Agenda item
22/3634 - Fairfield Court, Longstone Avenue, London, NW10 3TS
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations and conditions and informatives as laid out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL
Proposed two second floor extensions and third floor extension to create six new self-contained dwellings including 4 rear dormer windows and new solar panel. Construction of two rear access staircases. Associated enlargement of refuse storage, provision of additional car and cycle parking spaces to front and improvements to soft landscaping to communal garden.
RECOMMENDATION~:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:
(1) The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as laid out in the Committee report.
(2) That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as detailed in the report.
(3) 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.
Curtis Thompson, Planning Officer, North Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the proposed development would provide 4x3-bedroom flats and 2x2 bedroom flats, 7 additional car parking spaces and 14 new cycle parking spaces to be contained within 2 secure cycle storage spaces on site, as well as an enlargement to the existing bin store. The area for redevelopment at Fairfield Court was located 0.5 miles to the north east of Harlesden High Street and consisted of a mix of residential homes. The site fell within the Harlesden Neighbourhood Plan Area.
The Committee were advised that 27 objections had been received, including an objection from Councillor Chan as the Ward Councillor and a petition containing 105 signatures objecting to the development.
As no questions were raised by the Committee, the Chair invited Ms Rebecca Elliott (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. Ms Elliott provided some printed images to the Committee to illustrate some of the concerns she would be addressing, the following key points were then shared as follows:
- Ms Elliott introduced herself as a local resident who lived directly behind Fairfield Court.
- It was felt that the proposed development would not be in keeping with the local character and would have a detrimental affect on local surroundings.
- There was strong opposition from local residents as demonstrated by the 105 signatures on the petition provided.
- Concern was raised that the development would cause significant overshadowing to the buildings to the rear of Fairfield Court which would affect the amount of daylight/sunlight received. The Committee’s attention was drawn to an excerpt from the report that stated that further testing should potentially have been undertaken in relation to the windows affected. However, it was felt it was not clear in the report that further testing had been undertaken Consequently Ms Elliott felt that the report was inaccurate.
- Ms Elliott felt that the report provided misleading information regarding trees and visibility, as the report had advised that the large trees on site would obstruct views from existing nearby buildings to the new proposed development, however in drawing Member’s attention to one of the images provided, Ms Elliott advised that in the Winter there were no leaves at all and the extension to the building would be clearly visible from Ms Elliott’s building.
- Ms Elliott summarised the concerns raised and urged the Committee to refuse the application on the basis of the information heard, alternatively it was felt that the application was not refused, it should be deferred until updated accurate reports were provided in relation to the points raised.
The Chair thanked Ms Elliott for sharing her objections to the application with the Committee and invited the next speaker, Mr Ian Britton (objector speaking on behalf of Ms Faduma Hassan) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. Mr Britton shared some further printed images with the Committee to illustrate the points of concern he would be sharing with the Committee on Ms Hassan’s behalf. The following key points were shared as follows:
- Ms Hassan bought her home in Fairfield Court because of the good levels of sunlight/daylight that the property received, as well as the character of the build and the local community. Ms Hassan was concerned that the proposed development would significantly affect the positive things she and other residents enjoyed about living at Fairfield Court and as such would impact everyday life.
- Concerns were shared in relation to privacy, as the stairwell to the proposed extension of the property would be built within touching distance of Ms Hassan’s living room. It was felt this could also conflict with policy SPD1.
- It was felt that the proposed development would significantly affect the sunlight received into existing flats at Fairfield Court, as per the report stating the proposal could see a 20% reduction in visible sky and sunlight to some flats.
- It was felt that the additions of the extension and associated stairwells would detrimentally altar the character of Fairfield Court.
- In summarising the points raised, the Committee were advised that Ms Hassan was not opposed to new flats in principle, however it was felt that the design had not been well considered in terms of the negative and permanent impacts on existing residents in relation to the loss of privacy, daylight/sunlight and the overall character of Fairfield Court. Based on the information shared Ms Hassan felt that the Committee should refuse the planning application.
As there were no Committee questions on the information heard, the Chair thanked Mr Britton for addressing the Committee to share Ms Hassan’s concerns and proceeded to invite the final speaker on the application Mr Martin Saluzzo (architect, acting as the agent to the application) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. The following key points were shared:
· The proposal presented followed a positive pre application consultation with Brent Council Planning Department that incorporated all the comments received from officers and was in full compliance with Brent Council policies and the London Plan.
· The proposed scheme would contribute to Brent’s housing stock by providing six new residential dual aspect units.
· The benefits of the scheme for existing residents included the refurbishment of communal areas, improved soft landscaping, cycle parking, a larger bin storage area and additional parking spaces with the inclusion of Electric Vehicle Charging points.
· Existing trees would not be affected by the development and the existing communal garden would be maintained and improved as a result of the development, providing amenity space above the current minimum standards in Brent Policy BH13.
· The sustainable design included PV panels to the rear west facing roofs.
· The design was not felt to be overbearing and was within the statutory standards set for daylight and sunlight under BRE guidelines.
· Mr Saluzzo urged the Committee to consider the benefits of the scheme and approve the planning application.
The Chair thanked Mr Saluzzo for making his representation to the Committee and offered Committee members the opportunity to ask any clarifying questions they had. Members queried the number of storeys the proposed development would add to the existing building and car parking spaces. The following responses were provided:
· It was confirmed that the proposal would include two additional floors as a result of the loft space being used for accommodation, however in planning terms only one additional storey in terms of overall height would be added to the existing building.
· Following a Committee query regarding the number car parking spaces, the Committee were advised that there were 8 existing car parking spaces, however the proposed development sought to formalise parking arrangements at the front of Fairfield Court to provide 7 additional spaces bringing the total number of parking spaces to 15.
As there were no further questions for Mr Saluzzo, the Chair invited Members to ask the officers any remaining clarifying questions they had in relation to the application. The Committee queried the number of EVC points, accessibility, the reduction in daylight/sunlight, the access staircases and the applicant’s contribution towards affordable housing in Brent
· Officers confirmed that there was a total of 3 EVC points in compliance with Local Plan Policy, along with a condition to ensure that they were implemented.
· In response to a Committee query in relation to accessibility to the new flats, officers confirmed that the proposal did not include step free access in the form of a lift to the extended part of the building, however in terms of policy compliance the Committee were advised that under policy D7 of the London Plan there were exceptions that could be applied to specific small scale infill developments (Policy H2).
· The Committee queried if alternative options to the location of the staircase had been explored as part of the application process so that there was less impact on existing residents. Officers recognised that there would be some visibility of the additional feature to existing residents, however advised that officers had not felt it was necessary to make amendments to the location and staircase design as despite its visibility it was not considered to create a significantly harmful impact to existing residents.
· Officers confirmed that the application would include a financial contribution of £300,000 towards affordable housing in Brent, this would be secured via the legal agreement.
· In response to Committee concerns regarding the reduction of daylight/sunlight for some existing residents of Fairfield Court, officers advised that the issues of daylight/sunlight had been considered in detail throughout the assessment and acknowledged although there would be some impact, the assessments demonstrated that measures were within the BRE guidelines. Officers felt that on balance the benefits of the scheme outweighed the minimal harm.
· In relation to the properties in Springwell Avenue, to the rear of Fairfield Court, it was confirmed that the 25 degree line was assessed, and that the development wouldn’t clip this line from the first floor windows.
· In response to concerns raised regarding the accuracy of the daylight/sunlight reports, it was highlighted that the BRE guidance provided a framework for the consideration of daylight and sunlight impacts, and while some windows should have been subject to further testing, officers considered that the information included within the reports had provided them with enough evidence to be satisfied that the impacts had been thoroughly assessed and were acceptable with no significant harm as set out in the committee report.
· Following a further Committee query in relation to whether the presence or absence of the trees to the rear of Fairfield Court would make a difference to the assessments carried out into the impacts on daylight/sunlight, officers confirmed that there would be no significant harm in addition to the existing situation if the trees were not there.
· Officers summarised the benefits of the scheme as a sustainable scheme that included an uplift in Brent housing and a financial contribution towards affordable housing provision in the borough.
The Chair thanked officers for responding to the Committee’s questions, as there were no further questions 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 prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations and conditions and informatives as laid out in the Committee report.
(Voting on the recommendation was as follows, For 7 & 1 Against).
Supporting documents: