Agenda item
20/2257 - Willesden Green Garage, St Pauls Avenue, London, NW2 5TG
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to conditions and informatives as set out in the main report, including an additional condition and revisions to the conditions as set out in the supplementary report and a planning obligation for the applicant to carry out a traffic safety assessment for on-street servicing and to fund the provision of an on-street loading bay if subsequently deemed necessary.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) to allow for:
· Internal alterations to facilitate the creation of six additional residential units
· External alterations to include additional windows, winter gardens and roof
· Terrace
· Reduction in size of basement and repositioned ramp
As
well as Variation of Condition 17 (Mix) of full planning
application 17/5291, allowed on appeal dated 17 December 2019
(amended under non-material amendment application 20/1873) for
Demolition of MOT garage and erection of a part seven-storey and
part four storey building with basement level to provide
residential units with ground, third and fourth floor amenity
spaces and ground floor play area, provision of basement car
parking, cycle and refuse storage, alterations to vehicular
accesses and associated landscaping
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of an appropriate legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report.
That the Head of Planning is 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 is 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.
Paige Ireland, Principal Planning Officer introduced the report, set out the key issues and answered members’ questions. She advised members that the extant scheme had been refused by the Committee but later allowed on appeal. She highlighted an omission on paragraph 36 of the main report which should refer to 51 single aspect units and an error on paragraph 30 of the main report which referred to 76 St. Paul’s Avenue but instead should refer to 75 St. Paul’s Avenue. In response to a member question, she advised that the nature of the external alterations would unlikely result in any material reduction in light to neighbouring properties over that which had already been deemed acceptable.
In reference to the supplementary report, the Planning Officer drew members’ attention to the following points:
· Further representations had been received since the publication of the main report regarding transport and the external appearance/landscape.
· An additional condition and revisions to the conditions and informatives had been proposed.
Peter Hale, objector, raised several concerns including:
· The positioning of the blocks and the height of the walls of the frontage of the ground floor units would have a negative impact on the street scene.
· The insufficient provision of family sized units and the reduction in the size of some units.
· The traffic safety of the basement layout, particularly the ascension to the basement.
· The excessiveness of the increase in units, which were deemed to be out of character with immediate properties.
· The insufficient provisional of external amenity space and lack of green infrastructure and biodiversity measures.
· The lack of a loading bay for servicing, especially in light of the continued increased use of online deliveries.
In response to a questions from a member, he then made the following point:
· The application was substantially worse than the extant scheme.
Councillor Fleur Donnelly-Jackson, ward member and objector, raised several concerns including:
· The increase in units had not led to a change in the number of affordable units and there was insufficient provision of family sized units.
· Disabled parking spaces were being lost and the provision did not meet the London Plan requirement of 10% for the flats and the requirements of Condition 6.
· The provision of outdoor amenity space had a bigger overall shortfall and five units would fail to meet the London Plan’s minimum requirements. The reduction in landscaping elements would not mitigate noise levels in the amenity spaces.
· The proposal to replace the iron railings with vegetation behind the extant scheme with a solid brick wall would have a negative impact on the street scene and the changes in palette and landscaping were not in keeping with the urban character and appearance of the area.
· Issues around parking, servicing and deliveries had not been addressed from the extant scheme, which was deemed especially important in light of the increased use of online deliveries.
· The omission of landscaping features which were in the central space as well as around the perimeter and the large open spaces on the 3rd and 4th levels.
- The application would result in a density above the London Plan matrix range and as such the further intensification proposed did not represent sustainable development.
· The significant changes to the internal layout and the increase in units beyond the reduction to 70 from the extant scheme exceeded the scope of a 'Minor Amendment' and should require a new planning application.
In response to questions from members, she then made the following points:
· The application would be acceptable as a car free development as long as there was adequate disable parking provision.
· While accepting the need to develop the site, the application, as well as the extant scheme, represented over intensification. The area would be better served by a residential housing development.
Mark Gibney, the agent, then addressed the Committee on several matters including:
· The increase in unit numbers from 70 to 76 within the existing building envelope and a reduction in the size of the basement whilst making the layout more efficient.
· The maintenance of the consented 13 affordable homes and tenure split of 70% affordable rent and 30% intermediate, as well as an increase in size of a 2-bedroom rented unit to a 3-bedroom rented family unit.
· The setting of the building 1.2 metre away from 75 and 75a St. Paul’s Avenue and the retention of the boundary wall which would improve the relationship with the neighbours and reduce any sense of enclosure.
· The continued provision of 10% wheelchair homes, all play provision on site and an assurance to secure planning obligations for public realm works, carbon offset payment and highways.
In response to questions from members, he then made the following points:
· Benefits to the proposed application included; moving the building further away from its neighbours so there would be no noticeable change in daylight/sunlight, measures to ensure there was no undue noise disturbance, increasing the unit numbers from 70 to 76 and the maintenance of the consented 13 affordable homes and tenure split of 70% affordable rent and 30% intermediate.
· While other options were considered, increasing the size of a 2-bedroom rented unit to become a 3-bedroom rented family unit was deemed the most viable.
· The application included a contribution of approximately £2 million in Borough and Mayoral CIL payments. The s106 agreement included a review process that could give way to an increase in the contribution if appropriate.
· The proposed winter gardens had been amended from the extant scheme in respect of their design and fire safety. A number of green infrastructure provisions had also been proposed.
In the ensuing discussion, members raised several issues including the size of the basement, parking and servicing, increased traffic and affordable housing and housing mix. Officers then clarified a number of key points including:
· The proposed reduction in the size of the basement was deemed acceptable and would not result in any reduction in accessible parking provision. The number of Eurobins had been reduced to 14 to allow flexibility and was deemed satisfactory.
· It was considered appropriate to consider the proposed changes to the scheme through an application made under Section 73 (to vary conditions relating to the approved plans and unit mix) as it did not constitute a fundamental alteration given the scale and nature of the changes.
· The provision of car parking spaces accorded with maximum standards. While the number for spaces for bicycle parking had been reduced, the provision still satisfied London Plan standards.
· The development would provide some off-street parking which could be utilised for servicing. On-site parking provision had been considered but was deemed unviable. A traffic safety assessment could be carried out to determine whether an on-street loading bay was necessary.
· The number of affordable units remained the same as the extant scheme although the percentage would reduce. The applicant had submitted an FVA to demonstrate that the scheme would be in financial deficit with the 13 affordable units retained.
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 to approve the application.
DECISION: Granted planning permission subject to conditions and informatives as set out in the main report, including an additional condition and revisions to the conditions as set out in the supplementary report and a planning obligation for the applicant to carry out a traffic safety assessment for on-street servicing and to fund the provision of an on-street loading bay if subsequently deemed necessary.
(Voting on the recommendation as amended: For 7, Against 1)
Supporting documents:
- 4. 20/2257 - Willesden Green Garage, St Pauls Avenue, London, NW2 5TG, item 4. PDF 387 KB
- 4a. 20/2257 - Willesden Green Garage, St Pauls Avenue, London, NW2 5TG, item 4. PDF 111 KB