Here we go again! Controversial plans for 7 Randall Avenue back at planning Committee tomorrow

 

The site in the garden behind 7 Randall Avenue

 The detailed plan

 

My some counts there have been 8 applications for building on the back garden of 7 Randall Avenue including refusals and appeals.The plans involve the demolition of a garage and 3 sheds on the site and the buidling of a 3 storey plus basement house,  It returns again to the Brent Planning Committee on Wednesday with officers arguing that changes made to the appealed application now makes it acceptable. 

 The 49 objectors registered on the planning portal so far would not agree. The officers claim that this is 23 individuals with soome posting multiple objections.

 Their case rests on changes made to the application, including bringing back a proposal for a basement:

 

In sometimes tortuous language the officers' report sets out their case:

  

[The last application was refused] by reason of its scale, bulk and design would result in a visually dominant, excessive development that is incongruous to the surrounding suburban locality.

 

This is contrary to policies DMP1 and BD1 of the Brent Local Plan.

 

[The Appeal Decision]  noted that even know (sic) the proposed dwelling under the appeal scheme would be in a similarly central location within the site to that as per the outline consent, that the overall scale and massing would be noticeably greater that the dwelling previously permitted, resulting in a prominent form of development in an area with an open character.

 

Both the Outline Consent (22/0175) which has now expired as well as the dismissed appeal scheme (23/1875) had a similar layout to the proposed scheme, in that access was from Randall Avenue and the siting of the buildings were broadly central within the site.

 

Although it is clear that the proposal would not be identical to the main typology within the adjacent Homestead Conservation Area (HCA) or the common two-storey, semi-detached form found elsewhere in the immediate vicinity, the overall roofscape, bulk, scale and form of the proposed building is not considered to be out-of-place to the detriment of the established character, when it would be viewed from surrounding vantage points.

 

Furthermore, the roof forms of closest building to the application site forming its immediate context have sufficient variations for the proposed roof not to appear out of place or overly prominent. For the same reasons and given the limited views from public vantages and separation distance, the proposal would not result in harm to the setting of the HCA and the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the HCA .

 

In summary, although the footprint would be larger than the outline consent and the dismissed appeal, the increase is not considered significant, particularly given the citing (sic) and separation to boundaries. This taken with the revised roof form (similar to the outline scheme) and the reduction in height compared to both the outline and dismissed appeal is such that the proposed development is not considered to result in adverse harm to the character and appearance of the site or surrounding area.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan and adopted Supplementary Planning Documents, having regard to all material planning considerations, and the application should be approved subject to conditions.

 

Weight has been given to the planning history, including the dismissed appeal scheme as a material planning consideration.

 

It is considered that this scheme has overcome the previous reasons for the dismissed appeal. 

The proposal would deliver one family sized home and would contribute modestly towards Brent’s housing targets.

 

A late supplementary report has been submitted dealing with a challenge to the applicant's claim that this is a self-build project and therefore exempt from some conditions.  LINK