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: 3. Ark Elvin Academy, Cecil Avenue Wembley (Ref. 15/3161) Chetan Patel sent emails to all members dated 5, 11, 20, 21 (x3) relating to correspondence with Planning Officers, the Legal Monitoring Officer, Highways Department Councillor Butt (Leader of the Council) and the Local Ombudsman regarding the alleged breach of the public right of way (PROW) and concerns about construction access.
John Joseph Collery sent an email to all members dated 13 October 2015 regarding the alleged breach of the public right of way.
VimalChavda sent an email to all members dated 21 October 2015 regarding the alleged breach of the public right of way.
7. 33A Wrentham Avenue NW10 3HS (Ref. 15/3094) Michael Woodman-Smith (architect) and Leah Clarke (applicant) sent emails to all members on the 21 and 22 October 2015 respectively with further representations, enclosing additional plans and letters of support from neighbours.
9. Car Park Ainsworth Close (Ref. 15/3218) Councillor Mahmood declared a prejudicial interest and indicated that he would leave the meeting and would not take part of the discussion or voting during consideration of the application.
Councillor Mili Patel declared a prejudicial interest as a member of the Board of Trustees of Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) and indicated that she would leave the meeting room and not take part in the discussion or voting during consideration of the application.
10. Former Kensal Rise Branch Library (Ref. 15/3819) Margaret Bailey (Chair of Trustee, Friends of Kensal Rise Branch Library) sent a letter in support to all members dated 20 October 2015.
Councillor Choudhary declared a prejudicial interest and indicated that he would leave the meeting room and not take part in the discussion or voting during consideration of the application. |
|
Minutes of the previous meeting - 24 September 2015 PDF 117 KB Minutes: RESOLVED:-
that the minutes of the previous meeting held 24 September 2015 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting. |
|
Ark Elvin Academy, Cecil Avenue, Wembley, HA9 7DU (Ref. 15/3161) PDF 1 MB Additional documents: Decision: Planning permission granted as recommended subject to an additional condition on signage at the High Road entrance and update condition 21 to monitoring of external plant following installation. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing buildings on site and erection of replacement building to accommodate a three storey 9FE secondary school for 1750 pupils (1350 11-16 year old and 400 post 16) with associated car parking, servicing and circulation space, Multi Use Games Area, All Weather Pitch, games areas and other hard and soft landscaping, together with the diversion of Public Right of Way (PROW) No.87
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the draft Decision Notice and amended conditions 2, 10, 11 and 18 as detailed in the supplementary report.
Rachel Murrell (Area Planning Manager) outlined the proposal and referenced the supplementary report. Members heard that the use of Brent House or the existing access from the High Road was not considered appropriate for the main construction access route. Brent House was a separate site under different ownership and the High Road was deemed to be unsuitable due to health and safety reasons given its proximity to the existing school building. She continued that Jesmond Avenue had been selected as the preferred route of construction access as it had a direct access from Harrow Road, its closer proximity to the North Circular Road, loss of fewer on-street parking and the ability to enable the school to operate during construction without risk to pupils. Members heard that a car park within the site to compensate for the loss of on-street parking would be difficult to manage and as such was not considered appropriate.
The Area Planning Manager reported that legal advice had confirmed that assessment of claims to the use of the school grounds as a public right of way could not be carried out by the Planning Committee and must instead be dealt with by a separate process by the Transportation Department. The advice also confirmed that there was no impediment to the Planning Committee considering and determining the application. She drew members’ attention to condition 22(a)(iii) regarding boundary fencing during construction, updated plans to reflect the changes to the site layout and amended conditions 2, 10, 11 and 18 as detailed in the supplementary report.
Chetan Patel (resident objector) stated that the application which would remove the current open space would be contrary to Brent’s open space policy and the relevant Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policies. He continued that there had been no consultation with residents on the proposed yellow lines, the proposed construction route and that car parking spaces had not been properly assessed. He added that the design statement for the application was inadequate. He challenged officers’ reasons for selecting Jesmond Avenue as the preferred construction access route adding that had officers opted for Cecil Avenue, only 3 houses would have been affected as opposed to 170 houses in Jesmond Avenue. He also stated that the application would remove public access to open space that residents had been using for at least 20 years
Ronak Patel (resident, objector), speaking in a similar vein referred to lack of consultation regarding the yellow lines, anti-social ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|
25 Brookfield Crescent, Harrow, HA3 0UT (Ref. 15/1569) PDF 929 KB Additional documents: Decision: Planning permission granted as recommended. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelling house and associated buildings and erection of 3 two storey dwelling houses (2 x 2bed and 1 x 3bed) with associated car parking spaces, bin stores, amenity space and landscaping (revised description)
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the draft Decision Notice and an additional condition in relation to foul water drainage as set out in the supplementary report.
Rachel Murrell (Area Planning Manager) outlined the scheme and with reference to the supplementary report, drew members’ attention to the matters raised during the site visit. The officers’ responses addressed claims about the use of the site as a builders’ yard, highways considerations of the scheme, overdevelopment of the site, boundary treatment and removal of trees from the site. She added that as the site was partly within a flood risk area a flood risk assessment had been submitted and a condition had been secured requesting details of permeable paving for the hardstanding. She continued that as details of foul water drainage would need to be agreed with the sewerage undertaker, an additional condition requesting further details of foul water drainage as set out in the supplementary report was recommended.
In respect of additional letters of objection from Councillors Colwill and Kansagra on the grounds of over-development and loss the uniformity of the houses on the road, Rachel Murrell advised that having regard to the previous appeal decision, the proposal was not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site and that the sitting of the new houses and their relationship to the streetscene was considered to be acceptable.
Dipak Radia (objector) stated that the current application failed to address the issues for which it was previously refused. He continued that the application went against Brent policy of building on garden space, it would be out of character with the houses on the road and an over-development of the site. He stated that it would also adversely impact on parking as well as lead to loss of privacy, overlooking to properties in Cranleigh Gardens and as highlighted by the officer, flooding and sewerage problems.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Colwill (ward member) declared that he had been approached by residents. Councillor Colwill reiterated his concerns about over-development of the site, loss of views, adverse traffic impact and increased flood risk in Brookfield Crescent. Councillor Maurice echoed similar views.
Rachel Murrell in responding to the above issues stated that the Planning Inspectors decision is material to the assessment of the application. The decision accepted the principle of development on the site and the reduction in the number of units from 4 to 3 had sought to address concerns regarding the impact on the character of the area. John Fletcher (Highways) and Patricia Bramwell (legal adviser) spoke in concurrence. Patricia Bramwell, confirmed that the Inspector’s Decision was a material consideration in the determination of the application.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended. |
|
Flat 1-6 INC, 9 Regent Street, London, NW10 5LG (Ref. 15/2200) PDF 1 MB Additional documents: Decision: Granted planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the draft Decision Notice. . Minutes: PROPOSAL: Construction of a new floor to existing four storey mixed used building to provide two additional self-contained flats (2x 1bed) "CAR FREE DEVELOPMENT".
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the draft Decision Notice.
Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) outlined the scheme and with reference to the supplementary report responded to the queries raised at the site visit. Members heard that a Construction Method Statement would be required by condition and that the applicant would also be required to sign up to the Considerate Constructors Scheme prior to works being undertaken. The Method Statement would to mitigate, as far as possible, levels of disturbance. He continued that the separation distance to Harrow Road was sufficient to prevent potential overlooking and adverse streetscene. The Area Planning manager drew members’ attention to the “car free development” which would limit the impact of the proposal on highway conditions in the area.
Christopher Alley speaking on behalf of Kensal Triangle Residents’ Association (KTRA) reiterated the concerns set out in the main report and added that the open aspect of the development and the levels of disturbance during construction had not been addressed.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Southwood (ward member) declared that she had been approached by residents. Councillor Southwood raised objections to the scheme on the grounds of excessive height, loss of privacy, overlooking and an increase in the level of congestion and pressure on parking facilities, albeit a “car free development”. She added that the proposal could set a precedent for similar undesirable developments to the detriment of the area.
Jonathan Ellis (applicant’s agent) informed members that the concerns expressed would be addressed via conditions including the Construction Method Statement which required the applicant to sign up to the Considerate Constructors Scheme prior to works being undertaken. He added that overlooking had been minimised through separation distance to the nearest garden and additional planting had been proposed. The agent undertook to engage with residents on further concerns that they may have during construction. In response to a member’s question, Jonathan Ellis stated that a residential change in use of the ground floor was not likely to be acceptable because it would be difficult to provide an acceptable quality of residential environment for future residents and moreover, the layout was not conducive to this use.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended. |
|
15 Brondesbury Villas, London, NW6 6AH (Ref. 15/2809) PDF 801 KB Additional documents: Decision: Granted planning permission as recommended and an additional condition restricting the use of the roof of the extension as an outside terrace.
Minutes: PROPOSAL: Proposed conversion of property from two 2x bedroom flats to a single 4x bedroom dwelling house plus erection of single storey rear extension following demolition of existing single storey rear extension, erection of glazed side extension and re-location of access door at second storey level, replacement of UPVC windows with timber windows, alterations to existing outbuilding including insertion of bi-fold doors and replacement of roof with glazed roof and removal of front canopy structure (amended plans and description)
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the draft Decision Notice.
Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) introduced the scheme and referenced the supplementary report. He informed members that the applicant had provided updated existing rear and side elevations showing that there would be no increased impact on neighbours, in response to concerns expressed by the occupants of Nos. 13 and 17 Brondesbury Villas.
Whist welcoming the application, members agreed to an additional condition to restrict the use of the roof of the extension as an outside terrace.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended and an additional condition restricting the use of the roof of the extension as an outside terrace. |
|
33A Wrentham Avenue, London, NW10 3HS (Ref.15/3094) PDF 837 KB Additional documents: Decision: Minded to grant planning permission contrary to officers’ recommendation. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Proposed erection of single storey rear and side extension and separate access to ground floor flat
RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission for reasons as set out in the draft Decision Notice.
Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) outlined the scheme and referenced the supplementary report in terms of the applicant’s view that precedents existed at 62 and 64 Wrentham Avenue to justify the development and also referred to a letter of a neighbour’s support and a response from the applicant’s agent on officer’s report which had been circulated to all members of the Committee. Andy Bates concluded that the proposal which would incorporate a wrap around extension would relate unacceptably to the existing building in design terms, size and bulk and urged members for refusal.
Leah Clarke (applicant) informed members that the rear extension proposed would extend the full width of the house and together with its size, bulk and siting accorded with the provisions of SPG5. She continued that the proposal in terms of its detailed design, especially within main frontages, prominent elevations and roofs, would conform with the DMP7 (Brent’s Heritage Assets) The applicant added that the fundamental reason for the application was the need to provide an adequate combined area for the kitchen, dining and living area, and a new entrance in the side extension that would open directly into the new living / dining area. She advised members that the proposals, which incorporated a creative and appropriate design solution specific to the site’s shape, size, location, would have no impact on the public realm streetscape. Michael Woodman-Smith (applicant’s architect) was in attendance and responded to members’ queries.
In bringing the discussions to an end the Chair clarified the application and reiterated the concerns outlined by officers and for which the recommendation for refusal had been made.
Members voted however to be minded to grant planning permission contrary to officers’ recommendation for refusal and requested the Head of Planning to submit a further report to the next meeting setting out conditions for approval.
Voting on the recommendation for refusal was recorded as follows:
FOR: Councillor Marquis (1) AGAINST: Councillors Choudhary, Colacicco, Maurice and Patel (4) ABSTENTIONS: Councillors Agha, Mahmood and Ezeajughi (3)
DECISION: Minded to grant planning permission contrary to officers’ recommendation for refusal. |
|
143 & 145 Brondesbury Park, Brondesbury, London, NW2 5JL (15/2382) PDF 698 KB Additional documents: Decision: Granted planning permission as recommended and an additional condition requiring details of Travel Plan.
Minutes: PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing synagogue and erection of a new three storey synagogue with basement level with ancillary prayer hall, youth room, community hall and nursery.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Head of Legal Services,subject to the conditions as set out in the draft Decision Notice.
Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) outlined the scheme and with reference to the supplementary report, clarified the height of the proposed development and its relationship with the adjacent building. He added that the proposal would not impact on highways conditions in the vicinity as the CPZ for the area operated from 10.00am - 3.00pm and that the area to the front of the site would not be used for parking. He however added an additional condition requiring a Travel Plan to encourage sustainable transport modes.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended and an additional condition requiring details of Travel Plan.
|
|
Car Park, Ainsworth Close, Neasden, London (Ref. 15/3218) PDF 376 KB Additional documents: Decision: Granted planning permission as recommended. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Erection of three 2 storey terraced dwelling houses (1 x 2bed and 2 x 3bed) including formation of off street parking, bin and cycle stores and associated hard and soft landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the draft Decision Notice.
Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) outlined the scheme and with reference to the supplementary report responded to concerns raised at the site visit. Members heard that there would be no direct conflict with adopted guidance due to the separation distance between windows in the existing and proposed flank wall and the angle of the buildings. He continued that the cycle stores and bin stores were located so as to be easily accessible and would not impact on the scope for soft landscaping, requirement under condition 3. He advised that the spread of tree roots was not be envisaged to create neighbourly difficulties.
Members heard that Thames Water had considered the scheme and, whilst they did not raise objection to the proposal, suggested conditions to ensure that the development did not adversely impact on drainage as clarified in the main report. Andy Bates informed members that the parking standard attributable to the proposal did not anticipate overspill parking from the site and that the car park had been historically underused. He continued that although there had been some instances of anti social behaviour on the estate requiring wardens to be called out, the proposal should not give rise to anti social behaviour and should establish an active character in a currently poorly overlooked space.
John McConalogue objected to the proposed development on the grounds of overlooking, over-shadowing and loss of car parking facilities. He considered that the revisions made by the applicant were minor involving changes to a single bedroom and failed to address residents’ concerns.
Kim Darby echoing similar sentiments added that due to the narrow width of Ainsworth Close, the proposed development would result in an adverse traffic impact. She continued that the removal of trees would directly affect the foundations of nearby properties.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Dixon declared that she had been approached by, and had attended drop in sessions with residents. Councillor Dixon informed members that the applicant had made satisfactory revisions that addressed concerns previously expressed and which rendered the scheme fit for purpose. She continued that the proposal enabled Brent to respond to the housing needs of its residents and urged members to agree to the recommendation for approval.
Daniel Pan (applicant’s architect) stated that revisions had been made to the scheme which addressed concerns raised by objectors. He added that working in partnership with the Council’s Tree Officer, measures had been put in place to reduce visual impact and enhance the streetscene. He continued that although the scheme complied with parking standards, the applicant would continue to engage with residents on any possible introduction of CPZ. In response to a member’s enquiry about parking survey, Daniel Pan stated ... view the full minutes text for item 9. |
|
Former Kensal Rise Branch Library, Bathurst Gardens, London, NW10 5JA (Ref. 15/3819) PDF 802 KB Additional documents: Decision: Granted planning permission as recommended. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 5 (cycle parking and refuse recycling storage) to allow the location of cycle parking and refuse stores at ground floor level, of full planning permission reference 14/0846 dated 11/11/2014 for Conversion of the existing vacant building to provide 5 residential units (2 x studios, 1 x 1 bed duplex flat and 2 x 2 bed duplex flats) on part ground and upper floors and 186m2 community space (Use Class D1) on the ground floor. Single storey ground floor extension to west elevation, provision of roof extension and communal residential roof terrace fronting onto Bathurst Gardens and creation of basement for bin/cycle store. Provision of new entrance door on Bathurst Gardens serving D1 space, with associated cycle parking and landscaping to Bathurst Gardens and College Road. Erection of temporary site hoarding to protect site for period of vacancy, and subject to a deed of agreement dated 05 November 2014 under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the draft Decision Notice.
Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) outlined the scheme and referenced the supplementary report. Members heard that Margaret Bailey (Chair of Friends of Kensal Rise Library) and Councillors Denselow and Southwood had expressed their support for the scheme. He added that additional details addressed the concerns about size of bin stores as well as their usability and arrangements for collection by waste operatives. Andy Bates continued that Officers in the Councils Waste Management Service had confirmed that they raised no objection to the details.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended. |
|
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: Andy Bates
Members were informed that this was the last meeting for Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) as he would be leaving the employment of Brent Council for a new post at London Borough of Enfield. Members were unanimous in thanking Andy Bates for his long and helpful service, wishing him every success in his new post.
Rachel Murrell
Members were informed that this was the last meeting for Rachel Murrell (Area Planning Manager) prior to the start of her maternity leave. Members were unanimous in expressing their best wishes to Rachel.
|