Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Rooms 1, 2 and 3, Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane, Wembley, HA9 9HD. 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: Agenda item 11 – 1-20 inc. Garfield Court, Willesden Lane NW6
Councillor Long declared a personal interest as a member of the Board of Brent Housing Partnership, withdrew from the meeting room during its consideration and took no part in the discussion and voting. |
||||
Minutes of the previous meeting - 2 November 2010 PDF 215 KB Minutes: RESOLVED:-
that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 2 November 2010 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting. |
||||
Alleyway rear of 12-30, Princes Avenue, London NW9 9JB (Ref 10/1979) PDF 5 MB Minutes:
With reference to the supplementary report tabled at the meeting the Area Planning Manager, Rachel McConnell clarified that it was the Council had legal powers to recover the cost of removal from the fly-tipper or the owners of adjacent properties. She added that the proposal outlined in the main report was considered to be the best solution to prevent unauthorised access to the alleyway and safeguard amenities.
Mr Karseras an objector reiterated his objections to the proposed location of the alleyway gate as he felt that the area from the foot of the alleyway to the gate (some 9.5metres) would be unprotected and thus encourage fly tipping and anti-social behaviour. He suggested an alternative proposal involving the erection of the gate at the foot of the alleyway and next to the low garden wall of 1 Tennyson Avenue. Mr Kaseras urged the Council to provide adequate funds for his suggested proposal which he felt would serve a dual purpose of preventing fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour as well as enabling him to use his garage without obstruction.
Mr Parvez, Secretary of the local Residents’ Committee speaking in support of the application highlighted problems with fly-tipping of household rubbish in the alleyway which was denying some residents including himself, access to their garages. In addition the current situation of the alleyway remained an eyesore and detrimental to residential amenities. Mr Parvez concluded that the erection of the gate would be a positive deterrent to the key issue of fly-tipping in the alleyway.
The Head of Area Planning, Steve Weeks reiterated the view that the experience elsewhere indicated that the location of the gate was less critical in deterring fly-tipping but that there was neither an objection on Planning or Highways grounds to moving it nearer to the pavement. The critical issue was whether there was a need to both fly-tipping and anti-social behaviour in the alley. If anti-social behaviour was less of a problem then there may not be a need for additional fencing if the gate was moved forward. He suggested that the exact location of the gate be delegated to him once the key aim had been clarified. At the start of members’ debate, Councillor Baker suggested a site visit in order to assess the situation which was put to the vote and declared lost.
|
||||
1-3 The Mall, Harrow, HA3 (Ref 10/2365) PDF 6 MB Minutes:
The Area Planning Manager, Rachel McConnell with reference to the tabled supplementary report informed the Committee that revised plans had been received which updated the external works to reflect the details approved pursuant to conditions of the original planning permission 09/2650. In view of this she suggested an amendment to condition 2 as set out in the supplementary report. She continued that there were some minor points outstanding which related to the planting scheme and which was expected to be resolved by 30 November 2010.
|
||||
163 Melrose Avenue, London NW2 4NA (Ref 10/2511) PDF 5 MB Minutes:
Mr Mohammed Mughal the applicant stated that the original application had been revised in light of the next door neighbour’s comments and officers’ advice. In urging the Committee for approval, he pointed to numerous precedents that existed in the area.
The Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks added that the relationship of the side and rear extensions with the neighbouring property was acceptable and complied with the guidance in Supplementary Planning Guidance note 5 (SPG5)
|
||||
1-21 inc and garages at rear, Oman Court, Oman Avenue, London NW2 (Ref 10/2012) PDF 5 MB Minutes:
With reference to the tabled supplementary, the Area Planning Manager, Rachel McConnell addressed the following issues raised by objectors:
i) Parking The use of double yellow lines in some sections to control parking in Oman Avenue, the availability of at least one off-street parking bay for every house and the existence of on-street parking bays by Oman Court meant that over-spill parking in Oman Avenue could be reasonably accommodated on-street.
(ii) Servicing and Bin storage The existing ad-hoc arrangements would be formalised whilst removing and landscaping the existing unused bin store thus making them proportionate to the requirements of the application for four flats. Whilst condition 8 requiring further details of bin stores had been amended to include reference to Household Waste Collection Strategy, full compliance could not be imposed retrospectively on the existing 23 flats. She reported that the Streetcare department had confirmed that they would require two sets of keys to the gates to ensure access to the site by the Council's recycling and refuse crews. In order to reflect that, a new informative and an amendment was suggested to condition 11 (further details of gates).
iii) Visual impact The chimneys would be extended and thus their utility and their visual impact would be maintained. It would be the responsibility of the freeholder of the building to agree with the existing and future residents if the chimneys were to be operational.
Rachel McConnell continued that other issues raised by objectors in respect of the structural integrity of the building, flooding/drainage and the re-surfacing of the entire car park area had been addressed in the main report, although they were not matters which could be considered when determining a planning application.
Mr Dominic Connelly objected to the proposed development on the following grounds;
(i) Inadequate provision for parking in an already heavily parked street. (ii) Overlooking and loss of privacy. (iii) The symmetrical character of the building would be affected. (iv) An additional further storey to be added to the existing building would pose an increased risk to its structure. (v) Loss of vegetation.
