Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday 9 August 2017 7.00 pm

Venue: Conference Hall - Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ. View directions

Contact: Joe Kwateng, Governance 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 personal and prejudicial interests and discloseable pecuniary interests in any matter to be considered at this meeting.

Minutes:

None.

 

Approaches.

All members received an email from a resident of Braunston House in relation to the application for 224-249 and 253 Ealing Road, Wembley (Ref. 16/3606).

2.

Minutes of the previous meetings - 12 July 2017 pdf icon PDF 80 KB

To confirm as a correct record, the attached set of minutes from the meeting of the Planning Committee on 12 July 2017.

 

Minutes:

RESOLVED:-

 

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 12 July 2017 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

3.

111 Chamberlayne Road, London NW10 3NS pdf icon PDF 220 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

PROPOSAL: Temporary use of land to the rear of 111 Chamberlayne Road for outside seating area

 

RECOMMENDATION: To GRANT planning permission and grant delegated authority to the Head of Planning to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the draft decision notice.

 

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the

committee.

 

Damian Manhertz (Deputy Area Planning Manager) introduced the report and answered members’ questions.  He referenced the supplementary report and responded to issues on noise, overlooking and impact of the seating area.  These were raised in the petition that was submitted after the report had been published. He clarified that excessive noise and harm caused through elements such as smoking could be classified as a statutory nuisance and as such would be covered and controlled through Environmental Health legislation rather than planning legislation. Members heard that the windows adjacent to the plot related to a clinic rather than a residential property and that a wall approximately 1.6m in height provided some separation, drawing attention also to recommended condition 3 to limit the hours of use from 09.00 hours to 18.00 hours, Monday to Saturday.

 

The Deputy Area Planning Manager continued that although visitors to the clinic would have to pass it, it was worth noting that the coffee shop was a commercial unit within a secondary shopping frontage and what was being proposed would be of benefit and help to their business.  In addition to the condition on the hours of operation, the application was being recommended for a temporary trial period so as to assess the actual impact.

 

Gillian Lonsdale (objector) circulated photographs of the site and raised the following issues of concern; the umbrellas would result in loss of natural light to her adjoining osteopathy clinic; the patrons to the coffee shop would adversely impact on her business through noise disturbance, smoking and loss of security for her clients.  She requested the imposition of the following conditions; the umbrellas should not be used between 08.00 hours and 17.00 hours; the erection of a “no smoking” sign and the installation of a CCTV surveillance camera to deter anti-social behaviour gathering.

 

Simon Millett (applicant’s agent) stated that the applicant had a permitted development right which would expire on or before 31 December 2018, drawing attention to a typographical error in condition 1. He added that Planning and Environmental Officers were satisfied with the proposal and had recommended conditions to allow control and to assess its impact prior to any application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

62 Dunster Drive, London NW9 9EL pdf icon PDF 191 KB

Minutes:

PROPOSAL: Conversion of existing dwelling into 3 self-contained flats with associated internal alterations and provision of front car parking, soft landscaping and bin storage.

 

RECOMMENDATION: To GRANT planning permission and grant delegated authority to the Head of Planning to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the draft decision notice.

 

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the committee.

 

Chris Heather (Deputy Area Planning Manager) informed the Committee that  a total of 8 (not 81) objections had been received from 5 properties.  He clarified that the principle of use and the proposed sub-division was acceptable and that the amendments proposed as part of the application were considered relatively minor in design terms for a sufficiently high quality residential accommodation.

He added that the impact was considered not to be materially greater than the development which had planning permission and was currently under construction. He continued that the  impact on the highway was considered to be acceptable.

 

Pamela Suraya (objector) circulated photographs to support her presentation. She alleged that residents were not consulted about the proposal and went on to raise the following issues of concern; the development would be out of character with neighbouring residential properties in terms of its excessive scale which would result in overbearing. She also referred to poor visibility at the junction of Dunster Drive and Hill Drive and vehicular accidents which would be made worse by the proposed development.

 

Desal Al Hasani (applicant’s agent) informed members that an extant planning permission was granted in 2016 and that the construction of the building was substantially complete and in accordance with conditions imposed and building regulations requirements. He added that the building would remain residential with no impact on neighbouring residential properties.

 

In the ensuing discussions, members noted that the claim by the agent that the building was substantially complete was not backed up by photographs recently taken and submitted by the objector. Rachel Murrell (Development Management Manager) advised that members could either defer the application until the development was substantially complete  or to agree in principle and delegate authority to Head of Planning to grant planning permission in due course when satisfied.

 

DECISION: Deferred the application until the development was substantially complete.

(Voting on the above decision was unanimous).

 

5.

245-249 and 253 Ealing Road, Wembley HA0 1EX pdf icon PDF 429 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of the site to provide two new buildings of part 9 and part 10 storeys high to accommodate 92 flats (7 x studios, 45 x 1 bed, 26 x 2 bed and 14 x 3 bed units), ground floor commercial use within Use class A4 (drinking establishment) or Use class D1 (community centre) with associated basement for car and cycle parking spaces and storage, vehicular crossover, bin stores, amenity space, landscaping and associated works

 

RECOMMENDATION: To GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement with Heads of Terms as set out in the report

 

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.

 

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out draft decision notice.

 

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.

 

That, if by 3 months of the Committee date the legal agreement has not been completed, the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to refuse the planning permission.

 

That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

Chris Heather (Deputy Area Planning Manager) introduced the report, referenced the supplementary report and answered members’ questions.  He informed members that although the scheme was “car free”, the applicants had already provided information on how the development would achieve 10% wheelchair accessible units.  In view of that, he recommended an amendment to condition 15 of the draft decision notice to require compliance.  In terms of unit sizes, members heard that of the 92 flats proposed, only 6 would fall short of the London Plan standard, with the other 86 flats exceeding the standards.  Although the distance would not achieve the 20m separation distance in many instances, SPG17 stipulates that 20m was a standard for privacy and not for outlook. He added that at least 20m should be established between facing windows for privacy and at least 10m of unobstructed space should be achieved from habitable room windows to establish suitable outlook.

 

In respect of density, he noted that the proposed development would have 1,997 habitable rooms per hectare, which was substantially higher than the 725 habitable rooms per hectare achieved at the 243 Ealing Road development. Both of these densities are higher than the recommended  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

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.