This meeting will consider a range of planning applications in different areas of the borough including Maresfield Gardens, South End Road, and Regency Lawn. There will also be a discussion about changes to the procedure for when items that have previously been to the Committee come back to a different meeting.

Land Adjacent to 46 Maresfield Gardens & 39a Fitzjohn’s Avenue, London NW3

The report pack includes a proposal for the development of land adjacent to 46 Maresfield Gardens, including the construction of a five-storey residential building (plus basement). This proposed building is referred to as the Garden building in the report. The proposal also includes the refurbishment and extension of the existing building at 39a Fitzjohn’s Avenue. In total, the proposal is for the construction of 33 new homes on the site, including a mix of one, two, three and four bedroom homes.

The proposal also includes the removal of some trees, the retention of others and new tree planting.

The report notes that the site is located in the Fitzjohn’s Netherhall Conservation Area and describes the consideration given to the proposal's impact on the conservation area.

The report also notes that the site is located within an area with a high PTAL rating¹ meaning it is well-connected to public transport.

The report summarises the views expressed by consultees, including objections from local residents, The Netherhall Neighbourhood Association, TfL, and the Lead Local Flood Authority. It describes the responses provided to these objections.

The report considers the impact of the proposed development on the amenities of neighbouring residents. The applicant submitted a daylight and sunlight report which the report summarises.

The report also discusses the viability of including affordable housing in the development and includes a viability assessment prepared by BPS, the Council's independent viability consultants. This assessment found that the development was in deficit, and BPS have advised that it cannot be expected to contribute to affordable housing provision. The report notes that the applicant has offered to provide four off-site affordable homes. These would be two-bedroom homes at a development that the applicant owns on Liddell Road.

The report recommends that the application be approved subject to conditions, including the entering into of a Section 106 legal agreement. The heads of terms of the Section 106 agreement include the provision of four off-site affordable homes, a late-stage review of viability, a Construction Management Plan, an energy and carbon offset payment and energy and sustainability plans, a habitat management and monitoring plan, and a financial contribution to public open space.

Leigh House (Lower Ground Floor Flat), 73 South End Road, London NW3 2RJ

The report pack contains an application for planning permission and listed building consent for the erection of a rear extension to the lower ground floor flat at Leigh House, 73 South End Road, and the construction of an outbuilding in the rear garden. The report notes that the property is Grade II listed and is located within the Hampstead Conservation Area.

The report describes the history of the site, and summarises the consultation responses received from statutory consultees, local groups, and adjoining occupiers, including Historic England, the Hampstead Neighbourhood Forum, the South End Green Residents Group, and the Downshire Hill Residents Association.

The report notes that the outbuilding will be used in association with the maisonette dwelling, and that the floor plan includes a gym, office and store, but does not detail any kitchen, cooking, or bathroom facilities. It states that A condition should be attached to the permission to make clear it can only be used for purposes incidental to the existing residential maisonette.

The report discusses the impact of the proposal on the amenities of neighbouring residents and notes that the rear extension is single storey and would largely sit below adjacent boundary walls and would therefore not impact upon the amenity of neighbouring residents in terms of daylight/sunlight. It considers that any reduction in light access and impacts to outlook would be negligible. It also notes that the proposed outbuilding would not give rise to overlooking or loss of privacy issues, as the outbuilding would be single storey in height, sited at the rear of the garden, and would have no windows fronting onto neighbouring properties.

The report considers that the proposal would not cause a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance and historical features and settings of the listed building and would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The report recommends that planning permission and listed building consent be granted, subject to conditions, including conditions requiring the submission of a landscaping plan, the use of materials similar to those used on the existing building, and a condition restricting the use of the outbuilding to purposes incidental to the residential use of the maisonette.

Land Adjacent to 1 Regency Lawn, Croftdown Road, London NW5 1HF

The report pack contains an application for a variation of condition 2 (approved drawings) of a previously approved planning permission (2020/5277/P) for the demolition of a car port and the erection of a three-storey, three bedroom dwellinghouse on land adjacent to 1 Regency Lawn. The site is located within the Dartmouth Park Conservation Area.

The application seeks to alter the previously approved plans to change the layout of the front garden, move the location of the access ramp and air source heat pump (ASHP), and make changes to the front boundary.

The report notes that the site is located next to the Mansfield Bowling Club, and summarises the responses that were received from statutory and local consultees, including the Dartmouth Park Neighbourhood Forum. It states that no objections or comments were received from members of the public.

The report states that The extant permission did not clearly annotate the ASHP or include a noise impact assessment, so this proposal seeks to formalise its inclusion by clearly annotating this feature on the plans and providing a noise impact assessment.

The report describes the design of the proposed changes and concludes that the impact of the alterations are acceptable in design and heritage terms. It describes the impact of the proposed changes on the amenities of residents and notes that the applicant has submitted a noise impact assessment, which was reviewed by the Council's Environmental Health Officer. The report summarises the noise impact assessment.

The report considers the impact of the proposed changes on trees and landscaping. It notes that the proposal does not involve the removal of any trees and describes the new planting that is proposed as part of the scheme. It concludes that the proposals are acceptable in terms of biodiversity.

The report notes that, as the development will make use of an ASHP, it will not be connected to the gas network.

It recommends that planning permission be granted, subject to conditions including a requirement for the submission and approval of a tree planting scheme and conditions restricting noise levels from plant, machinery or equipment. It also recommends that a condition be imposed that prevents the use of the ASHP for active cooling.

The report recommends that a Deed of Variation to the existing Section 106 legal agreement for the original application be entered into. The report says that this should include the same heads of terms as the original agreement. These were: car-free development; a Construction Management Plan; a Construction Impact Bond; a Highways contribution; and an Affordable Housing contribution.

Procedure for Items Coming Back to the Committee

The report pack includes a proposed new procedure for dealing with items that come back to the Planning Committee after having previously been considered by the Committee.

The report proposes that different approaches should be used for hearing such items depending on the reason why the item has come back to the Committee. The following examples are provided:

• If the Committee did not have time to consider the item in a previous meeting, and no representations were made, then the item would be carried forward to the next meeting and heard as a new item.
• If the Committee started to hear the item but did not make a decision (for reasons other than deferral to seek further information) then it would normally be adjourned to the next meeting and considered to be part-heard. No new representations would be permitted and only those members of the Committee who were present at the original meeting would be able to participate in the discussion.
• If the Committee deferred making a decision in order to seek further information, then it would usually resume its deliberations from the point at which it was decided to defer the item. No new representations would be permitted and only those members of the Committee who were present at the original meeting would be able to participate in the discussion.
• If a decision was made, but a problem emerged, then the item would normally be heard afresh at the next meeting. New representations would be allowed and the whole Committee would be able to participate in the discussion.

The report notes that these approaches would not be followed if there were exceptional circumstances, and states that the final decision on the process to be followed in each case would be made by the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chair and the Borough Solicitor.