Agenda item
Former Willesden New Social Club, Rucklidge Avenue, London, NW10 4PX (Ref.12/0915)
Decision:
Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal Services and Procurement, conditions, an informative and an amendment to condition 8 prohibiting bookmakers/betting offices as set out in the supplementary information.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Erection of a four and five storey building accommodating 22 flats, ground floor A1, A2 and/or D1 floorspace and retention of electricity sub-station.
|
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal Services and Procurement, conditions, an informative and an amendment to condition 8 prohibiting bookmakers/betting offices as set out in the supplementary information.
|
Andy Bates drew Members’ attention to observations with regard to issues raised at the site visit, additional representations and officers’ responses to them as set out in the supplementary information. He also advised the committee of an amendment to condition 8 contained within the supplementary information.
The Chair agreed to additional papers being circulated by Louise Holmes, an objector to the application, whilst she addressed the committee. Louise Holmes asserted that the application would have a permanent, detrimental effect on nearby residents. She stated that the application was an overdevelopment, out of character and would overwhelm the surrounding area by the large size of the proposed building. In addition, only two of the twenty flats would have access to green space and this would be unsuitable particularly for any children moving onto the site as well as the application failing to provide at least 20sqm of open space per dwelling as set out in SPG17. She also expressed concern about the apparent lack of parking and the proximity of the electricity sub-station and felt that the application should be refused with a view to the applicant considering a smaller scheme.
With the Chair’s agreement, Ian Britton, an objector and representing Rucklidge Avenue Residents’ Association, also circulated papers to Members for their consideration. Ian Britton began by referring to the council’s UDP which stated that applications on brown sites should not have a negative impact on the area. He felt that the proposed building was unsuitable and also disregarded established building lines, with 18m of the 32m total frontage excessively close to Rucklidge Avenue and Park Parade. Whilst he was not objecting specifically about the proposed height of the building, Ian Britton felt that the application overall was overbearing and dominating and in its present form should be rejected.
In reply to a query from the Chair, Ian Britton stated that it was the overall size and scale of the application he was objecting to as well as the closeness of the building to the pavement.
Mark Pender, the applicant’s agent, then addressed some of the issues raised by objectors and at the site visit. He felt that considering the site’s location near the town centre and that it was a brown site, the number of flats proposed was appropriate as high density on such locations was permissible. The applicant had amended the building line on Rucklidge Avenue to provide an additional two metres gap. As the site was well served by good transport links and was within a controlled parking zone, it was ideal for the car free scheme proposed and this was reflected in application with regard to parking spaces. Mark Pender acknowledged the concerns in respect of amenity space, however, given the site’s town centre location and the Section 106 contribution to offset this, he felt that the application was entirely acceptable. He also indicated that the applicant would be willing to accept a condition restricting betting office use on the site, however they would wish that A2 use remain permitted to provide the flexibility the applicant felt was necessary.
During discussion by Members, Councillor Cummins agreed that the site was in need of development, however it was also important to adhere to building lines and considering that the Design Works adjacent to the site conformed to these, he felt that this application should too. He also commented that residents and Councillor Hector had raised valid objections.
The Chair sought further comments with regard to the perceived impact of the electricity sub-station on the site.
In reply to the issues raised, Andy Bates acknowledged comments made in respect of amenity space, however he reiterated that it was a town centre location and each unit had space provided by balconies that were larger than the average size for such developments. In addition, as the applicant was making a financial contribution to off-site amenity provision, on balance the application was acceptable. Andy Bates drew Members’ attention to page 102 in the report which provided an explanation with regard to the set back and he felt that an appropriate approach had been taken with regard to taking building line guidance into account. As it was a brown site with a history of previous development, the proposed development was also acceptable. The electricity sub-station had been discussed with the council’s Environmental Health unit who had stated that it presented a very low health risk.
Steve Weeks added that following discussions with the applicant, appropriate amendments to the building line had been made which made the application acceptable. He advised that there was also a degree of step out in respect of the design works opposite and that some flexibility was afforded in respect of building lines.
DECISION: Agreed as recommended. |
Supporting documents: