Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 4, 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: None |
|
The London plan - Comments on the consultation draft replacement plan PDF 136 KB This report sets out comments on the consultation draft of the Replacement London Plan. The London Plan is legally part of the Council’s development plan and must be taken into account when planning decisions are taken. It is therefore important to comment on the Replacement Plan that will set planning policy for the whole of London and for this Borough in particular. Minutes: The Committee gave consideration to a report that set out comments on the consultation draft of the Replacement London Plan, a legal part of the council’s development plan when planning decisions were being made and a document that would set planning policy for the whole of London and for this borough in particular.
In setting out the time table for its adoption, the Head of Policy and Projects Dave Carroll informed the Committee that the deadline for submission of comments on the Replacement London Plan which was published in October 2009 for public consultation was 12 January 2010. The next stage would be an Examination in Public in summer-autumn of 2010 and the new plan being adopted probably in early 2011. The London Plan intended to replace the 2004 London Plan would be the framework for the development of London until 2031 integrating the Mayor’s transport, economic development, housing and cultural strategies as well as addressing other social and environmental issues. The Plan would also provide the policy context within which boroughs set their planning policies and the basis on which the Mayor would consider strategic applications referred to him. He then drew members’ attention to the comments on the key changes to policy.
Whilst welcoming the change in emphasis in giving boroughs more say in planning their boroughs, he expressed concerns about the objective to fund strategic matters through planning obligations and community Infrastructure levy (CIL). He continued that as set out in its comments, the Council supported the London Plan housing target, the minimum flat size standards in high density development, the ability to stop back garden development and the general aim of increasing affordable family housing although it was recognised that this would not be possible on every site.
It was noted that Wembley had been identified as a visitor destination in the London Plan without Mayor recognising its potential to deliver office floor space and other mixed use potential. In addition the Mayor should include other emerging areas of opportunity identified by the borough such as Alperton. He continued that the Council could not deliver its Gypsy site allocation without a clear understanding of the funding avenues needed to secure and develop such sites. He added that the Mayor needed to support development on suitable sites in order to address the shortage of school places and to lobby for appropriate funding, including the provision of local S106 funds that would take priority over strategic requirements. He also added that the Council supported the provision of decentralised energy networks but on condition that the Mayor worked with boroughs, government and energy providers to secure investment that would allow their provision earlier in the development process. Whilst the Council also supported retrofitting of existing stock it also needed a realistic assessment of resources to undertake such work to be identified.
In the discussion that followed, Councillor Hashmi, whilst supporting the stance on back garden development enquired as to why The Mayor had chosen to reduce CO2 emissions by ... view the full minutes text for item 2. |
|
Proposed pre-submission changes to the site specific allocation development plan document PDF 237 KB This report summarises limited changes to the Draft Specific Allocations Submission stage development plan document of the emerging Local Development Framework. The limited changes are 3 new sites and a series of minor changes to the document. The changes are proposed following publication of, and consultation on, Brent’s site specific allocations in June 2009 in advance of submission to the Secretary of State. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee received a report that summarised limited changes to the draft Site Specific Allocations Submission stage Development Plan Document of the emerging Local Development Framework. The Head of Policy & Projects clarified that the role of the document was to give more details of development within individual sites, including within the Core Strategy’s growth areas. He added that following publication of, and consultation on, Brent’s Site Specific Allocations in June 2009 representations were received seeking changes to the document. Having considered the representations officers were proposing limited changes to the following 3 new sites and a series of minor changes to the document which were proposed.
Moberly Leisure Centre, South Kilburn A representation was received from the London Borough of Westminster for the inclusion of an allocation on the Moberly Leisure Centre in the South Kilburn growth area that would promote the redevelopment of the site for a new or improved leisure centre and enable residential development. In principle, officers recommended the inclusion of this new site as a Site Specific Allocation as the Council would want to secure some affordable housing as part of any development to assist with the redevelopment of South Kilburn.
Former service station garage Rucklidge Avenue Abermarle Trust, the owners of this site submitted a representation requesting the inclusion of this site within the document as “residential development”. Although planning applications for the site had been refused in the past, as it was a brownfield land within an urban development, officers felt that in principle, this site can be included within the document as it was in line with national and regional planning policy. However, officers suggest that the allocation is worded so as to refer to the difficulties of development derived from the outlook, privacy, mass and scale in relation to the surrounding properties.
Former Wembley Mini-Market, Lancelot Road, Wembley London and Quadrant Housing Trust requested that this site be included as a site specific allocation for either solely residential or the mixed use redevelopment of this site. This brownfield site had long been vacant and officers felt that in principle, the site was suitable for redevelopment. However, officers feel that in the interests of supporting the role of Wembley town centre, the development should include commercial uses at lower floors. This will supersede the proposals for the site included in the adopted UDP. He added that the requests for inclusion of the following sites could not be recommended for reasons set out below; Swimming Pool at Roe Green Park, Kingsbury Officers felt that it was not possible to include an allocation at such an advanced stage in the document, when the actual site for this proposal had still not been agreed by the Council. Additionally, officers were concerned that the progress of the document was not held up while a site was agreed.
Asiatic Carpets and Chancel House, Church End These sites were already included within the document but were identified for mixed use development. Due to the level of occupation of Chancel ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|
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 65.
Minutes: None |