Agenda item
Kingsbury Community Centre, Eton Grove, London, NW9 9LD (Ref. 12/1028)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday 20 June 2012 7.00 pm (Item 3.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 3.
Decision:
Refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Erection of a part single/part 2 storey community centre (overall floorspace [GIA] - 1039.3 sq m) comprising: children's nursery (336.5sqm) for approximately 85 children; community room (137.8sqm) with a capacity to seat between 150-200 visitors; cafe (142.2sqm) with a capacity to seat approximately 50 visitors; office space (123.4sqm) with a capacity to seat approximately 21visitors; exercise room (81.8sqm) for centre staff; changing rooms (73sqm) for hire with use of park sports pitches; management suite (40.0sqm) for the community centre to accommodate 5 staff; conference room & facility (39.6sqm) to accommodate at least 30 visitors;
|
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission.
|
Councillor Daly declared an interest in that she knew the applicant and was not present to consider or vote on this item.
Tony Vincett (Legal Adviser) stated that he lived on the same street as the site, however he had no involvement with the application and so remained present during consideration of this item.
Steve Weeks (Head of Area Planning) introduced the report and advised that the applicant was responding to a council tender to replace facilities that had previously existed on the site. However, he felt that the application was excessive in terms of the range of activities proposed and did not provide the necessary parking spaces for such a scheme. In addition, the council’s Sports Services had indicated that they were not satisfied with some of the replacement services proposed. Members also noted that the applicant had previously withdrawn the application but subsequently re-submitted it despite the concerns raised by officers.
Robert Dunwell, an objector and representing the Queensbury Area Residents’ Association (QARA) and Group of Associates, commented that although community facilities were required on the site, the application did not fully address the area’s needs. He felt that the applicant should undertake further discussion with officers to address issues in relation to the scale and size of the proposals and the lack of parking and to submit an improved scheme. In reply to a query from the Chair about what were the particular concerns he had about the application, Robert Dunwell explained that he felt the proposed building was excessively expansive as it exceeded the footprint of the original building and he also felt the number of services offered was excessive as some of the proposed amenities were not required in the area. The proposed uses could attract excessive visitors to the area and it also raised accessibility issues. In reply to a further query from Councillor R S Patel, Robert Dunwell confirmed that the applicant had not directly consulted with QARA and Group of Associates but he had been made aware of the application through the council.
Alton Bell, the applicant, then addressed the committee. He began by stating that work had started in developing the proposals since 2010, following a successful tender submission. It was intended to submit a staged development to improve the site which was currently an eyesore and attracting drug and alcohol users. Alton Bell stated that the Environmental Resource Centre had been appointed as consultants to help make the application commercially viable and sustainable. He asserted that the original tender had indicated that use of the green hatch area was permitted and that the applicant was willing to work with officers and also other service areas such as Brent Parks and Children and Families to submit proposals acceptable to all. Residents associations and community groups had also indicated their support for the scheme. Alton Bell requested that the application be deferred so the concerns raised by officers could be addressed.
Members then asked a number of questions to the applicant. Councillor Hashmi enquired if a travel plan had been submitted. Councillor John stressed that it would have been made clear to the applicant what was acceptable and she asked why this had seemingly not received due consideration by the applicant. Councillor R S Patel sought further comments in respect of lack of parking, including disable parking spaces and why had there been a failure to agree a Section 106 agreement.
The Chair sought further clarification with regard to parking, access, perceived traffic impact and the total size of the site.
In reply, Alton Bell confirmed that the application did include a travel plan which would be re-assessed after the site was in operation and the applicant had also suggested that a controlled parking zone scheme could be introduced. He stated that the original tender document had indicated that six parking spaces and a disabled parking space could be provided, however since further discussion with officers he had been informed that no parking spaces should be provided and so provision had not been included in the application. However, Alton Bell suggested that there were sufficient parking spaces in the locality to cope with the demand. He asserted that the applicant had kept officers fully informed of proposals and had explained the reasons behind them. Members noted that the size of the site was 1,200sqm and there were four access points to the site. Alton Bell felt that the applicant was in a position to accept a Section 106 Agreement.
During discussion by Members, Councillor Oladapo enquired whether there had been a stage when the officers were in agreement that the proposed building could be larger than the original footprint. Councillor John sought assurances that the applicant was being suitably advised as to what would be acceptable in the proposals and enquired how large was the encroachment upon the green space. She also asked if the site would suffer from lack of interest if the applicant withdrew and it needed to be re-marketed. She also commented that Sports Services and Parks had raised concerns about the application.
In reply to the issues raised, Steve Weeks confirmed that a Section 106 agreement had not been agreed. He advised that there were two buildings on the original site and although the tender did not specifically restrict the size of any proposed buildings, it did include all necessary restrictions and the applicant had not been encouraged to submit proposals for an expansive building. The proposed building was three times the size of the original two buildings on the site. Steve Weeks informed Members that there were concerns about the number of activities proposed particularly in respect of the building and it would be difficult, for example, to see how a conference room could be appropriately provided on the site. The applicant had been made fully aware of the concerns raised by officers and what was required to make a planning application acceptable. Members noted that the sports pavilion had been cleared and the land upon which it stood was now public green space. In respect of parking, Steve Weeks stated that if visitors to the site parked on Rugby Road, this may become an issue. It was difficult to forecast if there would be a lack of interest if the site was re-marketed, however the original tender did not attract a large number of submissions and it was possible that alternative sources of funding could be sought should this situation arise.
DECISION: Agreed as recommended. |
Supporting documents: