Agenda item
16 Carlisle Road, Kilburn, London, NW6 6TS (Ref. 12/1718)
Decision:
Grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:The erection of a single storey rear infill extension and the excavation of new basement level with lightwells to the front and rear of the dwellinghouse.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.
Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager clarified that the proposal involved a rear extension to and a basement development of a mid-terraced property within the Queens Park Conservation Area. He added that the proposal complied with policies in terms of its relationship with neighbouring properties and that both aspects of the development would form an integral part of 16 Carlisle Road.
Mrs Jill Weighall an objector stated that in addition to noise nuisance and environmental pollution through dust, the proposed basement development would detrimentally affect the structural stability of her property. She pointed to instances of detrimental impact arising from basement development in Creighton Road, Windemere Road and in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Mrs Weighall continued that as the extent of the damage would take several years to surface, it would be necessary for the applicant to have independent hydrological tests undertaken. She added that the development would constitute an over-development within the site and requested deferral of the application until the concerns expressed had been resolved.
Ms Elaine Henderson speaking on behalf of Queens Park Residents’ Association (QPRA) objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it would not preserve or enhance the character of the Queens Park Conservation Area. She also expressed concerns about the impact of lighting from the lightwell in terms of light pollution in an area with where the houses had no screen hedges. Ms Henderson added that the proposed development would alter the special character of Carlisle Road.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Denselow, ward member stated that he had been approached by residents and members of QPRA. Councillor Denselow expressed concerns about the impact of the proposed development in terms of noise nuisance from the use of heavy machinery during construction, the associated dust that would be generated and in the longer term, instability to the structure and foundations of neighbouring properties. He continued that as the Conservation Area Design Guide for the area did not cover basement development, it would be advisable for the Local Planning Authority to look to practices in other boroughs and take a firm stance to clamp down on basement developments. In urging a deferral, Councillor Denselow requested the Committee to obtain an independent basement impact assessment and a full hydrological survey of the site before deciding on the application.
In the discussion that followed, Councillor John asked the Area Planning Manager to confirm if officers were aware of any of the problems referred to by the objectors and to comment on the outcome of a possible appeal. Councillor Powney added that membership of Considerate Contractors Scheme (CCS) would adequately address the detrimental impact referred to by the objectors. In his view, the cost of the survey requested by the speakers would be disproportionately high.
The Area Planning Manager responded that the structural problems referred to by the objectors were anecdotal and that any reasons for refusal should be based on sound planning grounds and policies else the Council could incur costs if the applicant appealed against a refusal. He reiterated that the condition on CCS would give some comfort on the behaviour of the contractor during construction and that the survey requested would be disproportionately high. He added that the proposed development which would enhance the conservation area complied with relevant policies as set out in the main report.
Councillors Cummins and Hashmi expressed reservations about the proposal for the lightwell and indicated their intention to vote against the application.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended.
Supporting documents: