22/1386 - Minterne Road Garages, Minterne Road,Harrow
Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Committee report and supplementary report.
Demolition of existing garages and development of the land for 1x four bed house with one parking space, cycle and waste stores and associated landscaping.
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:
(1) That the Head of Planning being delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as detailed in the report.
(2) That the Head of Planning being 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 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.
MahyaFatemi, Planning Officer, North Area, Development Planning Team introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the site was currently occupied by four garages on the north side of Minterne Road. The side was adjacent to the front garden of. No. 1 Minterne Road located to the east and two storey flats of 3 and 5 Minterne Road located to the west. The site did not contain a listed building and was not located within a conservation area. The application was seeking to develop the site to construct 1x four bed house with one parking space, cycle and waste stores and associated landscaping.
The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda that provided additional information regarding an objection received with regards to the privacy impact on neighbours. Officers felt these issues had been addressed in the report and therefore advised that the recommendation remained to grant planning permission.
As no Committee questions were raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker, Dilip Kakar (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. Mr Kakar drew the Committee’s attention to the following key points:
· Mr Kakar introduced himself to the Committee as a neighbour who would be directly affected if the proposal was approved.
· In objecting to the application, Mr Kakar raised concerns that the character of the proposed development was not in keeping with other local properties and would look out of place.
· It was also felt that privacy issues with regard to overlooking from the proposed development were unacceptable. In addition to overlooking, concern was raised regarding the additional loss of light due to the height and scale of the new property.
· The Committee were also advised that the road suffered from traffic congestion due to its close proximity to a local school and high street, which it was felt would be adversely impacted upon by the proposed development, particularly while building works were being completed.
· In summarising his concerns Mr Kakar requested that officers should do a further site visit to look at his property to fully comprehend the impact the proposed development would have upon neighbouring properties, with particular reference to looking at the rear of the property as it was felt the plans in the Committee pack did not provide a 360 degree view that would have illustrated the extent of the impact of the proposed development on his property.
In response to the concerns raised by Mr Kakar, Committee members had one question regarding what type of development Mr Kakar felt would be acceptable on the proposed site. Mr Kakar advised that given his concerns regarding overlooking and loss of light a smaller single storey property would be a more suitable development.
As the Committee had no further questions for Mr Kakar, the Chair invited the next speaker on the application, Mr Sameh Mahran (objector) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application. Mr Mahran proceeded to share his concerns as follows:
· Mr Mahran felt there would be significant overlooking and privacy issues to neighbouring properties due to the height of the proposed development.
· It was felt the high level of overlooking would leave neighbours feeling over exposed and their feelings of security compromised.
· Mr Mahran felt that no additional mitigations had been considered to minimise the impact of overlooking.
· Concerns were shared that the proposed development could potentially affect house prices in the immediate area due to the issues raised.
· It was also felt that the proposed development was not in keeping with the local character and would look out of place.
· Mr Mahran closed his comments by acknowledging the need for additional housing in Brent whilst balancing this with the consideration of residents affected by new developments and urged the Committee to re-consider the design of the application, noting that a single storey development would be more acceptable.
In response the the representations made by Mr Mahran, the Committee sought further detail on the concerns raised in relation to the development being out of character with the surrounding area, given that there were other properties locally that had dormers and loft conversions. Mr Mahran replied that most local properties were initially built as 2 storey properties, it was felt that the current design of the development would therefore ruin the look of the street and its local character.
As there were no further queries raised the Chair thanked Mr Mahran for his contribution and moved on to invite Paris Farren (agent, Maddox Associates) to address the Committee (online) supported by Sam Rafferty (architect, FBM Architects) (online) in relation to the application. In addressing the Committee Paris Farren drew attention to the following key points in support of the applicatioin:
· The current site comprised of brownfield land containing four underutilised garages as illustrated on the submitted drawings in the Committee’s agenda pack.
· The site location was adjacent to the 1 Minterne Road forecourt to the east and two storey flats of 3 and 5 Minterne Road to the west. The surrounding area was residential in character and comprised a mix of two to three storey houses and flats.
· The proposed development sought to complement the character of the area through providing a new high-quality, 4 bedroom, affordable family home whilst significantly enhancing the existing outlook of the site.
· The site was situated within a priority area for housing and within close proximity to Kingsbury Town Centre further supporting the principle of redevelopment in line with Brent’s Local Plan, London Plan, and the NPPF.
· In terms of design, the Applicant had engaged in extensive discussions with officers in evolving the proposals – with the house designed to meet and exceed key housing design standards, being dual-aspect whilst meeting M4(2) compliance to ensure inclusivity for all.
· The house also included high-quality, private amenity space for the enjoyment of future occupiers.
· The scheme had been carefully considered to be respectful of the existing context, using the Brent Design Guide SPD1 as its founding principles. The facades would provide an animation to the street, whilst the profile and window placement design had been informed by and comply with, principles 5.1 + 5.2 of the SPD, in regard to overlooking and privacy.
· In line with officer comments, the screening to the terraces at first floor level had been increased to 1.7m to avoid any potential for overlooking on the neighbouring properties. The scale and massing of the dwelling had also been stepped down towards the northern and western boundaries, respecting the neighbouring properties and ensuring there were no overbearing impacts.
· The applicant had submitted a Daylight and Sunlight assessment in support of the application which confirmed that the proposals were fully compliant with the BRE guidelines in terms of impacts on the daylight and sunlight levels received by the surrounding properties. Importantly, the assessment also showed that there would be no undue overshadowing impacts into the neighbouring private amenity areas.
· In terms of highways, the site benefitted from a PTAL rating of 3. The proposal would provide one off-street car parking space, in line with local planning policy requirements. Brent highways officer had confirmed that the proposals would not result in an overspill of parking onto Minterne Road.
· In closing remarks, it was felt that the proposal was considered to align with the Development Plan as a whole, particularly in terms of achieving the overarching objective of delivering new, affordable, family homes at sustainable locations in the borough.
The Chair thanked Mr Farren for his representation and invited Committee members to raise any queries or clarifying points they may have. Queries were raised with regard to the height of the proposed property and if consideration had been given to the impact felt by neighbours including the concerns raised in relation to the impact to the rear of the property. Responses were provided as follows:
· The height of the building and overlooking had been carefully considered by the applicant throughout the development of the application and changes had been made following liaison with planning officers.
· There were a number of 3 storey properties in the surrounding area, therefore it was not felt that the character of the area would be unduly affected.
· The applicant confirmed that separation distances and elevations boundaries were compliant with policies in the Brent Local Plan and this had been considered fully from both the front, rear and sides of the proposed property.
As no further questions were raised, Councillor Kansagra in his capacity as local ward councillor, was then invited to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application. In addressing the Committee Councillor Kansagra highlighted the following key points for consideration:
· The location of the proposed development was known locally to have heavy traffic and parking issues around the local school, a further property and additional construction traffic would exacerbate the existing problems.
· It was suggested the underused garages on the current site could be used to support the parking needs of the local residents, benefitting the whole community.
· It was felt that the height of the proposed property was unacceptable and not in keeping with other properties on the street.
· Councillor Kansagra acknowledged the need to increase housing options in Brent, however stressed that it must be the appropriate site location and consideration should be given to the neighbours affected by any new development. Councillor Kansagra requested that the Committee defer the application pending a site visit so that they could consider a more appropriate plan to utilise the site.
As members had no further questions for Councillor Kansagra, the Chair invited members to ask officers any questions or points of clarification they may have in relation to the application. The Committee raised queries in relation to the benefits and harm of the scheme, overlooking, trees and biodiversity, parking and the drainage strategy. In addressing the issues raised by the Committee the following responses were provided:
· The key benefit to the proposed development had been assessed in line with Brent’s Local Plan Policy BH1 relating to an increase in housing supply. Subject to the application being approved Brent would benefit from an additional and much needed affordable family sized home.
· In response to concerns raised regarding potential overlooking, officers confirmed that resident concerns had been considered and various mitigations had been put in place to minimise possible overlooking. Measures included all the windows towards the rear and side of the site on upper floors being obscured glazed and non opening up to 1.7 metres high from internal floor level or behind the terrace screenings and the roof terraces would be less than 9m from the boundaries with properties to the side and rear.
· Additionally, the terrace adjacent to No. 3-5 Minterne Road would be surrounded by a 1.95m wall to the side and a 1.7m solid panel, with an additional high wall to the rear. As a result, officers felt that overlooking and privacy concerns had been considered and mitigated, as far as possible, and there would be no unduly detrimental impact on the amenities of adjoining neighbours.
· The Committee were advised that a low quality Category C tree would be removed to facilitate the development, however the proposal included additional planting to the rear and front of the property to mitigate the removed trees.
· In response to a query regarding why the property would only have one parking space, noting that many family households had more than one car with the potential to therefore create additional parking pressure impacting on current residents, the Committee were advised that this was the parking level permitted for the scale of development in compliance with London Parking Plan standards. Officers explained that overnight parking surveys had confirmed that Minterne Road was not heavily parked, therefore there was unlikely to be an adversely negative impact on the current situation as a result of the proposed development. It was also noted by the Committee that social housing usually generated lower parking demand.
· Following a Committee query regarding the drainage strategy, officers confirmed that the site did not lie within a flood risk area, in addition to this the proposal demonstrated an improvement of the current site with the introduction of permeable hard landscaping, small raingardens and bio retention areas to be incorporated into the landscaping in order to provide additional biodiversity benefits as well as the use of rain water butts for irrigation to support water run off
· The measures listed as part of the SuDS plan would see a 50% reduction from the current surface water discharge.
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 Committee report and supplementary report.
(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 6 & Against 1
- 5. 22.1386 Minterne Road Garages, item 5. PDF 280 KB
- 5.a 22.1386 Minterne Road Garages SUPP, item 5. PDF 93 KB