From Draycott Avenue
From the back garden of the property
UPDATE Neighbouring householder and opposite householder spoke against the development. A condition was added that raised number of trees to be planted to replace those taken away should be 22. Argued that this would help screen the building. Only one Planning Committee member voted against and that was Cllr Kennelly. His reasons were that there was insufficient family housing in the development (and that was what Brent needed) and the the ceilings were too low and below planning guidelines.
A planning application to demolish a detached 2 storey 5- bedroomed family house in Draycott Avenue, Kenton will be decided by Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday evening.
The application has some similarities to the controversial Queen's Walk planning application where a block of flats has replaced a detached house. This application proposes 9 residential units:
3 2 bedroomed units at market rent
2 2 bedroomed units for market sale
4 1 bedroomed units for market sale
The cost of the build is estimated at £2million
All commentss on the application are objections from near neighbours. When the Queen's Walk application was approved some objectors felt this would make way for more such applications as developers could buy up such properies and erect blocks of flats turning a handsome profit.
This comment on the planning portal is similar to several others:
We have recently received the notice of 1 Draycott Avenue's proposal to demolish the existing dwelling house and erect a part four-storey apartment block providing 9X self-contained flats with associated car parks.
We unequivocally object to this planning for the reasons outlined below.
Impact of the proposal on our personal property:
1. The development would greatly impact our privacy, especially as it has a roof terrace. The occupants of these proposed flats will have direct visual access to the surrounding gardens, which violates their privacy and introduces concerns about safety. The majority of the surrounding residents are elderly and they use their private gardens as a "safe" place for relaxing and enjoying quiet time. All of the residents have agreed this would be an invasion of their privacy, with the flats overlooking their gardens. Not only will this have a severe impact on mental health but it will now limit the time spent in their own private spaces because of this proposed plan.
2. The proposed designs also indicate a number of side windows which look directly onto our property. Whilst the windows are "opaque" according to the designs, when opened, the occupants will have direct visual access into our property without any obstructions. This issue is further exacerbated due to our plans to extend over our existing garage, which we have put an application for. Therefore the development will be severely invading our privacy.
3. The proposed four storey development is not only much taller than any of the existing residential properties in the area but it is completely out of character of the existing dwellings. Due to the completely different design of the proposal, not only does this reduce the views from the current properties, it is overbearing and reduces the outlook of our own property This would therefore make the property taller than our property and impact our views. Also, the design of the property is completely out of character of ours and the surrounding properties outlook. This development would be extremely detrimental and reduce the outlook of our property and is completely overbearing.
4 The designs shows there is cycle parking adjacent to our fence. This would also cause disturbances on our quiet enjoyment of our garden.
Many of the above points directly contravene Article 8 of our Human Rights Act 1998, clearly impacting aspects of our private, family and home life. This act (protocol 1, article 1) clearly states that we have the right to enjoy our property peacefully. The lack of privacy and increased noise from extra residents both prevent this from happening.
With regards to concerns affecting the general area:
5 This is a purely residential street with single families living there. This proposal would change the character of this part of the street significantly and greatly impact those living around it.
6 The area has already had previous issues with noise and disturbances. In fact, the owners of 1 Draycott Avenue themselves have reported the noise and disturbances to the local police and council in the past. The more intensive use of the site would no doubt increase the noise and disturbance purely from the multiple increased number of residents.
7. The property itself backs onto a conservation area. Building a large set of flats will be of great detriment to the existing wildlife that is present and also be completely out of character of the existing conservation area.
8. The property design indicates that there is cladding on the outside. We are all well aware of the disaster that occurred in Grenfell. Due to this tragic incident, the cladding and fire safety measures are currently being reviewed and there is much uncertainty about what is deemed safe. This building would therefore be a fire hazard to those within the property and those around. Especially the fact that the property backs on to a conservation area, this could be a disastrous problem. - I'm not sure this is a good point - they will put the new fire safe cladding
9. The design indicates that there are only 7 parking spots for the property (6 for the tenants and 1 visitor parking), despite 9 flats being developed. The area already has noise and parking issues. The lack of parking for each of the flats would mean the residents of the development would need to find street parking in the surrounding area, as well as any parking for their guests. This would greatly increase the noise and parking issues many of the local residents are already facing.
10. There are balconies shown at the front of the property designs. This would also impact the privacy of the opposing houses, as the occupants of the development would be able to sit and view into the opposing houses at leisure, therefore impinging on Article 8 of their Human Rights. The balconies are also clearly spoiling the outlook and character of the entire street and are totally inappropriate.
11. The increased use of Drayton Waye will be a safety hazard. This road is used by many families and young children who cross to go to school daily. There have already been multiple instances of accidents and near misses - the increased use of Drayton Waye would significantly increase this risk and put many lives at risk.
Finally and most importantly: Most of the surrounding residents have owned and lived in their homes for many decades, brought up their families, and enjoyed the quiet residential area. This new development is completely out of keeping with the existing dwellings and as outlined above completely destroys the character, privacy, and safety of the existing properties.
All of the residents have agreed this is an absolutely selfish act to monetise a plot of land that will ultimately drive out families that have been living in the area for many generations.
Planning Officers consider the objections in their report LINK and recommend that the Committee approve the application.
The Brent Heritage Officer considered the impact on the nearby Northwick Circle Conservation Area:
The applicant has provided a heritage statement which identifies the potential impacts on the nearby Conservation area. This identifies areas where the development would be most visible from within the Conservation Area. Heritage England have been consulted on the application and raised no objections.
The Council’s Heritage Officer has viewed the submitted Heritage Statement and the wider scheme and considers that the development is a reasonable distance away from the Conservation Area and is mostly screened by trees along nearby boundaries. It would not be highly visible from the most significant focal point of the conservation area and is of a similar scale to nearby developments. As such, the proposal would not result in harm to the nearby Northwick Circle Conservation Area.
4 comments:
If planning officers can recommend, and most committee members accept, a development with ceilings that are lower than permitted design standards, what next?
Brent's catalogue of breaches to planning policy increases all the time!
What was the internal room height, and what is the permitted height?
From the Planning Officers' report:
It is acknowledged that the floor-to-ceiling height would be 2.45m for the flats on the Ground-2nd floors and 2.4m for the 3rd Floor. This would fall short of the 2.5m required for 75% of the GIA required by Policy D6 of the London Plan. However, the shortfall would be very minor and the layout of the flats overall is considered to be good. Additionally, any raising of the height of the building to accommodate these changes would result in a potential breach of the 30 and 45 degree rules. On balance, this shortfallis not considered to be sufficient grounds to refuse permission.
So planning officers allowed one breach of the rules to avoid another breach of the rules!
If the proposed building would be too high with correct ceiling heights, surely the response should be 'make it one storey lower.'
Post a Comment