Agenda item
1-5 Opal Mews, London, NW6 (Ref.12/2292)
Decision:
Grant planning permission subject to conditions as amended in condition 7, an additional condition to demonstrate the self-containment of the residential and commercial uses within unit 5, 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.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Proposed change of use of upper floors to 5 residential units retaining B1
(office) at ground floors, erection of front dormer windows and replacement windows at ground and first floors, installation of 2 rear rooflights to unit 2, associated landscaping including soft landscaping and parking.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as amended in condition 7, an additional condition to demonstrate the self-containment of the residential and commercial uses within unit 5, 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.
With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager responded to the issues that were raised during the site visit. In addressing the relationship of the proposal with Aldershot Road, he stated that by positioning the main habitable parts of the units away from Aldershot Road noise impact would be limited and would thus not be detrimental to neighbouring residential amenities. He also referred to the conclusion reached by the Planning Inspector (under appeal reference 10/3274 for 8 self-contained flats which was refused) to support the view that the level of noise that would be produced would not be significant.
Andy Bates continued that although officers were satisfied that the parking spaces were accessible, further details of soft landscaping would be required. He also referred to additional representations received which largely supported the application and additional conditions as set out in the tabled supplementary report.
Mrs Joanna Manca, an objector expressed concerns about loss of privacy and increased noise generation which would result from the proposed development. She added the current use of the site for office (B1) did not interfere with residential amenities unlike the proposed development.
Mrs Beck in objecting stated that security of the neighbourhood would be compromised as it would become possible for anyone to jump over their garden fence and into their gardens. She also expressed concerns about worsening waste management at the site and highway safety as a result of increased movement of traffic.
Mr Mark Pender, the applicant’s agent in addressing the issues raised stated that the proposed development would improve the existing situation and protect the residential amenities including privacy. He added that overlooking would not result as the ground floor window would be obscure glazed and non-openable, the first floor skyline about 2.3m above floor level. Mr Pender continued that as the scheme would be gated and traffic controlled (unlike the existing situation), security and safety would be improved.
During question time, Councillor Daly sought from the agent evidence about the site being a crime hotspot and which could have impeded its marketing and employment use. Mr Pender stated that due to fly tipping and suspected drug taking at the site, the marketing response of the site since 2008 had been extremely poor. In response to Councillor Hashmi’s enquiry about distance from windows, the agent stated that the ground floor distance of 5metres and the first floor distance of 6metres to the outrigger would be maintained and that the windows would ne obscure glazed and non-openable.
The Chair invited the agent to comment on the issue of security, noise and landscaping. Mark Pender submitted that the boundary wall fronting Aldershot Road would be retained at approximately 3metres high and that the mix of soft communal amenities and hard landscaping as well as “green wall” would enhance residential amenities. He continued that the contractor had signed up to Considerate Construction Scheme (CCS) under a Section 106 legal agreement which would ensure that construction noise would be kept to the minimum.
In responding to members’ questions about on-site waste management, Andy Bates stated that the submitted drawings, showing clearly the area marked out for refuse collection, conformed to Brent’s waste management plan. He added that if it was felt desirable, he could seek additional details from Streetcare. He reiterated that condition 3 as set out in the main report sought to protect residential amenity. Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning recommended an additional condition to require details of separate residential and commercial waste management and amendment to condition 7 requiring details of boundary treatment to be agreed.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended subject to additional conditions to cover waste management and an amendment to condition 7 to include boundary treatment.
Supporting documents: