Agenda item
205 Church Road, London, NW10 9EP Ref. 13/1098)
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to amended conditions 9, 11 and 25, the removal of condition 7, informatives, 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: Demolition of 205 Church Road and proposal of new market square to replace Eric Road. Demolition of 3 storey building to the rear of 203 Church Road and proposal of 34 residential dwellings and ground floor non-residential space (class A1/A3/B1/D1). Stopping up of Eric Road. |
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to informatives, 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. |
Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager, drew members’ attention to additional responses to the consultation and officers responses to them. He explained that the delivery of the market square was integral to the regeneration benefits of the development which the Council wanted to ensure was not hindered by any third party matters. He continued that following the publication of the Committee report, a sustainability checklist had been submitted by the agent which set out that the scheme score was 50%. Officers had highlighted some areas in which further clarification and minor amendments may be required to ensure that this target was achieved in practice. Officers were confident that amendments can be made to ensure that the applicant put in measures to ensure that a 50% score was attained, in order to comply with the terms set out in the legal agreement attached to any planning permission for the proposal
The Area Planning Manager then clarified the issue of access to the parking spaces within the northern section of the car park via the area that would be occupied by the market square. He added that whilst in officers’ view it would be acceptable for access to the spaces via the market square to continue in the short term, Catalyst Housing Group, the owners of the private car park, proposed to provide controlled access for vehicles over the market square from the proposed parking area adjacent to Church Road. In addition, lockable bollards would be erected at the northern end of the parking area to prevent unauthorised vehicles from entering the mainly pedestrianised market square whilst allowing Catalyst employees controlled access to the private car-park. It was anticipated that Catalyst Housing Group would re-develop the site in the future, but until then officers did not consider that continued access to the private car park would unacceptably hinder the function of the space for use as a market square or as a pedestrianised space. In the event that the market square was built prior to any re-development of the Catalyst car park, a construction management plan which would set out how the means of construction would be carried out without any significant encroachment over the market square area shall be required as part of any subsequent grant of planning permission. In re-affirming the recommendation for a section 106 approval, Andy Bates drew members’ attention to amended conditions 9, 11 and 25 and the removal of condition 7 as set out in the tabled supplementary report.
Mr Ankram objected to the proposed development on the grounds that due to its height, it would result in loss of light, loss of privacy and a detrimental impact on his business which he operated from 203 Church Road.
Mr Aslam also raised objections to the proposed development on the grounds that it would result in a detrimental impact on his business particularly his storage facilities and would thus result in loss of family income.
Mr Alex Ely, the applicant’s agent stated that the proposal to build 34 new homes would be a significant improvement on the currently blighted site. He added that the development would make use of quality and robust materials to provide a development with private amenity spaces, better storage facilities for the market stall holders which would mitigate fly tipping whilst enhancing the functions of the square.
In response to members’ questions, Mr Ely stated that eight pay and display car parking spaces would be provided to overcome the current irregular parking situation which was mainly for long stay parking. He continued that the area was accessible to good public transport facilities with level 4 PTAL rating. He also clarified that extensive consultation with all interested parties including the market’s management company was carried out during design and development stages of the proposal and that their suggested amendments were incorporated. Mr Ely added that the development would provide one affordable housing unit.
Andy Bates then submitted the following responses to members’ queries: In excess of 500 consultation letters were sent out to residents and business owners in addition to press and site notices. Delivery and servicing plan would be agreed in advance of occupation of the units or the operation of the market and would be secured as part of the section 106 legal agreement. In accordance with the scheme’s viability assessment submitted in support of the application, no more than one affordable housing unit proposed could be reasonably delivered as part of the residential scheme. In the circumstances, it was appropriate to relax the 50% affordable housing unit requirement usual for such applications.
Chris Walker, Assistant Director of Planning and Development added that the Council consulted widely on its vision for Church End in drawing up measures to attract inward investment into the area. He continued that the London Development Framework (LDF) had site specific proposals for market site which included mixed, residential and market uses. He noted that the single affordable housing unit being offered was a departure from the norm. However the difficult current market conditions meant the viability of the scheme would suffer if the Council insisted on a higher figure. The Assistant Director confirmed that in officers’ view, the right balance between affordable housing and viability had been struck.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended subject to amended conditions 9, 11 and 25, the removal of condition 7, and informatives. |
Supporting documents: