as irrelevant, comments by officers on issues of overbearing and height and urged members to take them into account in deciding the application.
Mr Sentur Attur, the applicant's architect stated that the proposal had been improved with a reduction in the building envelope, relocation of refuse storage and an increase in parking provisions from six to seven. In reference to the conditions recommended, he stated that the boundary height would provide adequate security and maintain residential amenity. He added that the existing garages which were derelict encouraged vandalism and compromised security. He continued that the communal gardens provided exceeded the minimum requirements, thus enhancing amenity space for the residents. Mr Attur noted that the Department of Environment had not raised objections to the application.
In responding to members' comments and questions, Rachel McConnell confirmed that a 1metre set in had been provided for the 2 storey building and that the boundary treatment would be of timber fencing. She added that the proposal did not raise issues of outlook, privacy and size of units as it complied with the Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 (SPG17).
DECISION: |
(a) Granted planning permission, subject to conditions as amended in condition 7, an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section of this report, or
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
Supporting documents: