Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives detailed within the report.

PROPOSAL

Proposed erection of single-storey rear extension and associated landscaping works to lower ground floor, installation of mechanical plant and extraction flue/ducting to rear of building and installation of rear side infill canopy to lower ground floor that forms a covered passage.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)        The conditions and informatives as specified within the main committee report.

Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) introduced the planning application committee report, detailing that the proposal involved the erection of single-storey rear extension and associated landscaping works to lower ground floor along with installation of mechanical plant and an extraction flue/ducting to the rear of the building and installation of a rear side infill canopy to lower ground floor that formed a covered passage.  The application site was a four-storey terraced building with a basement, commercial unit (restaurant) on the ground floor and residential flats above on the eastern side of Chamberlayne Road with an outdoor seating area at the front entrance.  The site lay within the Kensal Rise Conservation Area and to its rear the site adjoined Queen’s Park Conservation Area and formed the primary shopping frontage of Kensal Rise Town Centre.

Members noted the application had been referred to the Committee for consideration as a result of a request having been received from three local councillors with members also advised of the previous planning site history and enforcement activity relating to the unauthorised erection of a single storey rear and side infill extension, that had resulted in submission of the current application.

The Chair thanked Damian Manhertz for introducing the report.  As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then invited Councillor Neil Nerva (who had registered to speak as a local ward councillors in objection to the application) to address the Committee, who highlighted the following points:

·             As a local ward councillor, Councillor Nerva advised he was representing local residents as well as Queens Park Residents Association and the Kensal Rise Residents Association in seeking to highlight a number of concerns relating to the application.  These included the adverse impact to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area due to the extraction flue, as well as on neighbouring amenity in terms of noise and odour.  Whilst noting the late submission of requests to speak by local residents at the meeting, concern was also expressed that it had not been possible for them to address the meeting in person.

·             Referring to the previous planning history and enforcement activity relating to the site concerns were also raised in relation to operation of the current facility on the site, which had included the installation of a Gazebo/tent within the rear courtyard following enforcement action to remove the previous unauthorised extension and associated noise, smell, disturbance and fire risk.  Concerns were also highlighted in relation to the impact which the small window proposed within the application for the new rear extension would have in terms of noise and odour.

·             As a result of the concerns outlined, Councillor Nerva urged the Committee to either reject the application or ensure that specific conditions were imposed regulating the hours of operation, use of window and waste collection arrangements to minimise the detrimental impact on residents and the neighbouring amenity.

The Chair thanked Councillor Nerva for addressing the Committee.  As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask the officers any remaining questions or points of clarity in relation to the application, with the following being noted:

·             As an initial query, further assurance was sought in relation to the concerns raised around fire safety at the site.  In response, members were advised that the previous site had an unauthorised extension, which was poorly built and had been removed following enforcement action.  The current application was seeking approval of the construction of a new brick built rear extension, which had been designed to meet building regulations and was assessed to have met the requirements in relation to fire safety within Policy D12a of the London Plan.

·             In response to further details being sought on refuse and waste management, members were advised that use of the building as a restaurant represented a lawful use of the site.  From a planning perspective any concerns relating to nuisance arising from operational use of the premises would therefore be matters for consideration by Environmental Health with the current application only relating to the erection of the rear extension and flue.

·             In seeking further assurance regarding the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring residential amenities along with character and appearance of the designated Conservative Areas members were advised that the proposed extension, given its matching brickwork, modest bulk and scale and subservient relationship with the host and neighbouring buildings was not considered to introduce harm to the character and appearance of the Queens Park Conservation Area (QPRA).  In view of the limited visibility of the proposed extension from street vantages, this element of the proposal was also not considered to prejudice the setting and character of the Kensal Rise Conservation Area.  Whilst noting that the external flue would be visible from neighbouring properties within the QPRA the harm caused as a result was felt to be less than-substantial as it would only have an impact on a localised part of the QPCA.  When considering the operation of the site and the benefits of the unit being occupied by a use that would contribute towards the viability and vitality of the Town Centre this was considered to provide a public benefit that would outweigh the limited harm to the Conservation Area.  The rear extension and side canopy were also considered to sufficiently comply with design policies without compromising neighbouring amenity or the setting of the conservation area.

·             In terms of concerns relating to noise and odour members were advised that whilst Environmental Health officers had advised that there had been previous noise complaints made in relation to the premises regarding the use of the rear courtyard these were not be regarded as material planning considerations relating to the current application as they were not relevant to the operation of the mechanical plant or the extraction system.  The applicant had also submitted an odour assessment and advised that the installation would include carbon filtration with an odour extraction system to be installed in line with guidance on odour from commercial kitchens.  Additional mitigation measures had also been recommended in the form of a pre-filter/panel filter, or an electrostatic precipitator installed before the carbon filtration system supported by conditions in relation to noise and vibration which it was felt would also help to mitigate against any concerns regarding the impact on neighbouring amenities.

·             Additional clarification was provided in relation to the design of the proposed extension with it noted that the window would be side rather than rear facing.  Member also noted that as the gazebo which had been referred to was not classified as a permanent development structure the concerns raised in relation to its use would not be a matter falling within the remit of the Planning Committee.  It was, however, felt that the erection of a permanent extension may help to address some of the concerns identified regarding that use.  Similarly, confirmation was provided that concerns raised around the operating hours of the premises were not matters which could reasonably be addressed by conditions given the current application was not seeking to establish any new use.

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

DECISION

The Committee RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives detailed within the report.

(Voting on the above decision was as unanimous: For 8, Against 0 Abstentions 0).