Agenda item

Demolition of existing building; excavation to create additional basement storey; erection of a residential (Class C3) building arranged over basement, lower ground, ground and five upper storeys to provide up to 23no. residential dwellings; provision of external amenity space, associated on-site car parking and cycle parking facilities, landscaping works and other associated works.

Additional representations were received from eighteen local residents (29/06/18, 30/06/18, 02/07/18, 03/07/18 and 04/07/18) and one interested party (03/07/18).

Late representations were received from forty-one local residents (05/07/18, 06/07/18, 07/07/18, 08/07/18, 09/07/18 and 10/07/18) and Belgrave (06/07/18).

Councillor Geoff Barraclough addresses the Sub-Committee in his capacity as a Ward Member.

The presenting officer tabled the following amendments to the conditions:

1.            DELETE condition 5 on page 58 and REPLACE it with the following:

“You must apply to us for approval of detailed drawings of typical facade details at all levels at scales of 1:20 or 1:5. You must not start any work on these parts of the development until we have approved what you have sent us. You must then carry out the work according to these details.

REASON:

To make sure that the appearance of the building is suitable and that it contributes to the character and appearance of this part of the Maida Vale Conservation Area.  This is as set out in S25 and S28 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 1 and DES 5 or DES 6 or both and paras 10.108 to 10.128 of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007.”

REASON FOR AMENDMENT: The original condition 5 had been added in error and was not relevant to this development.  The revised condition 5 is required to ensure that appropriate façade details are secured.

2.            ADD the following conditions 28 and 29:

28        “Pre Commencement Condition. You must not start any demolition work on site until we have approved either:

(a)       a construction contract with the builder to complete the redevelopment work for which we have given planning permission on the same date as this consent, or

(b)       an alternative means of ensuring we are satisfied that demolition on the site will only occur immediately prior to development of the new building.

You must only carry out the demolition and development according to the approved arrangements.

REASON:

To maintain the character of the Maida Vale Conservation Area as set out in S25 and S28 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 1 and DES 9 (B) of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007 and Section 74(3) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

29        You must not carry out demolition work unless it is part of the complete development of the site. You must carry out the demolition and development without interruption and according to the drawings we have approved.

                        REASON:

To maintain the character of the Maida Vale Conservation Area as set out in S25 and S28 of Westminster's City Plan (November 2016) and DES 1 and DES 9 (B) of our Unitary Development Plan that we adopted in January 2007 and Section 74(3) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.”

REASON FOR AMENDMENT: These additional conditions are required to safeguard the character and appearance of the conservation area by preventing unnecessary demolition of the existing building or a substantial break between its demolition and construction of the proposed development.

RESOLVED (To Refuse: Councillors Mohindra, Boothroyd, Bush, Freeman, Gassanly and Glen. To Grant: Councillor Hitchcock)

That conditional permission be refused on the following grounds:

1)            The bulk of the building, in particular the form of the proposed roof was unacceptable and would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the Maida Vale Conservation Area;

2)            The impact the proposals would have on the amenities of adjacent properties at Cleveland Mansions by reason of loss of light and sense of enclosure caused by the increased bulk and massing of the proposed building.

3)            The proposed density levels exceed the range set out within policy H11 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 3.4 of the London Plan and fail to meet complementary policies in respect of townscape/design, residential amenity and standard of living accommodation; and

4)            The standard of living accommodation for the basement and lower ground flats which were largely affordable housing was considered inadequate due to their single aspect, part subterranean nature and reliance upon lightwells that are shared in part.

The detailed reasons for refusal to be settled by officers under delegated powers following consultation with the Chairman.