Agenda, decisions 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 Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk, tel. (020) 8937 1354
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: None. |
|||||
Minutes of the previous meeting PDF 166 KB Minutes: RESOLVED:-
that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 7 June 2011 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting. |
|||||
2A Preston Waye & 283-287 odd, Preston Road, Harrow, HA3 (Ref. 11/1042) PDF 366 KB Decision: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
Minutes:
Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning introduced this report. With reference to the tabled supplementary, he informed members about additional letters of objections had been received which chiefly reiterated issues that had been addressed in the main report. In responding to new issues raised Steve Weeks clarified that the proposal would overlap with the previous approval to the rear of No. 281 Preston Road but a condition on landscaping required implementation in full accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the residential units. He continued that the toolkit submitted with the application and based on current values and build costs demonstrated that it was not viable to provide affordable housing. However, an independent revised financial toolkit would be required once actual build costs were available in order to reassess the provision of affordable housing within the development. In respect of issues raised on traffic and access, the Head of Area Planning added that the Council's Transportation Officer had assessed the information and plans provided and was satisfied that the servicing arrangement would be acceptable without a significant impact on the surrounding highway network.
The Head of Area Planning advised members that individual consultation letters had been sent to local residents and groups which had produced a range of responses that were covered in the report. However, the expiry period for the site notices would expire after 14 July, and hence, if the Committee agreed the recommendation, they were being asked to delegate consideration of these. He reported that on the advice of the Director of Legal and Procurement, a right of vehicular access over the proposed car park access road into any redevelopment of 281 Preston Road needed to be secured through the Section 106 agreement rather than by Condition 10. He added that the applicant had confirmed that they would accept a clause in the agreement in accordance with this requirement.
Mr William Kemp, Chair of Preston Amenities Protection Association (PAPA) in objecting to the proposed development stated that due to its size, siting and design the proposed development would be out of character with the surroundings. He continued that with a potential for a substantial increase in population, the proposal would represent an unattractive block on the landscape of the area and urged members to refuse the application. In response to the Chair’s query Mr Kemp stated that the conversions in Jubilee Court and Park Place to which the Chair referred were both well away from the application site.
Mr David Pearson ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|||||
Melrose House, 201 Melrose Avenue, London, NW2 4NA (Ref. 11/0807) PDF 833 KB Decision: Grant variation of planning condition 2 of permission reference 10/2142 Minutes:
With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning drew members’ attention to an advice by the Director of Legal and Procurement on the Section 106 Agreement and a deed of variation. In view of that he undertook to seek a further advice of the Director of Legal and Procurement on the appropriate course of action to ensure that the obligations were complied with before issuing the planning permission. Members noted that payment of the financial contributions had been received
During debate, Councillor Cummins queried the nature of the change to the windows and any implications. By reference to the plans, the Head of Area Planning clarified that the proposed changes by the enlargement of casement windows should not result in a significant adverse impact so as to warrant a refusal.
|
|||||
67 Dartmouth Road, London, NW2 4EP (Ref. 11/0800) PDF 601 KB Decision: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.
Minutes:
Copies of a written statement and a photograph submitted by the applicant’s agent were circulated to Committee members at the meeting. With reference to the tabled supplementary, Steve Weeks Head of Area Planning informed members about an additional comment received from a local resident who expressed concerns that the proposal would result in the physical sub-division of the rear garden. In responding to the above, the Head of Area Planning confirmed that as the property had been converted historically and the access arrangements, ownership and sub-division of the rear garden had been confirmed by the applicant. He continued that as the proposed works would not change the ownership of the rear garden and a fence could be erected without planning permission, a condition removing this permitted development right would not be considered to be reasonable.
Mrs Mary Sayers in objecting to the proposed development claimed that she had not been properly consulted and that the plans were not available on the website. She added that the proposal would result in obstruction to her views, outlook and visual amenity and by creating a “corridor of walls effect” it would have an additional detrimental impact. For the above reasons Mrs Sayers urged members to refuse the application so as to safeguard the character of the Dartmouth Road area.
In responding to the issues raised, the Head of Area Planning explained the size and scale of the proposed single storey rear extension in relation to normal guidance and the relationship to adjoining residents. He added that in terms of the dimensions, height and projection the proposal was considered acceptable and complied with relevant policy and design guidance. In response to a query from Cllr. Cummins, he continued that the external staircase would not create a precedent for others on the street as it would be replacing an existing balcony. The Head of Area Planning also drew members’ attention to condition 3 that sought to prevent the roof of the rear extension as a roof terrace. He continued that the objector had wanted to view the objections to the proposal which were not published for confidentiality reasons adding that the plans were available on the website site.
|
|||||
66A Springfield Mount, London, NW9 0SB (Ref. 11/0488) PDF 675 KB Decision: Refuse planning permission. Minutes:
This application was called in accordance with Part 5 of the Constitution by Councillors J Moher, R Moher and Crane for further consideration of the merits of the scheme in light of changes planning regulations, the impact upon the amenities of the residents and surrounding properties.
Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning with reference to the tabled supplementary informed members about the revised plans with proposals for the garden area and went on to clarify the external space for the proposed and existing dwellings following the sub-division of the site in comparison to the Council’s normal minimum requirement of 50m2. He advised that the usual external amenity space for the existing dwelling would be reduced to approximately 64sqm through the subdivision of the site whilst the external amenity space for the proposed dwelling would be approximately 35sq m. He continued that whilst the plans showed the dwelling as a one-bedroom unit, there were no restrictions preventing an additional bedroom from being provided within the roof space. In reiterating the recommendation for refusal the Head of Area Planning submitted that the main concern with the proposalwas the impact on amenity space and the relationship between the proposed properties in terms of significant overlooking.
Mr Suresh Mamtora Chair of Springfield Area Residents’ Association stated that the proposed sub-division and conversion would not result in intensification of use, harmful and out of character with the area. He added that there were potential problems in not approving the application in view of threats of use for multiple occupancy or for use for car repairs. He urged members to be minded to approve the sub-division.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice Councillor J Moher, ward member stated that he had been approached by residents in connection with the application. Councillor Moher stated that the proposal which would be used by the applicant’s extended family would not cause harm to the area but rather would be in keeping with the character of the area. He added that the relaxation of the planning laws was enough a reason to remove planning condition 4 for personal consent. In response to members’ questions, Councillor J Moher stated that he had visited the property and observed that the proposal would not give rise to issues of overlooking and overshadowing.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice Councillor Crane, ward member stated that he had been approached by the applicant. Councillor Crane spoke in support of the views expressed by Mr Mamtora and added that the proposal would be in keeping with the streetscene. He urged members to approve the application.
In response to the points raised by the speakers and members’ enquiries, the Head of Area Planning submitted that planning condition 4 was imposed to support the ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|||||
Hawthorn Road And Litchfield Gardens Corner Site, Hawthorn Road, London, NW10 (Ref. PDF 771 KB Decision: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
Minutes:
Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning in reference to queries raised by members at the site visit on the quality of the design of the development, in general, and the brickwork to be used in particular, drew members’ attention to condition 5. This condition sought details of materials for all external work including samples to be submitted for approval prior to commencement of work. In terms of the impact of the development on car parking in the locality, he clarified that the proposed flats would be permit-free controlled by way of legal agreement.
Mr Ben Kelway the applicant’s agent stated that the proposal which was consistent with the site specific allocation would deliver a high quality of development of contemporary design. He confirmed that the applicant would comply with the condition for further details of materials to be submitted prior to commencement of work as recommended. Mr Kelway added that the proposed development would make a valuable contribution by providing affordable housing with acceptable residential amenity and sustainability.
In the discussion that followed, Councillor Hashmi raised objections to the proposed development on the grounds that it was not a “car free development” in an area with inadequate parking spaces. In indicating his intention to vote against the recommendation Councillor Hashmi queried the fact that the development proposed a 25% affordable housing which was below the policy requirement for a 50% affordable housing. Councillor Cummins enquired about the possibility of mitigating the loss of employment site by imposing a condition requiring the applicant to create local employment via apprenticeship. Councillor Kabir sought advice on the possibility of securing at least the minimum standard for play area within the site.
The Head of Area Planning responded that the area was accessible to public transport facilities (high PTAL rating) and that nearby houses had on-street parking managed through controlled parking zone (CPZ). He confirmed that the site allocation policy allowed for a housing development on the site and that the development was not sufficient enough to trigger employment and/or apprenticeship or a requirement for a play area. In respect of residential amenity he recommended a further condition to control the hours of work.
|
|||||
16 Kingswood Avenue, London, NW6 6LG (Ref. 11/0797) PDF 665 KB Decision: Grant planning permission subject to conditions Minutes:
Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning informed members that in order to secure the future of nearby trees, the Council's Tree Protection Officer was requested to consider the additional information submitted by the applicant. He concluded that the proposal would not put any of the trees in neighbouring gardens at risk, unless site materials, plant and excavated material were stored for any length of time in the rear garden. In order to prevent that, he suggested that tree protective chestnut fencing be erected around the root protection areas until the completion of the development. He clarified a query raised by Councillor Hashmi on the projection of the basement and lightwell beyond the extension to the rear.
|
|||||
Karma House, 575 North End Road, Wembley, HA9 0UU PDF 478 KB Decision: Approve reserve matters subject to approved drawings and documents. Minutes:
|
|||||
Decision: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement
Minutes:
Neil McClellan, the Area Team Manager updated members about a late amendment by the applicants to replace the proposed 5 bed unit on the 5th floor of Block A (the private block) with a 1-bed and a 2-bed unit. He advised that both units would exceed the minimum floor area standards set out in the Council's SPG17 design guide, maintaining an acceptable outlook, good daylight and a minimum of 10 square metres private external amenity space. He considered the amendment, was sought for reasons of viability, acceptable in terms of the quality of accommodation proposed and mix of unit sizes.
In addressing the issues raised at the site visit, the Area Team Manager clarified that although the scheme was originally proposed as a 100% affordable housing development, it had gone through a number of changes since its submission. These had resulted in the removal of a sixth floor from each block, changes in the mix of tenure and affordable/private ratio of 52%/48% and a standard contribution of £128,400 rather than the £115,200. He then outlined the provision for disabled parking, drawing attention to condition 8 which required details of a means of controlling vehicular access to the scheme to prevent the unauthorised parking of vehicles within the site. The Area Planning Manager clarified the position on acceptable refuse and recycling on site and the options available for spending the section 106 landscape funding in the area, with particular priority for upgrading the MUGA in King Edward Park.
During members’ discussions, Councillor Kabir enquired about the right of way for pedestrians and to protect the amenity of the residents. Councillor Cummins sought a clarification on the arrangement for vehicle turning room on the site. In response, the Area Planning Manager stated that there would be a dedicated pedestrian right of way that would protect the amenity of residents. He added that although there was turning area within the site, vehicles may have to reverse at some point. He continued that although the previous use was commercial as there would be no private garden there was no need for remediation measures. Disabled parking spaces.
|
|||||
Decision: Approve variation of condition 3 of planning consent reference 04/2158.
Minutes:
Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager clarified that the proposal was for the relaxation of a planning condition (condition 3 of reference 04/2158) in the Eastern terrace of the site. He referred to a late objection from the Wembley Town Centre Management and added that the issues raised had been addressed in the main report. With reference to the tabled supplementary report, he drew members’ attention to an amended condition 6 and an informative 5, subject to which he reiterated the recommendation for approval.
Nigel Hawkey the applicant’s agent informed the Committee that the redevelopment of the entire site would not be possible until the last lease had expired in 2031, hence the need for an interim measure by way of refurbishment as key to progress the regeneration of Wembley. He continued that the proposal would enable retailers to migrate to the site without prejudice to the vitality and viability of the Wembley High Road area. In response to members’ questions Mr Hawkey stated that the success of the proposal would enable Quintains to further invest in Wembley and thus the benefits to be fed back to the High Road.
|
|||||
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.
The meeting ended at 9:45pm
K SHETH Chair
Note: At 9.05 the meeting was adjourned for 5 minutes. |