Agenda item
18/4904 96 High Road, London, NW10 2PP
Decision:
Refused planning permission for reasons including the following; over-development, excessive height, loss of privacy, impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, lack of family sized units and lack of amenity space
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Part demolition of existing buildings and retention of the original police station building comprising flexible commercial space (Class A1, D1, B1a, B1b, B1c) and redevelopment of the site to provide 28 residential units within a building extending up to 4 storeys together with private and communal space, waste/cycle storage, associated landscaping and public realm (amended scheme).
RECOMMENDATION:
GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out within the Committee reports.
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 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.
That, if the legal agreement has not been completed by the agreed determination date for this application (including determination dates set through agreement), the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to refuse planning permission.
Mr Sean Newton (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report, set out the key issues including the retention of the police station building and viability issues and answered members’ questions. He referenced the supplementary report that set out concerns expressed by a ward member and officers’ responses to them.
Mr Martin Redston (in remote attendance) objected to the proposed development on behalf of the residents at 6 Huddlestone Road highlighting a number of concerns including the following:
· Proximity of balconies at the rear and overlooking into their garden together with concern about noise and disruption during the construction process.
· To reduce anti-social behaviour and noise on balconies a condition be imposed for cut off time (11pm).
· The entrance to the Police Station car park that has always acted as a 'buffer strip' should not be built over but be used as an area for a garden and general greening.
Councillor Donnelly-Jackson (in remote attendance) raised several concerns about the proposed development including the following;
· Excessive scale, massing and height that would be out of character with the properties in the area.
· Lack of on-site affordable housing.
· Inappropriate design and scale resulting in loss of light, overshadowing and over-looking.
· Noise and pollution to the detriment of residential amenities.
· Materials would be out of character with the neighbouring properties.
· Lack of disabled access and inadequate access for emergency vehicles.
· Parking and servicing problems notwithstanding being a “car free development”.
Councillor Miller (in remote attendance) whilst welcoming certain aspects of the proposal echoed similar concerns about the proposed development adding that the applicant had not offered mitigation measures to alleviate the concerns.
Mr Ben Thomas and Fred Akuffo (applicant’s agent and architect respectively in remote attendance) addressed the Committee and answered Members’ questions. They drew Members’ attention to the following matters:
· The site has a number of planning constraints including its location within a Conservation Area, close proximity to a cluster of listed buildings including St Andrew’s Church and the Islamic Centre that had influenced the design of the proposals.
· The architect has designed the proposal to complement and comply with all of those buildings and the Conservation Area and to optimise the development of the site whilst also protecting the amenity of the adjoining properties.
· The former police station building, a non-designated heritage asset on the site, would be restored to preserve and enhance the Conservation Area and a tree located on the high road would be retained.
· The architect had carefully considered the relationship with the properties on Huddlestone Road in terms of impacts, resulting in a reduction of two storeys to replicate the same height as the existing terrace without an adverse impact upon adjoining properties.
· With regard to affordable housing, a viability appraisal was submitted and independently assessed by industry experts appointed by the Council. They considered the scheme was capable of delivering a surplus of £143,453, which would not be enough to deliver affordable housing on site.
· There were additional costs to consider which include the restoration of police station building and a higher build cost given the quality of the building in addition to the provision of over £900,000 towards CIL payments payable to Brent Council.
· A late stage review mechanism to capture any potential uplift in profitability as the development progresses.
In the discussions that followed questioning of officers, members expressed concerns about the application including over-development, loss of privacy, impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, overshadowing, lack of affordable housing and family sized units and lack of impact on amenity space. Officers then submitted responses to Members concerns.
With no further issues raised and having established that all members had followed the discussions, the Chair thanked all speakers for their contributions and asked members to vote on the recommendation. Members voted by a majority decision to refuse the application for reasons as set out below. In refusing the scheme, members considered that the benefits of the proposed development did not outweigh the harm.
DECISION: Refused planning permission for reasons including the following; over-development, impact on character of area, loss of privacy, impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, inadequate number of family sized units and inadequate provision of external amenity space.
(Voting on the substantive recommendation for approval was as follows):
Against: Councillors Kelcher, Chappell, Johnson, Mahmood,
Maurice and Murray (6)
For: (0)
Abstentions: Councillors S Butt and Dixon (2)
(Voting on the decision to refuse was as follows):
For: Councillors Kelcher, Chappell, Johnson, Mahmood,
Maurice and Murray (6)
Against: (0)
Abstentions: Councillors S Butt and Dixon (2)
Supporting documents: