Agenda item
Former Willesden New Social Club, Rucklidge Avenue, London NW10 4PX (Ref. 13/0507)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday 17 April 2013 7.00 pm (Item 5.)
- View the background to item 5.
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to 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 and Procurement.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Erection of a four and five storey building accommodating 22 flats, ground floor A1 and/or D1 floor space and retention of electricity sub-station.
RECOMMENDATION:
(a) Grant planning permission subject to conditions and to an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 details section of this report, or
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager drew members’ attention to the issues raised at the site visit and additional objections raised by Councillors Powney and Hector. He stated that majority of the concerns expressed by residents including issues relating to the cantilevered section and minor alterations to the massing had been dealt with in the main report. Andy Bates continued that Transportation Officers had confirmed that any disabled resident could apply for an on-street parking bay to be provided. In respect of the proposed height of the building, he stated that information submitted with the application confirmed that at its highest point the proposed development would be no higher than the “Design Works” building on the opposite side of Rucklidge Avenue.
Andy Bates clarified that the top floor of the proposed development would be set away from the edge of the building (by 3.3 metres on Rucklidge Avenue elevation) so that the eaves of the new flatted block would actually be 2.7 metres below the height of Design Works. In terms of congestion, he reiterated that the scheme would be "car free" and coupled with existing parking controls, would safeguard parking amenity of the area during peak hours. In addition, the ground floor commercial unit would have its own dedicated servicing bay.
Rita Taylor in objection to the proposal raised the following concerns:
· Due to its overhang on Park Parade, the scheme would be overbearing and out of character with the streetscene.
· Due to its excessive height, the proposed building would fail to integrate with the properties on Rucklidge Avenue
· With small balconies which would fail to meet standards, the scheme would provide poor levels of amenity to future occupiers.
Rita Taylor urged members to refuse the current application and request the applicant to re-submit a scheme with an amended design.
Ian Britton, Chair of Rucklidge Avenue Residents’ Association (RARA), in objecting to the proposed development, raised the following issues:
· The development, which would be forward of the building lines, would be over-intensive and visually overbearing.
· The size, bulk and massing of the proposed development would be out of character with the properties in the area.
· It would represent an intensive development with dense design and poor level of internal amenity.
· The cantilevered design would be out of character with properties in the area and conflict with the guidelines set out in the Mayor of London’s London Plan.
· With small balconies and only 2 out of 22 flats having rear gardens, the development would provide inadequate amenity space for the residents.
· Despite being a car free development (with no on-site parking facilities) within a controlled parking zone, the scheme would add to traffic congestion as Rucklidge Avenue was 100% fully parked.
· Residents were not re-consulted about the scheme.
Mr Britton alleged that the previous application for the site was granted planning consent based on inaccurate information. He therefore urged members to refuse the current application to enable the applicant to discuss the issues raised by residents.
In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Hector, ward member, stated that she had been approached by local residents. Councillor Hector raised objections to the application on the following grounds:
· The bulk of the proposed building would be out of proportion with the surrounding area and constitute an over-development of the site.
· The full impact of the development particularly the health and safety aspects of the electricity substation had not been assessed by the applicant.
· The building would constitute a visibility hazard for traffic and pedestrians because of its excessive height.
· Increased scale and massing of the building would adversely impact on neighbouring amenity.
· Poor lighting in the area would encourage anti-social behaviour around the site.
Mark Pender, the applicant’s agent, stated that design changes were made to the scheme to enable the development to be built above the electricity sub-station and cantilevered to allow floor space. He added that as the differences between this and the previous application that was granted consent were marginal, it was not considered necessary to re-consult with residents. In addressing concerns about traffic, the agent stated that the development would be “car free” and easily accessible to public transport network with a good PTAL rating of 6.
In addressing the views expressed by the objectors, the agent stated that the scheme was well designed to blend in with the townscape and that its height would be lower than the Design House on the opposite side of the road. He added that the balconies would be identical to the extant scheme that was granted planning consent, drawing attention to the financial contribution for the Section 106 legal agreement.
The Area Planning Manager added that the cantilevered design would not encourage anti-social behaviour and in his view the application, incorporating a balanced building line, represented a quality scheme. He clarified that the scheme was revised in order to remove the overall mass over the electricity sub-station and not for health and safety reasons. He added that the consultation on the application complied with the normal approach to schemes of this nature.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended.
Supporting documents: