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: 13-18 Inc and 19-24 Inc Lawns Court, The Avenue, Wembley, HA9 9PN Councillor S Choudhary declared that as he had previously expressed a view that prejudged the application, he would withdraw from the meeting room during consideration of the application. |
|
Minutes of the previous meeting The minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2014 are not available and will be submitted to the next meeting of the committee. Minutes: RESOLVED:-
that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 16 July 2014 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting. |
|
13-18 Inc and 19-24 Inc Lawns Court, The Avenue, Wembley, HA9 9PN (Ref.14/1168) PDF 569 KB Minutes: PROPOSAL: Alterations and replacement of some of the existing windows and erection of a third floor to residential blocks at 13-18 and 19-24 to provide 4 self contained flats (2 x 2 bed at block 13-18 and 2 x 2 bed at block 19-24) (as per revised plans received on 4 July 2014).
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.
Rachel Murrell (Area Planning Manager) drew members’ attention to the supplementary report that provided further details of responses to queries raised at the site visit. She advised that the applicant has confirmed that the roof extensions accommodating the new flats will be of lightweight construction and built in accordance with Building Regulations. With regard to the cracks in the wall to Flat 13, Lawn Court, the applicant had been advised by the managing agent of the block that this would be dealt with as part of the major improvement and refurbishment works being carried out to the flat. Rachel Murrell also highlighted an amendment to condition 3 as set out in the supplementary report.
Rasha Mohammed spoke on behalf of Sharon Mazi, a local resident, in objecting to the application. Rasha Mohammed commented that although a number of concerns had been addressed, there were still some outstanding issues, in particular the loss of the skylight in the hallway of Flat 14, Lawns Court. Members heard that the proposed flat above Flat 14 would obscure what had been significant daylight to Flat 14. Rasha Mohammed added that there were other issues that needed further details, such as access arrangements for removing the sky light and the timetable of works. In reply to queries from members, Rasha Mohammed stated that there had been no discussions between the applicant and the resident concerning compensation for loss of the skylight to Flat 14. There was also no suitable alternative location for any kind of window and Rasha Mohammed confirmed that one other flat in the block also had a skylight.
Mr Nazidi, in objecting to the application, sought confirmation as to the total number of parking spaces proposed and whether a condition could be attached with regard to constructing a wall between the proposed car park and Mayfields Close and that there be no exit doors to the car park. He also felt that lighting in the car park needed to be addressed.
During members’ discussion, it was queried that if the loss of the skylight had been to a bedroom, bathroom, kitchen or living room, would this have had a more significant impact on the application. Clarification was also sought as to whether there was any possibility that the applicant could replace the skylight with another suitable window. Another member felt that condition 6 (e) adequately covered issues in relation to the car park boundary and in noting that some windows were to be changed to enhance the site as it was in a conservation area, he queried that if other properties also expressed a desire to have their windows changed, ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|
Byron Court Primary School, Spencer Road, Wembley, HA0 3SF (Ref.14/2382) PDF 673 KB Minutes: PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey temporary modular unit for use as classroom within the playground adjacent to the main school building.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.
DECISION: Agreed as recommended. |
|
Woodfield School, Glenwood Avenue, London, NW9 7LY (Ref. 14/2421) PDF 530 KB Minutes: PROPOSAL: Retention of the existing temporary classroom and erection of a single storey building comprising new classrooms to provide additional places for pupils with severe learning difficulties (SLD) and Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and associated ancillary spaces and landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.
Rachel Murrell informed members that the application was to accommodate five new classes and 17 additional members of staff. A condition requiring external cladding had been included as the building would be a permanent structure. Rachel Murrell confirmed that Transportation had raised no concerns regarding the proposal subject to conditions as set out in the report. She advised that as most pupils would arrive at the school by minibus, a condition in relation to dropping off pupils was included. Rachel Murrell then drew members’ attention to the detailed plans made available at the meeting.
During members’ discussion, it was queried whether there would be more buses to accommodate the increase in pupil numbers and comments were sought in respect of the school’s location within a flood zone. Another member enquired whether the consultation had been limited as it had only involved 33 residents. He also asked how it would be possible to ensure construction took place only during school holidays.
In reply to the issues raised, Rachel Murrell advised that the additional pupils and staff would lead to more movement in transport terms, however Transportation was satisfied the site could accommodate this and the condition relating to drop off/pick up of pupils would also ease any transport concerns. In terms of flooding, the Environment Agency had no raised any objections and there was a condition requiring the applicant to provide details of drainage. Rachel Murrell confirmed that all properties adjoining the site had been consulted and a planning notice had been placed on the site and all statutory consultation requirements had been met. Although she had not been informed of the exact construction period, Rachel Murrell advised that this is a modular unit and it was a question of relocating it to a different area of the site which would limit construction impacts.
DECISION: Agreed as recommended. |
|
Minutes: PROPOSAL: Demolition of 209 existing dwellings and garages at Gloucester House and Durham Court and erection of 4-8 storey blocks comprising of 236 flats (134 private and 102 affordable (social rent)), an energy centre for the South Kilburn Neighbourhood Decentralised Heating System, basement car-park, associated landscaping and general amenity space, provision of replacement public play space and stopping up of existing public footpath between Cambridge Road and Kilburn Park Road.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the conditions and reasons set out after paragraph 56 and completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement in accordance with the Heads of Terms set out below and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal Services and Procurement.
Stephen Weeks introduced the item and began by stating that the application represented a significant element of the South Kilburn Regeneration Masterplan. The proposals were for blocks of generally four to six storey height with some taller elements and included 102 affordable units. Stephen Weeks drew members’ attention to the supplementary report that responded to issues raised at the site visit. Members heard that a further drawing with regard to the proposed height of the development in relation to the main roof of the Church of St Augustine and the church’s spire had been received. In respect of bell ringing, the applicant had confirmed that the potential impact of this had been considered in the design following acoustic surveys. The applicant had also confirmed their intention to make reference in the developer agreement to the church bells to ensure potential leaseholders were aware of the bell ringing. Stephen Weeks advised that in respect of flood risk to the Church of St Augustine, Sustainable Urban Drainage Solutions had been included in the design proposals. Members also noted the response to concerns raised by Westminster City Council. Members were then shown more detailed plans provided at the meeting.
Father Amos of St Augustine’s Vicarage then addressed the committee to raise objections to certain aspects of the application. Father Amos felt that the applicant had not fully addressed the concerns about the impact the application would have on the Church of St Augustine. Referring to the reference to drainage and flooding in the report, Father Amos stated that there had been two recent occasions where the church had been flooded. In respect of complaints about bell ringing, Father Amos contested the assertion in the report that no complaints had been received, stating that an officer from Environmental Health had confirmed that a complaint had been received. Father Amos asserted that his offer for officers to undertake a noise survey at the church had been declined on the grounds of cost. He also felt that there had not been due engagement and consultation during the process of the application.
Father Amos then responded to a number of queries from the committee. He stated that the church’s foundations were ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
36 & 37 Regal Building, 75 Kilburn Lane, North Kensington, London, W10 4BB (Ref. 14/1412) PDF 653 KB Minutes: PROPOSAL: Extension to roof of existing four storey building to provide additional living space for two third floor flats and installation of proposed south facing roof terraces on third and fourth floor.
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission.
Rachel Murrell drew members’ attention to the supplementary report clarifying a number of points raised at the site visit in relation to height of the proposed screen, impact on amenity of neighbouring residential properties, petition and additional comments from members of the public and a letter from the applicant. She also drew members’ attention to comments made by Network Rail in the supplementary report about the application. Rachel Murrell then referred to the detailed plans available at the meeting and advised that the applicant had submitted revised plans on 20 August. She added that the changes to the adjoining building heights on the revised plans had not been verified.
Tom Billings, a local resident, advised the committee that he was speaking on behalf of the 11 properties out of a total of 14 in the block that were in support of the application. He stated that the applicant had consulted the residents throughout the application and the applicant had demonstrated their ability to address any concerns that had been raised. Tom Billings felt that the stepped back nature of the design proposals would be beneficial to the site and he did not think it would have much effect on neighbouring properties’ light other than a possible minor loss of daylight. He also felt that the applicant had already undertaken improvements to the block that were enhancing the quality of life for all of its residents.
In reply to queries from members, Tom Billings confirmed that he was a tenant of the block, however he was also representing views of landlords. He felt that the proposals would not lead to loss of privacy and no residents in the block had made objections to the application. He did not anticipate there being any loss of sunlight to the flats the opposite side of the Noko building.
Jonny Barrett, the applicant, stated that he was looking to increase the size of his property as he was planning to extend his family. He stated whilst there had been engagement between residents and himself during the application, he felt that he had not received sufficient guidance from Planning Services. He asserted that the application complied with planning regulations and loss of sunlight was not an issue. Members heard that the proposed extension was lower than the neighbouring Noko building. Of the 11 out of 14 properties supporting the application, Jonny Barrett stated that all on the lower floor were in support and he had undertaken improvements to the communal areas. He concluded by stating that any concerns raised by planning officers could be addressed by conditions.
In reply to queries from members, Jonny Barrett stated that his proposals were based on the Council’s planning policies and he had tried to address concerns that they had raised. However, he felt ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
Minutes: PROPOSAL: Installation of 0.5mm clear nylon wire spans between poles in 14 locations within the London Borough of Brent (and additional ones in adjacent boroughs) to complete a notional 'enclosure' (as defined in Jewish law) so as to ease Sabbath observance for non-ambulant persons and their carers -- locations in Brent are indicated in the schedule of pole locations and circled in red on the 1:10,000 Brondesbury 'Eruv' site plan 870_01.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve planning permission subject to conditions.
Stephen Weeks began by advising that the application for an ‘Eruv’ was the first as such in the borough, although some already existed in other London boroughs. He drew members’ attention to additional comments as set out in the supplementary report which also highlighted an error on the council’s website that had mistakenly stated that Councillor Colacicco had commented on the application. He then referred to the detailed plans available at the meeting.
Ruth Ward, speaking on behalf of Kensal Triangle Residents’ Association, objected to the application. She felt that the application was an unnecessary use of an already cluttered public space. Members heard that the signage that did already exist was for the benefit of the whole community, whilst the proposals in the application were only for the benefit of a small sector of the community. Ruth Ward contended that the street scene should be secular and that approving such an application could set a precedent for other such applications of a religious nature. She also felt that the application could potentially become a divisive element in the community and she was uncomfortable with what appeared to be the demarcation of one particular faith.
In reply to a query from a member that the application involved only one pole in her area, she stated that her comments were relation to the application as a whole.
Rabbi Baruch Levin, the applicant, then addressed the committee. Rabbi Baruch Levin stated that the proposals to complete a notional closure if the Eruv included a minimum number of poles to minimise physical impact on the environment. The poles and wires were needed to ensure that the perimeter of the Eruv was demarcated. Rabbi Baruch Levin stated that there was no evidence that there had been any adverse effects on community cohesion where Eruvs were already in place.
In reply to queries from members, Rabbi Baruch Levin advised that around 120 families visited the synagogue, with many having young children and elder members. He advised that an application for planning permission was required because of the erection of poles. In response to a query on whether an Eruv could be created for the whole of London, Rabbi Baruch Levin advised that this was not possible as the maximum number of people an Eruv can incorporate was 600,000 people. Members noted that the wires would be checked twice weekly for any breakages and any identified would be repaired immediately and this would apply to wires to all poles. The committee heard that there ... 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 Democratic Services Manager or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 64.
Minutes: None. |