Agenda, decisions and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday 6 April 2016 7.00 pm

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

Items
No. Item

1.

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:

ASDA, Forty Lane, Wembley Middlesex HA9 9EX

Councillors Marquis (Chair) and Choudhary, members for Barnhill ward, declared that they had attended meetings with the applicant and had referred the noise issue to the Council’s Noise Enforcement Team. Both members left the meeting room during consideration of the application.

 

Councillor Marquis declared that she had received a communication from ASDA, Wembley Park.

 

Chesterfield House, 9 Park Lane, Wembley HA9 7RH

All declared that they had attended a presentation by the applicant and received briefing notes.  They all had received emails from Denise Cheong (objector)

 

76-78 Salusbury Road, London NW6 6PA

All members declared that they had received email objections from Councillor Denselow; letters of objection from Janis Denselow (Chair of QPARA); letters from the applicant and an email from Sally March regarding inaccuracies in the report concerning noise nuisance.

 

All members re-affirmed that they would consider all applications with an open mind.

 

2.

Minutes of the previous meeting pdf icon PDF 82 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED:-

 

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 9 March 2016 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

3.

Asda, Forty Lane, Wembley, HA9 9EX (Ref. 16/0615) pdf icon PDF 809 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted planning permission as recommended and an additional condition requiring details of training for staff on Development Management Plan.

Minutes:

PROPOSAL:

Details pursuant to condition 4 (monitoring and acoustic investigation) of variation of condition application ref 03/1003 relating to planning permission ref 98/0413, dated 03/07/98, for the construction of a retail superstore with provision of service yard and customer car-parking to read as follows: "The store shall not be serviced on Sundays and Bank Holidays by more than six service vehicles on any one day without the consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority"

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice.

 

David Glover (Area Planning Manager) introduced the application and referenced the supplementary report.  Members heard that whilst noise levels were acceptable during the monitoring period, the detailed comments from residents showed that disruptive noise and vibrations were experienced by residents suggesting that the Delivery Management Plan was only adhered to during the monitoring period.  David Glover continued that the applicant has shown that acceptable noise levels can be achieved if the Plan is implemented, and recommended that this application is approved as the negatively worded condition that is recommended by officers would allow enforcement action to be pursued if the Plan is not implemented in the future.

 

Bob Parks (Town Planning Manager for Asda) informed Members that the DeliveryManagementPlan was being adhered to, leading to a significant reduction in the number of complaints.  He added that Asda were currently undertaking a feasibility study about relocating many of their vehicle fleet away from Wembley Park branch which would further reduce the number of vehicles at the Wembley Park branch.  He continued that Asda senior management had been given a training module on the DeliveryManagementPlan with on-doing monitoring by an independent monitoring team.  In response to a member’s question, Bob Parks stated that Asda were committed to a package of consultation with local residents and would ensure that the DeliveryManagementPlan was cascaded to all staff.

 

Although members welcomed the progress made they added an additional condition as set out below.

 

DECISION: 

Granted planning permission as recommended and an additional condition requiring details of training for staff on Development Management Plan.

(For 6, Against 0, Abstention 2).

4.

Chesterfield House, 9 Park Lane, Wembley, HA9 7RH (Ref 15/4550) pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted planning permission as recommended in the Draft Decision Notice and additional conditions for landscaping, car club and a contribution towards residents’ costs arising from the introduction of controlled parking zone (CPZ).

Minutes:

PROPOSAL:

Proposed demolition of existing building and erection of 21 and 26 storey building comprising flexible retail/commercial (Use Classes A1-A4) and community uses (Use Class D1) at ground floor and basement level, 239 residential units (Use Class C3) on the upper floors and associated landscaping, public realm, ancillary servicing and plant, car and cycle parking and associated works.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Grant planning permission, subject to the Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London and subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and to delegate authority to the Area Planning Manager or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Chief Legal Officer,subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice and an additional condition 25 as set out in the supplementary report.

 

David Glover (Area Planning Manager) outlined the proposal and referenced the supplementary report.  He stated that the height and design were acceptable and whilst the amenity space fell short of the SPG17 guidance, a compensatory contribution was being sought to include improvements to the local King Edward VII Park.  He added that a sum of £83,000 was being sought for carbon reduction and a further contribution was also being requested by TfL.

 

He then clarified the issues raised at the site visit. David Glover explained the servicing arrangements and added that given the large amount of office and retail floor space on the existing site, the proposed development was anticipated to reduce the overall number of servicing vehicles visiting the site and thus ease capacity within the local areas. In terms of parking, he drew members’ attention to condition 3 which requiredthe parking spacesto be provided priorto occupation ofthe proposed developmentand thereafterused ancillaryto the development.  Members heard that there was a reasonable chance that year-roundCPZs would beextendedintothosestreets nearest to thesite. David Glover continued that the identified infrastructure needs including GP surgeries, expansion of local primary schools and the establishment of a new secondary school, was expected to be funded largelyfromthe Community Infrastructure Levy(CIL) contribution ofapproximate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

76-78 Salusbury Road, London, NW6 6PA (Ref 15/4590) pdf icon PDF 516 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Refused planning permission as recommended.

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 rooflights, terraces and screening, cycle parking spaces.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse planning permission for reasons set out in the Draft Decision Notice

 

Angus Saunders (Area Planning Manager) in setting the background stated that the application was deferred from a previous meeting to enable officers to review  any off-site contribution, the details of the  on-site community provision and potential conditions regarding future use of the facilities covering hours of use, amplified sound, access arrangements and external activities.  He referenced the supplementary report, highlighting additional representations received in respect of loss of communityspace on the upperfloors; loss of a local community centre and community rooms forlocalgroups such as SwingPatrol.  He also referred to further objections received from QPARA as set out in the supplementary and reiterated the recommendation for refusal for reasons set out in the draft decision notice.

 

Janis Denselow (Chair of QPARA) objected to the proposed development for the following reasons:

The provision of 83sqm for community use would be inadequate as it was a quarter the size of the original community space.

Access arrangements to the pub were both restrictive and unsatisfactory, especially retaining the entrance on Hopefield Avenue.

Inadequate financial contribution for an off-site community facility,

The proposal failed to promote a viable pub for community space.

 

Kevin Barrett an objector, speaking in a similar vein on behalf of the Irish Pensioners Group, requested that the British Legion which had operated in the area without problems be considered as the preferred occupant for the community space.  In response to a member’s question, Kevin Barrett stated that he had not discussed his plans for community use of the space with the owner of the property.  He also stated that as an ACV the community space should be protected.

 

Judy Wilcox, a resident of Hopefield Avenue and a supporter stated that the disabled access was satisfactory and that all community groups could be considered to be accommodated within the proposed building. She made reference to the original events room on the first floor and claimed that it was not sustainable as a community facility.  She added that in her view the financial contribution for an off-site community facility was adequate to offset any consequent loss. In urging members for approval, Judy Wilcox alleged that the views expressed by QPARA on the application were founded on aspiration and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

1 Craven Park, London (Ref 15/5130) pdf icon PDF 978 KB

Decision:

Refused planning permission as recommended.

Minutes:

PROPOSAL:

Erection of a six storey building comprising 21 self-contained flats (9 x 1bed, 9 x 2bed and 3 x 3bed) with associated cycle storage, bin stores, communal and private amenity space and landscaping.

 

RECOMMENDATION: Refuseplanning permission for reasonsset out in the Draft Decision Notice.

 

Angus Saunders (Area Planning Manager) summarised the following reasons for recommending refusal of the proposed development; bulk; overbearing; out of character; servicing and waste management arrangements; and harm to the future residents of the development.

 

DECISION:  Refused planning permission as recommended.

(For 8, Against 0, Abstention 0).

7.

342 Neasden Lane, London, NW10 0AD (Ref 15/3398) pdf icon PDF 283 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Granted planning permission as recommended subject to additional conditions on layout, window, door and no advertisement.

Minutes:

PROPOSAL:

Temporary permission for the part change of use of existing retail shop (Use class A1) to provide a radio controlled mini-cab office (Use class Sui Generis).

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Grant temporary planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice

 

Angus Saunders (Area Planning Manager) outlined the scheme including a diagramof parking restrictionson surrounding streets and with reference to the supplementary report clarified the issues raised at the site visit.  He stated that with officers monitoring initialtemporaryconsentand conditionsto restrictpickups/drop offs, signage and waiting room, the 'radio controlled' aspect of the proposal would not give rise to concerns.  He added that officers had raised the pointregarding the layoutof the Mini Cab Office and how the windowand location of the doorcould promote itsuse bypassing customers. The Area Planning Manager continued that the applicant was requested to remove the windowin the proposed plans with the rear ofthe propertyconverted into a 'StaffOnly' area which he declined. 

 

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Choudry, ward member, stated that he had been approached by local residents and the business community about the application.  Councillor Choudry objected to the proposal on the grounds that there was an over-saturation of mini cab offices in the Neasden Shopping area and that a further addition would fuel the anti-social behaviour including gang fighting and noise nuisance that the offices had generated in the area. In his view there was no real demand for the mini cab office and that other alternative proposals for the site should be considered to diversity the businesses in the area. 

 

Ghulam Dost (applicant) claimed that the mini cab office opposite his shop was owned by the brother of Councillor Choudry and this was the reason for his objection.  This was denied by Councillor Choudry.  He also stated that the only reason why he declined to carry out the suggested amendments requested by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

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.