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: 3 Garages next to and rear of 13-24, Mead Court and Communal Facility & Laundry, Mead Court, Buck Lane, London NW9 (Ref 15/4604) Councillor Mili Patel declared that as she was a Trustee of the Board of Governors of Brent Housing Partnership (BHP), the applicant, she would leave the meeting room during consideration of the application and would not take part in the discussion or voting.
5 CAR PARK, Montrose Crescent & Land N/T 499 & 509 High Road, Wembley (including existing steps connecting to High Rd, Wembley with Station Grove), HA0 (Ref. 15/4473) The applicant gave a presentation to members and officers. Members also received plans of the scheme from the applicant.
7 Moberly Sports Centre, Kilburn Lane, North Kensington, London, W104AH (Ref. 15/4226) All members received emails from the applicant’s representative, Michael Holloway and from Councillor Denselow indicating his concerns.
All members re-affirmed that they would be considering all the applications with an open mind. |
|
Minutes of the previous meeting PDF 144 KB Minutes: RESOLVED:-
that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 January 2016 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.
Minutes of the meeting held on 16 December 2015 The Committee agreed the following amendment to the minutes relating to the application for 31 Montrose Avenue. “Janis Denselow (an objector) reiterated that residents were not convinced by the applicant’s Construction Method Statement and added that their concerns, including the protection of the nearby tree, had not been addressed. She requested a deferral of this and any similar proposals to enable a study to be carried out on how other local authorities approached similar applications.” |
|
Additional documents: Decision: Planning permission granted as recommended and an additional condition requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Demolition and replacement of existing derelict garages and laundry building with two pairs of 2 storey three bedroom semi-detached houses with associated car parking spaces, realignment of existing path to proposed dwellings, reinstatement of hard-standing as amenity space, landscaping and lighting to the public realm.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice with amendments to condition 3 as set out in the supplementary report.
David Glover (Area Planning Manager) introduced the scheme and with reference to the supplementary report responded to queries raised by members at the site visit. He advised members that details of fencing to improve safety and security would be required through an amendment to condition 3 as set out in the supplementary report. He continued that the applicant, Brent Housing Partnership (BHP), had taken on board the concerns raised about the proximity of the proposed trees to the new houses and would work with the Council’s Tree Officer and Landscape Officer to consider appropriate species and location for the proposed trees. David Glover also drew members’ attention to BHP’s responses to queries raised about cyclical repairs for the estate and the apportionment of service charges as set out in the supplementary report.
Joe Powell (applicant’s agent) and Richard De Ville (BHP) attended the meeting and responded to members’ queries. The applicant’s agent stated that the application had been designed following pre-application meetings to ensure that the proposal complied with National and Local policies including SPG17. He added that the scheme for family dwellings, intended for social rent, would not only assist with housing needs but would also involve significant improvements including the provision of 21 car parking spaces, new lighting, an improved landscaping scheme and recycling facilities.
In response to members’ questions, the applicant’s agent stated that a Construction Management Plan and a Method Statement which would seek to address concerns about construction traffic (including a requirement to consider routing construction traffic through Kingsbury Road) and reinstatement of damaged pavements would be submitted. He added that further soil investigation would be carried out to ensure sound foundations. The applicant’s agent continued that BHP would assess the need for disabled parking and designate spaces for their use. Members heard that BHP was committed to working with the Council to ensure a satisfactory development and would restore any damage to the road or pavement caused during construction.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended and an additional condition requiring the submission of a Construction Management Plan. |
|
Brent House, 349-357 High Road, Wembley, HA9 6BZ (Ref. 15/4743) PDF 1 MB Additional documents: Decision: Planning permission granted as recommended and additional conditions on details of balconies and the canopy for disabled persons. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Proposed demolition of existing office building and erection of two buildings of between eight and ten storeys accommodating 248 dwellings (84 x 1-bedroom, 108 x 2-bedroom, 49 x 3-bedroom & 7 x 4-bedroom units) and flexible commercial space at ground floor (for Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4 and/or B1(a)), new public square, landscaped communal gardens, associated landscape works, alterations to existing crossover(s) and basement car and cycle parking.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the referral to the Mayor of London and to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Head of Legal Services, subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice and additional conditions regarding drainage and vibro-impact works as set out in the supplementary report.
David Glover (Area Planning Manager) outlined the scheme and referenced the supplementary report. He clarified the servicing and parking arrangements and added that platform lifts would be provided adjacent to the main loading bay to allow goods to be moved from delivery vehicles to their destination. This measure would seek to address level changes across the site. He continued that anticipated infrastructure expected to include new schools, extensions to existing local schools, nursery places, at least 2.4ha of new public open space, improvements to accessibility of existing open space, a new community swimming pool, new health facilities (for GP's and dentists) and new multi-use community facilities would be funded from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) of £3.5 million. In addition, he understood that the applicant had agreed to the £319, 000 bus capacity enhancement contributions that TfL had identified as being required in this area. This contribution would be secured through the s106 legal agreement. He recommended a further condition as set out in the supplementary report in response to the GLA Stage 1 report and their comments on sustainable drainage.
Mark Pender (applicant’s agent), Nick Budd (Transport Consultant) and Peter Smith (applicant’s architect) attended the meeting to clarify issues raised by members. The applicant’s agent informed the Committee that an extensive consultation which engaged the GLA, TfL, local community and local schools had taken place to ensure the development made maximum use of a brownfield site in a town centre. He continued that the development, which would provide acceptable density limits, would incorporate private balconies to all flats in addition to a children’s play area.
In response to members’ questions, Mark Pender stated that full accessibility standards had been complied with including the provision of a lift service available for use by disabled persons. He anticipated demolition of the existing structure to commence within 6 months and 24 months to complete the building. The Committee heard that statutory bodies including TfL and Network Rail were consulted on the application but did not raise concerns about the applicant’s detailed noise and traffic assessment. He added that the proposal which would ... view the full minutes text for item 4. |
|
Additional documents: Decision: Planning permission granted as recommended and the following additional conditions; that the Use Class D1 use shall exclude places of worship; an additional servicing bay is provided on Montrose Crescent; applicant to upgrade the pavement on south side of the High Road to the junction with Ealing Road; the highway controls to be reviewed pursuant to the Section 278 agreement. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of Montrose Crescent car park and land n/t 499 and 509 High Road, Wembley to include a part 3, 6, 13 and 18 storey development on Curtis Lane and a part 4 and 6 storey building on the High Road, Wembley comprising of 186 residential units (43 x 1 bed, 108 x 2 bed and 35 x 3 bed), 1,312 sqm of commercial space comprising A1, A2, A3, A5, B1(a) and/or D1 uses, replacement public car park comprising of 89 public car parking spaces, associated amenity space, landscaping, cycle parking, new lift access to High Road together with alterations to existing stepped access from the High Road to Curtis Lane and Station Grove and public realm improvements.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the referral to the Mayor of London and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Head of Legal Services and conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice and to amendments in the Section 106 Heads of Terms as set out in the supplementary report.
David Glover (Area Planning Manager) introduced the scheme and by reference to the supplementary report clarified the issues raised at the site visit. He advised that extensive works including a new road layout to upgrade Curtis Lane had been accepted by Transportation officers and that the proposed loading bays to serve existing commercial units along Ealing Road could be used by both commercial vehicles and delivery vans. In respect of the impact on Lodge Court, he submitted that robust testing of daylight and sunlight conditions carried out had confirmed that adequate sunlight and daylight environment would be maintained, thus the scheme complied with BRE Guidelines. He drew members’ attention to the separation distance of 26metres between buildings which was in excess of the 20m required under SPG17. He clarified that the affordable units would be 38 and not 34 as stated in the main report and drew attention to amendments to the Heads of Terms of the s106 legal agreement in respect of s278 works.
Ken Meadows objected on the grounds that the proposed development would result in loss of sunlight and loss of privacy. He urged the Committee to require the applicant to relocate the blocks to the west side of Lodge Court in order to preserve the amenities of Lodge Court residents.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor W Mitchell-Murray, ward member, stated that she had been approached by residents of Lodge Court and Manor Court. Although welcoming the application, Councillor Mitchell-Murray expressed concerns about loss of light particularly to the eastern side of Lodge Court and felt that the orientation of the building could be re-arranged to minimise the impact. She added that residents of Lodge and Manor Court were not consulted on the application and questioned the need for an 18 ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
271-273 Kilburn High Road, London, NW6 7JR (Ref. 15/3695) PDF 2 MB Additional documents: Decision: Planning permission granted as recommended, with additional conditions relating to balcony privacy screens, control of access to green roofs, maintenance of ventilation and an amendment to condition 8 for a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) requiring advice on delivery vehicles for neighbouring properties. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building and erection of a part four, part five storey building comprising an A3 unit (restaurant/cafe) on the ground floor and 7x self-contained flats (7 x 1 bed) on the upper floors with associated bin and cycle storage.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the Draft Decision Notice.
Angus Saunders (Area Planning Manager) introduced the proposal and with reference to the supplementary report responded to issues raised at the site visit in respect of overlooking and daylight and sunlight impact. He informed members that the applicanthadsubmitteddetailsto showa 1.2mdeepplanteralongtheside facingtheunitson 275 Kilburn HighRoad to demonstrate that overlooking would not result. However, and inresponsetoMember'squeries,a privacyscreencouldbelocatedalongthissection byamendingthe proposedlandscape condition. He continued that whilst there would be some impact on thesecond floor flat facingthe flankfacade(Flat5, 275 Kilburn HighRoad),onbalance, he considered it to be limitedandnotsufficienttomerita refusal. He added that whilst the BRESunlight/Daylight assessmentdidnotsatisfy every scenario,itshowedstrongconformity withthebroaderassessme ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
Moberly Sports Centre, Kilburn Lane, North Kensington, London, W10 4AH (Ref. 15/4226) PDF 1 MB Additional documents: Decision: Refused planning permission for the following reasons; traffic impact resulting from disruption to traffic on Chamberlayne Road, impact on local shops in Chamberlayne Road and traffic pollution arising from unloading. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Details pursuant to condition 17 (Construction Logistics Plan) relating to planning application reference 13/3682 dated 04/02/2015 for full planning permission sought for demolition of all existing buildings and erection of a part 7/part 6/part 5/part 4-storey building with 9293sqm of Sports and Leisure Centre (Use Class D2), 56 flats ( 22 x 1-bed, 34 x 2-bed) and 240sqm of retail floor space (Use Class A1/A2/A3) and erection of 15 terraced townhouses (15 x 4-bed) with associated car and cycle parking and landscaping and subject to a Deed of Agreement dated 02 February 2015 under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the Draft Decision Notice.
Angus Saunders (Area Planning Manager) outlined the scheme and with reference to the supplementary report responded to queries raised at the site visit. Members heard that the suspension of theparking baysoppositetheloadingbay wouldmaintaintwo-way trafficflow for cars alongChamberlayneRoadand was thus considered an improvementon the currentsituation. He advised that the wideningofthecarriagewayorstrengthening of thefootwaytoaccommodateloadingonthefootway was likelyto be verycostly to the applicant and difficult to achieve. On pollution, the Area Planning Manager maintained that whilst there was evidencetosuggest thatidlingvehicles could resultin increased airpollution and congestion, the impact of the proposal would notresultinconsiderably worsecongestionthanthe existing situation. He continued that alternative locations for off-site loading had been considered and discou ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
76-78 Salusbury Road, London, NW6 6PA (Ref. 15/4590) PDF 516 KB Additional documents: Decision: Deferred to the next meeting to enable officers to review any off-site contribution and the details of any site community provision and potential conditions regarding future use of the facilities covering hours of use, amplified sound, access arrangements and external activities . Minutes: PROPOSAL: Change of use of the 1st, 2nd and part of the ground floor of the public house (Use class A4) to create 8 self-contained flats ( 3 x 1bed, 3 x 2bed and 2 x 3bed) together with associated alterations to include removal of rear dormer window, new 2nd floor rear extension, stairwell extension, replacement and relocation of some of the windows, insertion of new windows and roof lights, terraces and screening, cycle parking spaces and bin stores.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission for reasons set out in the Draft Decision Notice.
Angus Saunders (Area Planning Manager) outlined the scheme and with reference to the supplementary report responded to the issues raised at the site visit in relation to noise, entrance to the public house and community use of the property. He confirmed that there was an extensive history of noise complaints with the site according to meetings held between Environmental Health officers and local residents and with the operator. He continued that due to the commercial character of the area, the use of the entrance on the corner of Hopefield Avenue would not necessarily lead to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the residents. The Area Planning Manager added that as far as he had established, the community groups had relocated to nearby Salusbury School and Salusbury Rooms. In respect of a query from a resident regarding a commuted sum in lieu of direct re-provision of community facilities and community access to the pub proposed by the applicant, the Area Planning Manager advised that it hadnot beenpossible,given the time allowed,to open discussionson thismatterwith the applicant.
The Area Planning Manager reiterated his recommendation for refusal on the grounds that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the proposal would provide adequate community space with minimum access arrangements and how the proposed community access would interact with the pub without adversely affecting the viability of the pub.
Judy Wilcox speaking on behalf of the Hopefield Avenue residents raised concerns on the application on grounds of noise nuisance from staff and visitors to the pub and added that the previous owner had consistently failed to adhere to planning conditions including amplified music and hours of operation of the event rooms. She added that whilst some groups had moved to other sites, the use of the premises by other groups could worsen the problems being experienced by residents. She also reiterated residents’ objection to the use of the entrance to the pub on the corner of Hopefield Avenue and Salusbury Road.
Kieron Hodgson (applicant’s agent) stated that the proposed development would bring the building, which was currently empty, back into a mixed use scheme. The proposal would re-provide at ground floor level, an improved and bigger room with good general amenity and the conversion ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |
|
Any Other Urgent Business Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Head of Executive and Member Services or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 64.
Minutes: None. |