Mr Robert Dunwell objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it failed to address to address the requirements of the Council’s Household Waste Strategy which he submitted was adopted by Executive for implementation on 15 November 2010. In his view, the application did not meet the requirements on floor space, internal and external storage. Mr Dunwell therefore urged members to ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
||||
55 The Paddocks, Wembley HA9 9HG (Ref 10/2300) PDF 5 MB Minutes:
|
||||
Melrose House, 201 Melrose Avenue, London NW2 4NA PDF 6 MB Minutes:
|
||||
39 Summit Avenue, London NW9 0TH (Ref 10/2349) PDF 5 MB Minutes:
The Area Planning Manager Rachel McConnell advised the Committee that an additional comment from a neighbour about the maintenance of their boundary was a civil rather than planning issue and could not therefore be considered as part of this application. In recommending conditional approval she drew members’ attention to an amendment to condition 6 as set out in the tabled supplementary report.
|
||||
Thames Water Utilities, St Michael's London NW2 6XD (Ref 10/2247) PDF 5 MB Minutes:
In her introduction the Area Planning Manager Rachel McConnell referred to concerns raised by Councillor Choudary at the site visit, additional objections from local residents and a petition with approximately 180 signatories details of which were set out in the tabled supplementary and mostly covered in the reports. She then submitted responses to the following concerns which had not been previously addressed in the main report:
Highway Safety and Parking The revisions to the layout could ensure 16 parking spaces on the site. In addition a condition would be attached requiring the submission of a revised parking layout and alterations to the front boundary. This would require the re-positioning of the front gate to allow for two car lengths of space for vehicles entering the site, so as to reduce the likelihood of vehicles waiting on the road. The Council's Highways Engineer and the Transport Consultants had advised that the proposed vehicle movements associated with the proposed development were not considered to be such that they will have a detrimental impact on highway safety during these times.
Density The applicants had advised that there would be 73 habitable rooms within the development, not 79 as stated in the main report, thus resulting in an overall density of 228hrh and 79 units per hectare.
Relationship of the flats with the Listed Church The proposed flats were considered to be subservient to the Grade II listed church and were therefore not considered to detract from its setting. The design was considered appropriate in the local area.
Prospective Residents The applicant had confirmed that the proposed scheme which would be fully affordable housing (shared ownership units and social rent accommodation) would not provide housing for young offenders. She continued that all the units would be allocated in accordance with the West London funding arrangements, providing new homes of particular benefit to those who are unable to afford standard market valued homes in the area.
Disturbance of Bats Although a condition had been attached requiring a lighting strategy for the site, the ecological consultants for the site had confirmed that there had been only one official recorded sighting of a bat within 730m from the site.
Removal of existing Landscaping next to Japanese Knotweed areas. The removal of the existing landscaping in the areas of the Japanese Knotweed was considered to be the most effective means ... view the full minutes text for item 10. |
||||
1-20 inc Garfield Court, Willesden Lane, London NW6 7SZ (Ref 10/2594) PDF 5 MB
Minutes:
|
||||
71, 71a, 73, 73a, 75 and 75a Chevening Road, London NW6 (Ref 10/2665) PDF 248 KB Minutes:
In reiterating the recommendation for approval, the Area Planning Manager Rachel McConnell advised members that conditions 13 and 14 were no longer required and therefore recommended their removal.
|
||||
95 Chatsworth Road, London NW2 4BH (Ref 10/1639) PDF 5 MB Minutes:
|
||||
99b Brondesbury Road, London NW6 6RY (Ref 10/1797) PDF 6 MB Minutes:
|
||||
101a and 101b Chatsworth Road, London NW2 4BH (Ref 10/2527) PDF 241 KB Minutes:
|
||||
17 Heathfield Park, London NW2 5JE (Ref 10/2445) PDF 204 KB Minutes:
|
||||
75 St Augustine's Avenue, Wembley HA9 7NU (Ref 10/2267) PDF 238 KB Minutes:
|
||||
Land Adjacent to South Way, Wembley PDF 236 KB Minutes:
In his introduction, the Area Planning Manager Neil McClellan informed the Committee that the report dealt with three applications submitted on behalf of Network Rail and RE International (UK) Ltd for Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development for land they once owned adjacent to South Way, Wembley, Middlesex. The lad was compulsorily purchased by the London Development Agency (LDA) five years ago in order to facilitate the construction of the White Horse Bridge and the South Way marshalling area. With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Neil McClellan clarified the affordable housing and the justification for the education and highways contributions.
The applicant’s agent Mr Tony Tapleys whilst accepting the logic behind the officer’s recommendation requested a reduction on the contributions for the affordable housing and education.
At the start of members’ discussion, Councillor Kataria questioned why there was no reference to housing development in Policy WEM 3 and although the Area Planning Manager pointed out that this was covered under Policy WEM4, Councillor Kataria requested a site visit. This was voted upon and declared lost.
|
||||
Planning Appeals October 2010 Minutes: Following an introduction by the Head of Area Planning which highlighted the issues raised in appeals allowed , the outcome of overturned recommendations and overall appeal performance, the Committee;
RESOLVED:-
That the appeals for October 2010 be noted.
|
||||
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 raised at this meeting.
The meeting ended at 9.15pm
RS PATEL CHAIR |