Fairfield Court, Longstone Avenue, Harlesden
The site
With potential building sites at a premium the strategy is to build high on small footprint sites. In Wembley this has been new towers but across the country it is becoming common for develpers to add extra storeys to existing buildings.
This is what is happening to the sequence of blocks making up Fairfield Court in Harlesden where the proposal to be heard at Planning Commitete on Wednesday May 10th is:
Proposed
two second floor extensions and third floor extension to create six new
self-contained dwellings including 4 rear dormer windows and new solar panel.
Construction of two rear access staircases
The
proposal would create additional floors to the building accommodating no’s 5-6
and 20-21 Fairfield Court increasing the height of the
building from two- to three-storeys. The other additional floor would be above no’s 7-12 and 14-19
block of units, increasing the height from 3 to 4-storeys. Accommodation would also be provided in the
roof of that block. The blocks would be composed to increase
from 2 to 3 and then 4-storeys with the taller blocks situated further into the site.
Planning officer are recommending that the application be approved.
Proposed structure - blue line is current height
The proposal has received 41 objections as recorded on the Brent Council Planning Portal, a 105 signature petition objecting to the plans and opposition for Cllr Jumbo Chan.
This objection is froma Fairfield House resident:
As a Fairfield Court
resident, I have several reasons to object to this planning application.
This proposal not only changes the original character of this charming purpose
built 1930s block but has a significant impact on the amount of light coming to
the flat.
Being on the ground floor and due to the new build opposite; the flat has
significantly lost light coming in. This would be exacerbated by this proposal.
One of the attractions of moving into this building was the garden and amount
of light. I already have a low level of sunlight into my living room- this is
going to be made much worse. The daylight report makes clear that windows to my
flat will be negatively and permanently impacted. To note, Fairfield suffers
from damp which will worsen if both height and the staircase is added.
The data within the report about Vertical Sky Component, and No SkyLine is
illegible. The conclusions are made that the impacts are not enough to reach
the threshold of concern. I cannot decipher or assess the illegible data.
However, the tables show that the development WILL negatively impact my flat.
Saying the threshold is 20% but the damage to my flat is only 18% seems
disingenuous and cruel. There is nothing to stop 18% sunlight being lost today
and further 18% being lost in the near future.
The proposed staircase and its footfall would be directly outside my living
room and bedroom. I would experience visual intrusion and a lack of privacy
into my sitting room and front bedroom. This is not only a visual intrusion but
also could add to anti-social behaviour. The space in which the proposed
staircase would go has previously been closed to stop antisocial behaviour.
This would overall have an overall negative impact on my quality of life and
wellbeing.
I see the proposal does not speak about the increased pressure that would be on
the communal garden which is well used by the number of children and families
living in the block.
For example, any new 'refuse storage' construction would mean we would have to
lose more of the front garden and possibly even the trees. With the proposed
'additional car and cycle parking spaces' at the front of Fairfield, would
result in the loss of more of the communal front garden area, leading to more
noise disturbance and air pollution caused by vehicles. There would be further
limited communal garden space for residents.
Planners of course see the high rise building opposite as a reason to support the proposal as it would be 'appropriate in the context' of the surrounding area.
The negative impact on the current attractive amenity space is mentioned by a number of objectors. This is the developer's response.
As no affordable homes will be provided in the development the Council is asking for a Section 106 agreement for a payment of £300,000 from the developer for affordable housing elsewhere.
Officers' Report Conclusion recommending approval (Application 22/3634)
The proposal would not
involve any private amenity space for the proposed units, however, there
is a substantial amount of communal external amenity space existing within the
site, with approximately 1500sq.m of shared gardens space to the rear of
the buildings and additional areas to the front. This could clearly
cater for the existing and proposed residents (exceeding current standards)
and would provide high quality external space. Therefore, in this instance the
absence of private external amenity space is accepted. It is noted that
the site is also in close proximity of Roundwood Park which provides
other good quality external amenity space
The
proposal would create additional floors to the building accommodating no’s 5-6
and 20-21 Fairfield Court
increasing the height of the building from two- to three-storeys. The other additional floor would be above no’s 7-12 and 14-19 block of units,
increasing the height from 3 to 4-storeys. Accommodation
would also be provided in the roof of that block. The blocks would be composed to increase from 2 to 3 and then 4-storeys with the taller
blocks situated further into the site.
While
officers note that the proposal would be built over some (non-designated) green
space within the site, the
extent of this is minimal and the submitted revised landscaping plan confirms the planting of new trees and shrubs within the site which officers
consider would mitigate against impacts associated with
this. Further, the proposed parking arrangements would be made of permeable paving which would be beneficial in terms of drainage.
While
officers note that the proposal would be built over some (non-designated) green
space within the site, the
extent of this is minimal and the submitted revised landscaping plan confirms the planting of new trees and shrubs within the site which officers
consider would mitigate against impacts associated with this.
Further, the proposed parking arrangements would be made of permeable paving which would be beneficial in terms of drainage.
The
proposal would result in the creation of six new homes, including 4 family
sized homes, and a contribution towards
the provision of off-site Affordable housing would be secured in line with policy. The proposal would increase the height of the existing
buildings above that of some of the homes in the area.
However, the resulting scale is considered appropriate when considering the full context of the site including the taller buildings on the
eastern side of Longstone Avenue.
An objector has commented that the submitted daylight and
sunlight assessment incorrectly assesses whether the
development projects above a 25 degree line from the middle of windows of Springwell Avenue properties. This has been examined by officers and
while the proposal is likely to comply with the 25
degree line taken from the objector’s property, it appears likely that it will project above a 25 degree line taken from the middle of the nearest
windows of two other properties (Nos. 34 and
36). However, the presence of very large trees is likely to already significantly impact the light received by these windows and it is
considered unlikely that the proposal will result in a
material additional impact. Additional parking capacity
would be provided through changes to the
frontage parking area, and while over-spill parking is not anticipated, it is likely to be easily accommodated on street.
The
proposal is considered to accord with the development
plan when read as a whole and it is recommended that planning permission is granted.
