Agenda item
21/3443 - 30 Brondesbury Park, Kilburn, London, NW6 7DN
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and updates detailed within the supplementary agenda.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL
Demolition of the existing property and erection of 9 residential units (6 flats in a three-storey building and 3 two – storey terraced houses) together with access, parking, landscaping and associated works.
RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives as set out within the report.
(2) 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.
(3) That the Committee confirms that the 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 .
June Taylor, Principal Planning Officer, South Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application was seeking the demolition of the existing building in order to be replaced by six flats in its place (three x 2 bedroom and three x 3 bedroom) together with one x 4 bed house and two x 3 bed houses addressing the Aylestone Avenue frontage.
The Committee were advised there had been an error on the original report regarding the breakdown of terraced houses with the correct number and size of dwellings being reflected in the proposal as outlined above.
Three on site parking spaces would be provided, one using the existing access from Aylestone Avenue and two using a new crossover on Aylestone Avenue. The existing vehicle crossover on Brondesbury Park would be removed and reinstated to provide a footway. Associated landscaping, cycle storage and bin storage would also be provided.
As the Committee had no questions for the officer at this point, the Chair invited the first public speaker on the item Mr Abhijeet Parikh (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application, who went on to highlight the following concerns:
· Mr Parikh advised that he lived in a neighbouring property to the proposed development with shared a party wall. His main concerns related to the design and scale of the development which he felt would negatively impact on his and other neighbouring properties by creating significant overlooking.
· Whilst not objecting to the conversion of the property to flats his concerns were focussed around the terraced houses proposed. Whilst noting that the west facing elevation diagram in the report pack showed that the development would be set back, Mr Parikh was not satisfied that this would effectively mitigate his concerns and felt that even if a high party wall or trees were used as green screening this would continue to adversely impact on the daylight/sunlight within his garden and overshadow his property.
· Mr Parikh shared that as a long standing resident of Brent he would be grateful if the Planning Committee were mindful of his and other local residents objections and impact which it was felt the development would have on the neighbouring properties.
The Chair thanked Mr Parikh for his contribution. Having clarified the distance of the affected boundary wall to the development site there were no further questions from Committee members so the Chair invited the next speaker James Young (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application, with the following concerns highlighted:
· Mr Young introduced himself as local resident who lived in close proximity to the garden area that would be built upon if planning permission for the scheme were to be approved.
· Mr Young advised the Committee that his objections were in relation to the breaking of the building line on Aylestone Road which would affect all residents of Aylestone Road. The Committee were referred to a handout circulated on behalf of Mr Young in advance of the meeting prepared to demonstrate the breaking of the building line.
· In addition, Mr Young shared concern about the application setting a potential precedent for “garden grabbing” whereby other locally identified gardens in plots of land on the handout provided could attract similar development proposals, leading to an overintensification of development in the area.
· Whilst acknowledging the need to provide more local affordable housing he highlighted the lack of affordable housing units within the development along with the detrimental impact it was felt the proposals would have on the character of the area, neighbouring properties in terms of daylight and privacy.
In terms of issues raised by the Committee the Chair, whilst acknowledging the loss of green space, also felt it important to highlight this as a corner site development. In accepting this point, Mr Young felt that significant concerns remained in relation to the overall scale and mass of the proposed development and its detrimental impact on building lines on Aylestone Avenue.
As Committee members had no further questions, the Chair invited the final speaker Laura Jenkinson (applicant’s agent) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. Laura Jenkinson went on to share the following key points:
· The applicant had positively engaged throughout the application process with officers, residents and councillors. This has included pre-application meetings with Brent’s planning and design officers who had shared positive feedback on the proposals.
· The proposed scheme sought to replace a single property which was currently split into three flats, with three good sized family houses and six spacious flats. Noting the comments on privacy, the applicant had sought to preserve the privacy, amenity and relationship to neighbouring buildings in accordance with Brent's policies and Design Guide SPD. The rear wall of the terrace houses was situated 8.9m from the side garden of 32 Brondesbury Park with clarification provided that the south facing windows on Flats 05, 07 and 09 were over 30m from 1 Aylestone Avenue. There were no windows facing No 1 Aylestone Avenue, other than a non-habitable south-facing hall window in House 01 which looked out onto the front driveway of the adjoining site. As such, the scheme complied with Brent design guide rules and retained adequate separation distances with surrounding properties.
· The proposed development would provide public benefit in line with the London Plan that emphasised the important role that small sites should play to tackle London’s housing crisis. The proposals supported this objective, and were in line with Brent’s policy for small sites as well as contributing to the borough’s housing target by providing nine high quality new family homes.
· The homes would be constructed to a high quality design that responded to the suburban character of the area, with three houses fronting Aylestone Avenue and six flats within a single building fronting Brondesbury Park. This efficiently utilised the site’s corner position.
· The proposed landscaping strategy would provide 22 new trees to increase the soft landscaping on the site with a combination of well-proportioned landscaped private gardens and a communal garden, flower-rich perennial planting, boundary hedge treatments, amenity grassland and permeable paving.
· Sustainable design and construction measures were proposed including water conservation and energy efficiency measures.
· Three off street parking spaces and a dedicated and secure cycle parking store for 20 bicycles would be provided to encourage sustainable modes of travel.
· The scheme would see Brent benefit from a CIL contribution from the developers which would help towards improving both local and regional infrastructure.
In response to Committee questions Laura Jenkinson clarified the following points:
· In response to concerns highlighted regarding the lack of affordable housing units within the proposals Laura Jenkinson confirmed that the application had been supported by an independent viability assessment which had confirmed the site could not viably deliver any contribution towards affordable housing, although the scheme would deliver 66% family sized housing units which exceeded Brent’s policy target.
· In response to a question regarding the applicant’s future plans for the completed development the Committee were advised of the applicant’s preference to retain the site for his purposes and family use.
· In response to a Committee question regarding what could be done to maintain the character and attractive frontage of the building to ensure it remained in keeping with the area Laura Jenkinson outlined the extensive work undertaken with the Planning and Design Officer in seeking to retain the distinctive character of the current building.
· The clarification provided that whilst the impact on daylight and sunlight in relation to four side facing windows at 32 Brondesbury Park would fall slightly below BRE target values the development had been considered acceptable in terms of Brent policy guidelines given the light and outlook to those windows was already constrained given their position and close proximity to the existing building on site.
As there were no further questions for the agent the Chair invited Committee members to ask the officers any remaining questions or points of clarification that they required. Committee members had a number of questions for officers, including a query regarding the building line, the tree planting schedule, daylight/sunlight assessments and the wider benefits for local residents as a result of the scheme. Officers responded to the questions raised as follows:
· In relation to the query regarding the change in the building line officers advised that in order to increase the intensification opportunities of the site it was necessary that the building line stepped forward. The terraced houses would add active frontage to the streetscape and greening to the street through the front garden. In addition to this the separation distances to either site had been carefully judged to ensure the building would appear as a continuation of the three storey apartment block and as part of the corner site rather than having a stronger visual connection to the properties on Aylestone Road. Officers felt that on balance the minimal stepping forward of the building line was acceptable. Slides were then shared to provide the Committee with greater context as to how the revised building line would appear.
· Officers confirmed that the arboricultural report submitted included a survey of 13 trees, tree groups and hedges which had been categorised as being of high, medium or low quality. The proposal would lead to the removal of nine trees and part of the privet hedge, all of which had been classified as low quality Category C trees or as unsuitable for retention. Three trees including two high quality Category A trees and a moderate quality Category B tree would be retained with 22 new trees provided to include a mixture of sizes and species to replace the trees lost as part of the development.
· In response to a Committee query regarding the frontage of the three terraced houses appearing to be very close to the road, officers advised that the minimum required distance from the road to buildings had been achieved.
· Following a Committee question regarding which road would provide the main access point to the development, officers advised that the front doors to the terraced properties would be on Aylestone Avenue, however it was noted that there was also access via Brondesbury Park.
· Officers informed the Committee that fire safety considerations had been detailed within the report and noted that the proposal was in accordance with London Plan Policy D12A (Fire Safety).
· In clarifying the position regarding the assessment of impact arising from the development on light and outlook the Committee was advised that the proposals complied with the 30 degree test set out in Brent’s SPD1 in respect of all neighbouring properties other than the side facing windows at No 32 Brondesbury Park. It was noted, however, that the existing buildings on the site also caused a breach of the 30 degree test from these windows although the proposals would comply with the 45 degree test in respect of the rear garden to No 32 Brondesbury Park. In view of the assessment provided, however, officers were of the view that the development would retain adequate separation distances with surrounding properties. Whilst acknowledging that some windows at No.32 Brondesbury Park would experience a reduction in daylight and sunlight it was felt the impact would be commensurate with the character of the area and would reflect existing constraints experienced by the side facing windows in close proximity to neighbouring properties. On this basis confirmation was provided that the impact on neighbouring properties in this respect was considered to be acceptable and did not outweigh the benefits of the scheme.
· The Committee questioned what benefits the scheme would bring to local residents other than additional housing stock, noting that usually new developments would aim to extend additional positive benefits to the local area. Officers advised that the new housing was the main benefit to the scheme as well as some benefits to the streetscape and landscaping.
· Clarification was also provided in relation to the CIL liability contribution which had been estimated at £160,664 plus an additional £32,000 contribution towards the Mayor for London fund.
As there were no further issues raised and having established that all members had followed the discussions the Chair asked members to vote on the recommendations.
DECISION: Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and updates detailed within the supplementary agenda.
(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 5, Against 1 and Abstain 0)
Supporting documents:
- 05. 21.3443 Brondesbury Park, item 5. PDF 321 KB
- 05. Supplementary Report 21.3443 Brondesbury Park, item 5. PDF 95 KB