The development site
A controversial planning application will be heard at Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday which received some vociferous opposition at the Outline stage. The application is on reserved matters for the plan to build on the garden at the rear of 7 Randall Avenue in Dollis Hill:
The application relations to the grassed area to the rear of No.7 Randall Avenue. The application site slopes to the south, and currently forms part of the garden to No.7 Randall Avenue. The application site has a shared driveway with the adjacent dwelling to the north, No.9 Randall Avenue.
Ten individuals have submitted objections some of which are multiple. Not mentioned in the officers' report is a Change petition 'Brent Council must reject all plans to approve a private car park and HMO on Randall Avenue, NW2' LINK.
Front view of development
Extract from an Objector's comment:
I am writing to formally object to the planning application submitted by Mr. Teixeira for the development of the 1.5 storey building right behind my house, based on outline permission 22/0175. This objection is rooted in significant concerns that must be addressed and the risk are too high associated for this planned building.
The proposed development poses a serious risk of land movement and potential
landslides due to its location on a higher part of the hill, directly above our
home at 98 Dollis Hill Avenue. Any disturbance to the hillside could result in
structural damage to our property and neighbouring homes. We already face
issues with soil instability, and new construction on the muddy,
water-saturated ground significantly increases the risk of landslides. The loss
of soil cohesion and added weight from construction could exacerbate this,
leading to dangerous consequences for the entire area. Who will take
responsibility for the damage if this occurs-the council or the developer?
Additionally, the underground parking proposed on conserved land poses serious
environmental and noise concerns. Not only would it disrupt the green space and
natural extension of Gladstone Park into our gardens, but it would also
increase noise pollution and vibrations from vehicle engines, causing a loss of
tranquillity in our outdoor spaces. There is a strong possibility of structural
damage to nearby properties over time due to these vibrations, especially
considering the already unstable soil in the area.
Further, the introduction of more cars and the associated air pollution from
exhaust emissions will have detrimental effects on the air quality in our
gardens and could harm the local flora and fauna, not to mention the long-term
health risks for residents. The character of this quiet, modest area will be
forever altered by a luxury development overlooking our gardens and the tenants
looking into our houses, bringing increased noise, traffic, and a social divide
that could push long-term residents out of the neighbourhood.
Finally, issues of overshadowing, loss of privacy, and increased traffic
congestion must be thoroughly examined. The scale and design of the development
are out of character with the local architecture, and the shared driveway
arrangement raises legal concerns. This is an area built for tranquillity and a
naturally grown community that enjoys nature and privacy, and the proposed
development threatens that balance.
I strongly urge the Planning Committee to reconsider this application in light of the risks posed to neighbouring properties, the environment, and the community. The potential impact on our safety, quality of life, and local infrastructure is too great to ignore.
Thank you for your consideration
Residents' experience of Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMOs) is raised in the petition and some objections. Planning officers respond:
The development as granted by the outline planning permission seeks to erect a new, self-contained dwellinghouse to the rear of No.7 Randall Ave. Functionally, the proposed dwellinghouse forms a separate planning unit to the premises at No.7 Randall Ave. There is no evidence to suggest that a new home would result in increased anti-social behaviour.
The use of 7 Randall Avenue had previously been investigated by the Planning Enforcement Team and found to be lawfully operating as a small HMO with a licence. This had been happening prior to the Article 4 direction, which prevents the change of use to small HMO's within Brent without planning permission.
Any change of use into a 'large' HMO of a sui generis nature beyond the threshold of Use Class C4 would express necessitate planning permission anyways. (sic)
There is sufficient control in place that would prevent the proposed dwellinghouse to be converted into an HMO without express planning permission.
The Planning Officrs' recommend the Planning Committee approve the application LINK.
6 comments:
If there is a shared driveway, perhaps there may even be legal grounds to object (depending on the legal position of the shared driveway). Planning permission does not change legality so that may be something for there objectors to explore.
Planning Officers say "There is sufficient control in place that would prevent the proposed dwellinghouse to be converted into an HMO without express planning permission" BUT...
wasn't their similar argument that the restrictive covenant on the two ex park keepers houses in Barham Park would mean that development could NOT take place even with planning permission and didn't Brent Council then agree to remove that covenant!!!😡
how interesting that planning officers think that "there is no evidence to suggest that a new home would result in increased anti-social behaviour." Neighbours continually complained about 7 Randalls waste management, fly tipping incidents, noise and disturbance, and the anti social hostile threatening behaviour by the applicant who is also a known dodgy landlord. The mopeds , the dusty vans, the array of random Brazilians on noisy scooters mopeds and bikes , the revolving door of that property, the additional drug dealing from his tenants, and the home office enforcement team visiting 7 randall, and another of Brent "Sui generis" at 1 Randall, removing and detaining individuals supplied by Mr Teixeira, endorsed by Brent, and Brent think this is not harmful to the local community who for the most part try to look out for each other and have been complaining about this consistently? Brent staff are absolute morons and Brent is going to hell with this administration. What you can look forward to in this borough is further exploitation, over crowding, overdevelopment, pigeon coop grey and brown brick tower blocks , bulldozing green spaces ,all laws and policy being breached, covenants being broken, ...and maybe another plaque of "Butthead" like the one he put in Gladstone park with the ex mayor , maybe he can put a statue of himself in the neasden development seeing as they are so keen on regenerating that area?? nice one Brent you dont listen to the community til its too late.
Vote Labour out at the next local elections!
And what about the neighbour who has their shared driveway turned into a “road” for access? How would fire engines etc get up there. And where would the sewage etc from the houses go? Plans say “drain off!!”
Edited comment received to comply with guidelines: Privatised tyranny on an all time high. It seems that Brent council may be complicit with [ ] for opportunistic financial self-interest. Aren't the mere facts, that trying to pass approval during the transitions of sales to avoid objections as well as rejections by multiple owners of no7 and the community would make this illegal? Meddling with shared access also raises a variety of legal and ethical issues for health, safety and access of services for all surrounding homes
Post a Comment