21/1064 - 1 Draycott Avenue, Harrow, HA3 0BW
Demolition of existing
detached dwellinghouse and erection of
a part four storey, part three storey part 2-storey apartment block
providing 9 x self contained flats with
associated car parking and cycle storage, refuse storage, amenity
space and landscaping.
Resolve to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report.
That the Head of Planning and Development, or other duly authorised person, 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 they are 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 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.
Liam McFadden, Planning Officer, introduced the report, set out the key issues and answered members’ questions. The Planning Officer advised that the proposal as submitted was identical to a scheme approved in 2019 with the exception of the parking arrangements and other minor aspects which itself was a minor amendment to a scheme approved in 2016. As this scheme had not been implemented within the three-year period, the consent had now expired. Nevertheless, it did form part of the material considerations of the current application.
Anant Bakshi, objector, then raised several concerns including:
· The roof terrace, balconies and windows in the proposed development would affect the privacy of neighbouring properties. It was also feared that tenants would be able to easily access adjacent properties.
· The proposed four storey development was much taller than any of the existing properties in the locality when the roof terrace was accounted for.
· The design of the proposed development was out of character with existing dwellings in the local area. The development was overbearing and reduced the outlook of all properties on the road.
· The application stated that most of the trees currently in place were to be removed, with only some to be replaced. This would have a detrimental impact on the conservation area.
· The proposed development would reduce neighbouring daylight and sunlight. It would also cause an increase in noise and disturbance as a result of the balconies and cycle storage.
· It was feared that the cladding to be used on the development would present a fire hazard.
Mukesh Dattani, objector, then raised several concerns including:
· There would be an increased impact on traffic and risk to pedestrians, including increased use of the service road along Drayton Waye. Drayton Waye was used regularly by both children and the elderly, making it particularly unsafe.
In response to questions from members, Mukesh Dattani made the following points:
· Local residents would be in favour of a Controlled Parking Zone because there was heavy traffic in the local area and the walking environment was not safe for pedestrians.
Vas Manga, the agent, then addressed the Committee on several matters including:
· The proposed balconies and roof terraces would be at the front of the property, away from the amenity spaces of neighbouring residents. The balconies would be screened to ensure there was no overlooking.
· The windows on the side elevation were for bathrooms only. These would be obscured glazed and opening at a high level only to prevent overlooking.
· The maximum height of the main building would be slightly higher than the height of properties on Kenton Road and slightly below the height of 3 Draycott Avenue.
· A total of 15 trees would be planted throughout the site. This was predominantly to provide a screen to neighbouring amenity space.
· The proposal complied with both the 30 degree line and 45 degree line and whilst there were windows in the flank wall of 3 Draycott Avenue, these were non-habitable rooms.
· The proposed parking spaces would not result in additional congestion within the local area to the detriment of highway or pedestrian safety.
In response to questions from members, Vas Manga made the following points:
· The loss of 22 trees would be replaced with 15 trees of a minimum 12-14cm girth size. The number of trees could be increased if felt appropriate.
· The proposal would provide only one family sized home. It was not considered viable to include another due to the lack of space on the ground floor. Officers had considered this acceptable.
· The provision of balconies was typical for residential development and the impact on noise would be similar to that of a rear garden. The balconies would be located at the front of the property, away from the amenity spaces of neighbouring properties.
· Overall, the scale, height and massing of the proposal was considered to sit well within the surrounding context.
In the ensuing discussion, members raised several issues including trees and landscaping, residential amenity, design and appearance, highways impact and affordable/family unit mix. Officers then clarified a number of key points including:
· The scheme proposed to remove 22 trees in total. Officers had no objection to the loss of trees in principle, subject to suitable replacements being secured within the landscape of the provision.
· Objections had been received regarding loss of privacy as a result of the proposed side windows. Officers had proposed that the side windows be conditioned to be obscure glazed and non-opening.
· It was acknowledged that the floor-to-ceiling height would fall short of the 2.5m required by the London Plan. However, the shortfall would only be minor and the layout of the flats was considered to be good. On balance, the shortfall was not considered to be sufficient grounds for refusal.
· Three of the units would not be considered dual aspect. However, they would not be north or south facing and would have obscure glazed windows to provide further cross ventilation. They would also be provided with private balconies and were generally of good internal layout.
· Only two accidents had been recorded in the area in the previous five years and this was not considered high. Officers had raised no objections to the scheme subject to conditions and for highways works to be completed prior to occupation.
· The proposed nine self-contained flats would have a total maximum parking allowance of 7.2 spaces. As the site had good access to public transport, it was unlikely that additional cars would be parked in the local area.
· The provision of one family sized unit would fall short of the requirements of the draft Local Plan, which would require two family sized homes within the development. However, on balance, the benefits of the scheme to deliver an overall net gain in homes within the site were considered to outweigh the harm identified with falling short of the number of family sized homes.
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.
DECISION: Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report and subject to an amendment to condition 12 to increase the total number of trees required to be provided to 22.
(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 6, Against 1)