Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Conference Hall - Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ. View directions
Contact: Joe Kwateng, Democratic Services Officer 020 8937 1354, Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of personal and prejudicial interests Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, any relevant financial or other interest in the items on this agenda. Minutes: Land at 255 Ealing Road, Wembley HA9 Ref 14/2276)
3. All members on the Committee had been approached by the objectors in advance of the meeting by email and confirmed that they would consider the application with an open mind.
7. Walm Lane Public Inquiry – Affordable Housing
Councillor Colacicco declared that she had campaigned on the application and would withdraw from the meeting room during consideration of the application. All members on the Committee had been approached in advance of the meeting by email but confirmed they would consider the application with an open mind. |
|
Minutes of the previous meeting Minutes: RESOLVED:-
that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 17 September 2014 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting. |
|
Land at 255, Ealing Road, Wembley, HA9 (Ref. 14/2276) PDF 586 KB Decision: (a) Granted planning permission, subject to securing appropriate initial funding towards residential parking permits should a CPZ be introduced, an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details and conditions detailed in the main Committee Report ; and subject to the revised details set out in the Supplementary Report to amend the description of the development to include community floor space (Use Class D1), revisions to the Heads of Terms and an additional condition on servicing management plan for the affordable workspace units, or (b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission
Minutes: PROPOSAL: Construction of 3- to 9-storey building comprising 125 residential units and 277 sqms of affordable work space (Use Class B1) and associated parking, access, landscaping and related ancillary works.
RECOMMENDATION: (a) Grant Planning Permission, subject to an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section of this report and subject to conditions listed after paragraph 75, or (b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission
With reference to the supplementary report, Rachel Murrell (Area Planning Manager) responded to matters raised at the site visit. In respect of infrastructure she informed the Committee that funding had been secured for the redevelopment of Alperton Community School through the Priority School Building Programme; a project scheduled for completion in September 2016. In addition, a potential site had been identified for a primary school and other community uses, with a feasibility study underway linked to the redevelopment of Alperton Community School. The project would not commence until the Stanley Avenue site became surplus to requirements when the secondary school relocates to the Ealing Road site.
Members heard that Brent was working with the developers at 243 Ealing Road to identify users for over 1000 m2 of affordable work space or alternative D1 use which could include medical or health services, nursery, crèche or day centre. She continued that funding had been secured through Section 106 contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for improvements to the quality and accessibility of local existing open spaces.
Rachel Murrell informed members that on the advice of Transportation, improvements to crossing facilities would not be sought as part of this scheme given that the existing junction of Carlyon Avenue and Ealing Road had a signalised pedestrian crossing facility. She advised that the Council would not be able to provide speed cameras as they were provided and managed by Transport for London. She drew members’ attention to an amendment to the proposal description and an additional condition on servicing management plan.
Bron Roberts, Chair of Cromwell and Burns Residents' Association (CABRA ), stated that whilst she was not against the principle of the development she felt there was a clear need for infrastructure support particularly general practitioner (GP) services or provision for a polyclinic. She emphasised this was of particular importance, given the closure of other local GP services.
Tanya Jordan, speaking on behalf of the owners of 253A Ealing Road, stated that the proposed development would compromise the potential redevelopment of 253A Ealing Road and should only be developed as part of a comprehensive scheme. She added that her client was concerned about over shadowing and unreasonable distances, contrary to Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 17. She added that her clients were prepared ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|
Land next to Fairbanks Court, Atlip Road, Wembley, HA0 (Ref. 14/1515) PDF 589 KB Decision: Granted planning permission subject to an additional condition requiring details of refuse storage. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Change of use of water space for residential moorings.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed after paragraph 19.
Rachel Murrell (Area Planning Manager), responded to queries raised at the site visit. She explained that sewage and refuse storage facilities were available at nearby locations as amplified in the supplementary report. The Canal and River Trust considered the locations of these facilities to be within a short cruising distance from the application site. In respect of Council Tax, she informed the meeting that if a mooring was permanent, the Council would inform the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) who would calculate and issue a band for the mooring, adding that a comparable valuation in the Grand Union Canal was band A. Members heard that the proposal would not give rise to parking issues as Atlip Road was a private road where parking was controlled by a private company on behalf of the owners of the development. In addition, as the site had good public transport accessibility it was not considered that the proposed change from visitor to residential moorings was likely to result in significant parking over-spill.
Aiden Johnson Hugo, a surveyor for Canal and River Trust, clarified that the application was for a change of use of water space only and complied with local and national policies. In response to Members’ questions, he stated that boaters were highly mobile and would be able to manage use of existing sewage facilities. In respect of refuse storage, he added that local freeholders to the adjoining residential development had agreed that boaters could use their facilities.
Members felt that the arrangement for refuse storage needed to be refined and in approving the application subject to conditions added a further condition requiring details of refuse storage.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended subject to an additional condition requiring details of refuse storage. |
|
Sarena House and Allied Manufacture, Grove Park, London, NW9 0EB (Ref. 14/2930) PDF 841 KB Decision: (a) Granted planning permission, subject to securing appropriate initial funding towards residential parking permits should a CPZ be introduced, an appropriate form of agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section ,conditions detailed in the main Committee Report; subject to amended in condition 13 as detailed in the Supplementary Report, and subject referral to the Mayor of London, or (b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Demolition of all existing buildings and the erection of 2 to 6-storey buildings providing 227 residential units (10 x 4bed houses, 58 x 1bed, 101 x 2bed, 31 x 3bed and 27 x studio flats), 256 sqm of affordable work space for research and development (Use class B1(B), proposed vehicular access from Grove Park, provision for car/bike parking on the basement and ground level and associated landscaping and amenity space.
