Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)  The conditions and informatives, as set out in the main and updated within the supplementary committee report.

PROPOSAL

Variation of condition 2, development built in accordance with approved drawings/documents (internal and external alterations to layout, heights, footprint, ground levels, fenestration and lightwells of dwellinghouse, addition of attached water tank storage and detached bin and cycle storages, alterations to front boundary treatment, soft and hard landscaping, and arrangement of photovoltaic panels to main roof, removal of green roofs) of full planning permission 14/2952 dated 14/11/2014, for the demolition of existing office to builders' yard and erection of a 3 bedroom, three storey (including basement) dwellinghouse erection of a boundary treatment and associated hard and soft landscaping (RevisedDescription).

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolved to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out within the committee report.

Parag Dhanani (Career Grade Planning Officer) introduced the report, advising members that the application site was located within a central area of Lydford Road within the Mapesbury Conservation Area. Planning permission had been granted for the construction of a new dwelling house on the site in 2014. Whilst the dwelling house had been constructed within the site, it had not been built in accordance with the approved plans. There was an active enforcement notice in relation to the unauthorised development. The application proposed the variation of condition 2 requiring development to be built accordance with the approved drawings of the originally consented application to include changes such as internal and external alterations to layout, heights, footprint, ground levels, fenestration and lightwells of dwellinghouse, addition of attached water tank storage and detached bin and cycle storages, alterations to front boundary treatment, soft and hard landscaping, and arrangement of photovoltaic panels to main roof, removal of green roofs.

Attention was also drawn to the supplementary report circulated in advance of the meeting, which outlined minor amendments to the committee report, and related specifically to the receipt of a revised set of proposed drawings showing the correct appearance of the proposed front boundary treatment for consistency. Drawing reference numbers had also been updated within the draft decision notice to reflect the revised submitted information. Furthermore, two additional objections had been received since the issue of the committee report with matters raised that had been covered within the report, including a repeat objection from a previous representee and a briefing paper from a local resident and representative of the Mapesbury Residents Association (MAPRA). The recommendation remained to grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives as set out within the main and updated within the supplementary committee report. Officers presented slides taken from the drawing pack to illustrate the proposed plans.

The Chair thanked Parag Dhanani for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then moved on to consider a request which had been received to speak on the application and invited Darren Stewart (who had registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• The objector began by stating that the current “as built” development, which included a reduction in the height of the flank wall in 2022, had been consistently refused planning permission, once by the Planning Inspectorate and twice by the Council.

• The speaker referred to previous reports, quoting the Planning Inspector’s report which stated that “the resulting dwelling has a discordant appearance which detracts from and therefore neither preserves nor enhances the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.”

• The speaker further cited the 2023 delegated report, which concluded that “it is not considered that the additional 3 centimetre reduction would address the previously raised concerns nor would it overcome the identified harm.”

• Reference was also made to the 2024 delegated report, which stated that “the reduction in height does not overcome the overly bulky and obtrusive form identified at appeal.”

• The speaker acknowledged that the most recent Planning Inspector’s report must be weighed as a material consideration but emphasised that this single view, which was an opinion rather than a decision, should not outweigh the detailed determinations previously made by both the Council and the original Planning Inspector in 2020, all of which concluded that the development caused harm to the Conservation Area.

• The objector asserted that the Committee was under no legal or professional obligation to follow the 2024 Planning Inspector’s view. It was noted that in 2023, despite the Planning Inspector specifically stating that the building with the reduced flank wall should be refused, the Council had allowed the application, demonstrating that the Inspector’s view, where not legally binding, was a matter to be weighed but not necessarily followed.

• In summary, the speaker stated that the Council or the Planning Inspectorate had assessed this exact development on three occasions and refused planning permission each time.  The speaker urged the Committee to refuse the proposal again, as had been done previously, noting that nothing had changed since the earlier refusals and that the development continued to harm the Conservation Area.

• The speaker highlighted strong local opposition, explaining that the development had been constructed behind plastic sheeting and was met with universal disapproval when unveiled. Following its unveiling, residents of Mapesbury had faced a continual stream of appeals and retrospective applications, including the deletion of the first retrospective application in 2023, which had attracted approximately 100 objections.

• Although ‘objection fatigue’ had set in, the speaker confirmed that local residents and the Mapesbury Residents Association remained unanimously opposed to the development because of the harm it caused to the Conservation Area. The speaker expressed frustration that, in an area where residents were required to adhere to strict controls over minor details of their own properties, it was unacceptable that this building, which had repeatedly and correctly been refused permission, might be allowed to remain through a process of attrition and the erosion of the Council’s resolve.

• In concluding the response, the objector concluded by urging the Committee to remain consistent with previous decisions and to refuse permission for the development.

The Chair thanked Darren Stewart for addressing the Committee and invited members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented, with the following being noted:

• The Chair noted that matters could deviate from policy and that the Committee were required to weigh whether any deviation created substantial harm. It was questioned, other than the visual impact of the proposed development, what substantial harm would be caused to the objector and neighbouring residents. In response, the objector stated that the Council had determined on multiple occasions that the development caused harm and did not conform with policy. Darren Stewart referred to the established policy test that a building should sit below the 45 degree building envelope measured from a height of 2 meters above the boundary. It was felt that the current structure exceeded that envelope, whereas the original 2014 proposal had not. It was further stated that the building dominated and overlooked adjoining gardens, enabled direct views into neighbouring houses, and appeared out of place within the Conservation Area.

As there were no further Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then moved on to consider an additional request which had been received to speak on the application and invited Doug Brodie (who had also registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• The objector stated that the application site adjoined their garden. The speaker and their spouse had owned their property since 1990 and had raised their family there.

• It was noted that the new building directly overlooked their garden and had a direct line of sight into rear windows of their home, including the sitting room and dining room. The speaker contended that this was a direct consequence of the height of the new building.

• The speaker explained that the gardens between Teignmouth Road and St Gabriels Road backed onto each other and were approximately 100 feet in length each, providing a total separation of 200 feet between the houses. The new building had effectively reduced this distance by half, fundamentally altering privacy. The speaker contended that with a combined separation of 200 feet the houses on Teignmouth Road and St Gabriels Road could not ordinarily see one another because the tree lines between the gardens were sufficiently high to provide privacy. By bringing the new building substantially closer to the boundary and effectively building on the border of these gardens, the relative height had been raised to the extent that no trees were tall enough to maintain privacy. The speaker felt that higher the building, the worse the loss of privacy became.

• It was further stated that the application was the latest in a series of applications in which directions and approvals issued by Brent Planning had been ignored.

• It was noted that Mapesbury was designated a Conservation Area in 1982 and argued that it could only remain so if the planning restrictions authored by Brent were enforced. The objector expressed concern that the building in question had been given approval despite being in direct contradiction to many elements of Brent Planning’s Area Design Guide.

• The speaker reported that residents of Mapesbury had overwhelmingly supported Brent Planning’s conservation guidance for the area, which was evidenced by a continual pattern of active objections to planning submissions concerning development at the site.

• The objector additionally stated that the initial application had been submitted by an architect on the basis of needing a family home and that, once approved, the site had been sold. The speaker asserted that the subsequent owner had constructed the building using labour housed in a wooden hut built on the site without permission on which the Planning Inspectorate were aware. The Planning Inspectorate upheld the enforcement notice dated 11 October 2021.

The Chair thanked Doug Brodie for addressing the Committee and invited members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented, with the following being noted:

• As an initial query, members questioned whether, if development were to take place on the site, the objector would accept any form of development and what character of building he would consider appropriate. In response, the objector stated that Mapesbury had been built between 1895 and 1905 and that the design guidelines had been prepared by Brent Planning in support of the original designation of the Conservation Area. Doug Brodie noted that, when the proposal had been described to the Mapesbury Residents Association (MAPRA) as a modern interpretation of the guidelines, members had considered this approach incompatible with conservation, which was predicated on maintaining established architectural features rather than reinterpreting them in a contemporary manner. It was also stated that, although the building had now been permitted and constructed, the principal issue was that Conservation Area status was rendered ineffective unless enforcement action was taken promptly and consistently. It was highlighted that further sites within the Mapesbury estate were coming forward and that the maintenance of the Conservation Area rested with the planning department at Brent. It was further added that, if enforcement could not be maintained due to resource constraints, the Council should state this openly. It was additionally noted that the case had been ongoing since 2014 and that the property had remained vacant. Doug Brodie referred to the location plan, which showed large rear gardens with the building appearing out of place within that context. It was observed that the building had a flat roof within a Conservation Area and it was suggested that any new building should reflect the prevailing character and appearance of surrounding properties.

• The Chair observed that when Conservation Areas and other plans had been designated in the 1980s, the present housing crisis could not have been fully anticipated. It was stated that developments involving building within gardens were being approved in other wards in Brent and that a single area could not be exempted from an approach applied elsewhere. The Chair summarised the two principal strands of objection. The first was that there should be no building at all and that the land should remain as garden. The second was that some development might be acceptable, but that the current proposal was too large, of the wrong design, and not in keeping with the area. The Chair asked the objector which position he favoured. In response, the objector stated that, while he personally considered that the land should remain garden and had lived there for 35 years, he recognised that arguing for no development at all would be futile given the planning history. It was stated that the site location was inappropriate for the current building form and suggested that, if permission were to be approved, the Council should return to the parameters of the original consent. It was further noted that the building had been deliberately designed at an overscale by the architect. Doug Brodie raised a rhetorical question around whether Brent Planning would set a clear precedent that, in a contentious Conservation Area location, the minimum expectation was that any developer should adhere to the lines and parameters previously approved.

The Chair thanked Doug Brodie for responding to the Committee’s queries and 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:

• In advising the Committee on the weight that should be given to the most recent appeal decision when determining the application, Paul Weeks (Senior Planning Lawyer) stated that the last appeal had been dismissed primarily due to the provision of a parking space at the front and related landscaping matters. It was reported that, in respect of design, the Inspector had differentiated the findings from the previous appeal by reference to additional evidence submitted at the later stage. It was noted that, without that information, it would have been difficult for the previous Inspector to conclude that the design was unacceptable. It was further advised that the design had effectively already been considered by an Inspector and that the sole reason for dismissal at the most recent appeal concerned the parking and landscaping issues rather than design. It was concluded that the existence of this appeal decision represented a significant material consideration and that departing from the Inspector’s findings could have repercussions in the event of a further appeal. Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) additionally noted that the application had been referred to Committee due to the number of objections received and had therefore not been determined under delegated authority.

• The Chair questioned how much flexibility members had when determining the application in view of the legal advice provided. In response, David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) explained that members were required to have regard to all material considerations, including previous decisions on the application and particularly any appeal decisions relating to comparable development on the site. It was advised that decision makers could consider whether information not available to a previous Inspector was now available and whether such information might have led that Inspector to reach a different conclusion. The Committee were reminded that the Council had refused planning permission and that the subsequent appeal had been dismissed, following an earlier dismissal on a previous refusal. Attention was drawn to the most recent Inspector’s report, which noted the earlier Inspector’s conclusion that a reduction in the building height would not overcome the identified harm to the Conservation Area. The more recent Inspector stated that the absence of contextual analysis informed by robust evidence would have made it difficult for the earlier Inspector to conclude otherwise than that the dwelling was not appropriate for its context. Having reviewed evidence that had not been before the earlier Inspector, the more recent Inspector was satisfied that the concerns regarding dominance in the street scene by virtue of height and massing had been addressed. It was confirmed that the current submission did not contain additional information that would lead officers to a different conclusion in relation to their recommendation on this application. It was therefore advised that significant weight should be afforded to the more recent Inspector’s view in respect of the relevant aspects of the scheme.

• Members questioned whether any guidance had been provided from the Conservation Officer. In response, Parag Dhanani (Career Grade Planning Officer) confirmed that the Conservation Officer had been consulted. It was reported that the Conservation Officer had considered the proposal to be of contemporary design and that the assessment provided by planning officers was sufficient in this case.

• Following on from the precious question, members queried when the Conservation Guide, originally written in the period around 1895, had last been updated. In response, Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) clarified that the Guide had been updated in 2018. It was clarified that the Conservation Officer’s comments referred to the first application that had been approved. Members were informed that the Planning Inspector had undertaken a heritage assessment and applied the relevant statutory tests for decision making within a Conservation Area. Following that assessment, officers had considered what differences needed to be made to address matters identified in the appeal decision as unacceptable.

• Assurance was sought that the Conservation Officer considered the scheme to meet the 2018 guidance. In response, Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) confirmed that this was correct and further stated that the required test assessing whether the proposal resulted in harm within the Conservation Area had been applied and that the proposal met those tests. Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) additionally advised that in the previous appeal decision in 2024 the Inspector had concluded that the scheme was compliant with Brent’s Local Plan, specifically policies DNP1 and BHC1. It was reported that the Inspector’s conclusions included that the scheme sought to conserve and enhance the significant heritage asset and required the developer to complement the locality and contribute to local distinctiveness.

DECISION

Having consider the application, the Committee RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to:

(1)  The conditions and informatives, as set out in the main and updated within the supplementary committee report.

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: 4 in favour of granting planning permission, 1 in favour of refusal and 1 abstention).