Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee and Supplementary report.

PROPOSAL

Proposed part demolition of garage block and erection of a single storey dwellinghouse with associated amenity space, alterations to boundary treatment and provision for new pedestrian access, cycle and refuse storage.

RECOMMENDATION

(1)      That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee 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 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.

Curtis Thompson (Planning Officer) introduced the report which the Committee was advised related to a single storey garage plot on the eastern side of Thanet Lodge.  Thanet Lodge contained forty-three residential units and had a large amenity space to the rear.  The site was located within the Brondesbury Conservation Area but did not contain any listed buildings.  This site formed the garages to Thanet Lodge which was constructed in c1938.  The garages were contemporary in construction, single storey and of no special interest with the applications requiring consideration by the Committee due to the number of objections received.  Members attention was drawn to the supplementary report with included details on additional representations submitted with the recommendation remaining to grant consent subject to the conditions listed.

The Chair thanked Curtis Thompson for introducing the report and then invited Doriano Chiarparin (who had registered to speak in objection to the application), to address the Committee.  The following key points were highlighted:

·             The proposed scheme for Thanet Lodge Garages ref. 24/0296 followed on from a previous proposal ref. 20/0600 with the exception of the enlarged external amenity areas and reversal of bedroom and living room position in the new layout.

·             The previous proposal had been rejected on appeal with the main reasons being the effect of the proposed development on the living standards of future occupiers, proximity to Thanet Lodge, bin store and vehicular access to its car park, which both caused unacceptable harm to the external amenity proposed.

·             The current proposal was felt to include the same shortfalls in that the large bin store was adjacent to front garden creating substandard level of amenity, the driveway to car park was adjacent to the front door creating unsafe access to the dwelling; the proposed driveway width reduction from 3.5 to 3m to create a 0.5m wide footpath would produce vehicular circulation below recommend width and a narrow and unsafe pedestrian zone; the Thanet Lodge car parking spaces retained in the hardstand area at the back would have insufficient space for access and egress due to the proposed dwelling and rear garden and internally bedroom 2 being narrower than the minimum allowed in the London Plan.

·             On this basis it was felt unclear how the proposal could have been recommended for approval, given that the appeal decision grounds were all still applicable to this current scheme and the Committee were urged not to grant consent.

The Chair thanked Doriano Chiarparin, for addressing and with no questions raised by the Committee in terms of the representations made then invited Emma McBurney, speaking in support of the application as the applicant’s representative to speak.  The following points were noted:

·             By way of background, the application followed a previous 2021 appeal decision for a similar proposal in which the Inspector had narrowed the planning issues by agreeing:

- The size of the internal accommodation was acceptable for future occupants.

- Future occupants would have adequate levels of sunlight and daylight.

- The existing garages did not make a positive contribution and the proposal preserved the character and appearance of the conservation area.

- Parking provision was acceptable.

- There would be no harm to the existing residents in Thanet Lodge.

- How Thanet Lodge was managed and future development proposals were not relevant considerations.

·             The appeal was dismissed for 2 reasons - sense of enclosure due to the size and depth of amenity spaces and noise from the car park and bin store.  The first of these had been addressed by extending the depth of the rear garden from 4m to 7.6m, reversing the position of the living and sleeping accommodation so that the living area was at the back of the dwelling, and providing sound insulation separation between the bin store and the smaller front garden.  The 2-bed proposal provided a 54sqm private rear garden accessible from the kitchen/diner and a 20sqm private front garden (including cycle storage) accessible from bedroom 1.  The proposal provided more than three times the Council’s amenity space standard with particularly good outlook from the large window in the living area. The second issue had been addressed by the deeper rear garden, which meant there were no longer parking spaces to the immediate rear.  It was probable that bins or the six remaining parking spaces would only be used occasionally between 23:00 and 07:00, which was not unusual for a London property.

·             Moving the bedrooms to the front of the proposal had taken them away from the six space parking area and there would be an insulated cavity wall and a high level double glazed window between bedroom 2 and the road and bedroom 1 would also be isolated from it.  The occupants of the bedrooms (and the living area) were therefore expected to be unaffected by road or parking noise.

·             Modern plastic wheely bin lids were designed to create a cushion of air that would prevent them from being slammed loudly.  The bin store would be separated from the front garden by a 2m brick wall, which would attenuate noise with the double glazing to building regulations standards.

·             The proposal complied with the London Plan and Brent Local Plan by providing a new home in a PTAL 4 location within a priority area for housing and was consistent with the Local Plan and the presumption in favour of sustainable development was therefore felt to fully apply.

·             As such the proposal was felt to now have satisfied the appeal inspector’s concerns with the officers report having covered the relevant planning issues and the Committee therefore urged to accept the recommended grant of consent.

The Chair thanked Emma McBurney for addressing the Committee and with no questions raised then invited members to questions officers in relation to the information presented, with the following points noted:

·                 Further clarification was sought in relation to the way in which the application was felt to have addressed the objections raised by Mr Chiarparin at the meeting.  In response, the Committee were provided with a comparison site plan with the main change being the removal of car parking spaces to the rear of the site and increase in external amenity space, which made best use of the space comprising noise reduction.  As previously mentioned, the bedrooms had been moved to the front of the dwelling to further reduce noise.  The Committee also noted that the new plan had better quality outdoor space with the proposal therefore felt not to result in a significant impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers in terms of noise and disturbance, daylight and sunlight or overlooking having regard to the provisions in SPD1.

As there were no further questions from members the Chair then moved on to the vote.

DECISION

RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee and supplementary report

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: Unanimous in favour)