RECOMMENDATION: (a) Grant Planning Permission, subject to an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section of this report, subject to conditions listed after paragraph 116 and referral to the Mayor of London, or (b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
With reference to the supplementary report, Rachel Murrell (Area Planning Manager) responded to the queries raised at the site visit. She informed the Committee that the agent had confirmed that the boundary wall along Evelyn Avenue may not be retained and to reflect that, condition 13 had been amended as set out in the supplementary. She continued that on the advice of GLA and TfL, the PTAL rating for the site was 4 taking into account its proximity to a range of public transport facilities. She however confirmed that it should be noted that the site ranges from PTAL 2 to 4 with the eastern half of the site including the mid point of the site falling PTAL 4. In reference to the additional objections received, the Area Planning Manager submitted that extensive consultation with about 533 neighbours was undertaken in addition to press and site notices being displayed. She continued that the height of the proposed development was considered acceptable in design terms and in relation to neighbouring sites. Members heard that the site was within the Colindale/Burnt Oak Growth Area which would be supported by infrastructure development including a school and a D1 facility which have planning permission. Furthermore, a contribution would be sought from the applicant towards the cost of consultation for CPZ if its introduction was required.
Seb Malde (Chair of Grove Park Residents Association) urged members to refuse the application on grounds of excessive density, inadequate parking provision, lack of health care provision, educational provision and children’s play area.
In responding to the above, the Area Planning Manager drew members’ attention to the infrastructure development involving the Oriental City development which she added would provide a superstore, a primary school and a D1 facility. She continued that officers were seeking a financial contribution from the applicant towards the cost of consultation for CPZ, although the mitigation measures secured were anticipated to reduce the potential for overspill parking . She also added that funding received through ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
163 & 165 Chatsworth Road, London, NW2 5QT (Ref. 14/1628) PDF 336 KB Decision: Granted planning permission subject to conditions. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Change of use of land to rear of 163 & 165 Chatsworth Road to incorporation into the residential curtilage of 163 Chatsworth Road.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended. |
|
Walm Lane Public Inquiry - Affordable Housing PDF 191 KB Decision: Refused the revised affordable housing offer for the following stated reasons;
The Planning Committee recognised the proposed change but noted that the suggested amendment made in July 2014 does not significantly alter the original overall affordable housing proposal made in February 2014. It considered that the change indicated that there could be scope to further improve the offer, noted the reports reference to the sensitivity of such appraisals as well as the lack of clarity on the scope to provide any further affordable housing on site following the recommended ‘open book’‘ review. In the absence of an opportunity to scrutinise the developers expectations and in the context of Brent’s housing needs and affordable housing policies, the level and nature of the shared ownership housing proposed was not considered to be the reasonable maximum affordable housing that the development could provide. . Minutes: This application was deferred from the Planning Committee meeting of 17 September 2014 to allow Members more time to consider the associated background documentation. Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) informed the Committee that following the Council’s decision in March 2014 to refuse planning permission for the redevelopment of 110 Walm Lane (including the Queensbury Public House) the applicant had submitted an appeal which was due to be determined through the public inquiry procedure.
He continued that following the submission of the appeal, the applicant had issued a revised affordable housing offer of 2 additional units to the Council and for all affordable housing to be provided on-site. He clarified that the purpose of the report was to provide information on the revised affordable housing offer in order to enable members to decide whether the revised offer would adequately address the relevant reason for refusal.
Andy Bates informed members that the offer was reviewed by an independent consultant, BNP Paribas, instructed by the Council to assist with the negotiation of affordable housing on the site. BNP Paribas advised that in viability terms the proposed affordable housing offer of shared ownership units from 10 to 12 (22.6%), which would be delivered wholly on site would be acceptable. Members noted however that the offer meant that a cash-in-lieu contribution would no longer be available.
BNP Paribas highlighted the sensitivity of such appraisals to changes in assumed future sales values and recommended that, if the offer was accepted by the council, this should be subject to securing a suitable ‘open book’ review of the scheme viability and affordable housing offer, taking into account the costs and revenues achieved by the development.
Andy Bates submitted that having considered the revised affordable housing offer within the context of the previous decision, the appeal and the advice given by BNP Paribas, officers considered that the revised offer constituted an improved position on affordable housing and on balance, officers considered that the principle of the revised offer should be accepted, subject to the terms set out in paragraph 2.1 of the report.
Representatives of Save the Queensbury Group, NW2 Residents Association and Brent Housing Action addressed the Committee. They felt that the marginal increase on affordable housing on site fell quite short of, and was disproportionate to, the amount expected for such a development. They expressed doubts about the advice on viability as the report did not present information on full knowledge, methodology and analysis used in reaching the conclusion. They therefore urged members to reject the offer.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Miller (ward member) declared that he had been approached by Save the Queensbury Group. Councillor Miller echoed the sentiments expressed by the previous speakers adding that the affordable housing proportion proposed by the applicant fell short of the Mayor of London’s housing target of 50%. He also expressed concerns about the segregation between shared and private ownership units within the development. Councillor Miller continued that a rejection of ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
Any Other Urgent Business Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Democratic Services Manager or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 64.
Minutes: None. |