Agenda and minutes

Venue: This will be held as an online virtual meeting

Contact: Joe Kwateng, Governance Officer  Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk; 020 8937 1354

Note: Please note the press and public will be welcome to attend this as an online virtual meeting. The link to attend and view proceedings will be available via the Live Stream page on the Democracy in Brent website. If you should have any difficulties accessing the agenda papers or link to follow this meeting online then please let us know using the contact details above. 

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Declarations of interests

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, the nature and existence of any relevant disclosable pecuniary, personal or prejudicial interests in the items on this agenda and to specify the item(s) to which they relate.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

None.

 

Approaches.

 

All members received email correspondence from STRA in respect of the application for Sudbury Station Car Park.

2.

Minutes of the previous meeting - 17 March 2020 pdf icon PDF 99 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED:-

 

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 17th March 2020 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

3.

18/4919 1-26A, coachworks & storage areas, Abbey Manufacturing Estate, all units Edwards Yard, Mount Pleasant, Wembley, HA0 pdf icon PDF 6 MB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

PROPOSAL: Demolition and erection of a mixed use development of buildings ranging between 3 and 14 storeys in height comprising residential units (use class C3), flexible commercial floorspace falling within use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, B1(a), B1(c), D1 or D2, associated car parking, landscaping and ancillary facilities (Phased Development)

 

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to the referral of the application to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out within the Committee reports.

 

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.

 

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out within the Committee reports.

 

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.

 

That, if by the expiry date of this application (subject to any amendments/extensions to the expiry date agreed by both parties) the legal agreement has not been completed, the Head of Planning be granted delegated

authority to refuse planning permission.

 

That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

The Committee deferred this application at the last meeting on 17th March 2020 when Members were minded to refuse the application owing to concerns that related to the following aspects of the proposal:  Affordable Housing provision,Loss of employment and Sunlight and daylight impact.  Ms Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Team Leader) informed the Committee that further to the deferral, officers had provided additional information and clarification including changes in respect of housing mix, the loss of employment and the sunlight and daylight impacts.  With those in view, officers considered the application policy compliant and reiterated the recommendation for planning permission to be granted as set out within the Committee reports.

 

Councillor Anton Georgiou (ward member) objected to the application on several grounds including the following; inadequate infrastructure to address the level and intensity of the development, excessive height, over-development of the site which would alter the character of the area to the detriment of residential amenity, major traffic concerns, lack of green and open space and concerns about affordability.

 

Members then sought further clarification on affordable housing provision, viability assessment for the scheme, infrastructure and loss of employment. Ms McDonagh drew Members’ attention to the revised affordable housing offer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

19/1241 Car park next to Sudbury Town Station, Station Approach, Wembley, HA0 2LA pdf icon PDF 461 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

PROPOSAL: Re-development of existing car park for the erection of two blocks of residential dwellings, with associated residential amenity space, refuse storage, cycle parking, landscaping and other ancillary works, together with re-provision of disabled car parking bays nearest to Station Approach to serve Sudbury Town Underground Station (DEPARTURE FROM POLICY CP21 OF BRENT'S LOCAL PLAN).

 

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to:

A. Any direction by the Secretary of State pursuant to the Consultation Direction

B. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out within the Committee reports.

 

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.

 

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out within the Committee reports.

 

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.

 

That, if by the expiry date of this application (subject to any amendments/extensions to the expiry date agreed by both parties) the legal agreement has not been completed, the Head of Planning be granted delegated

authority to refuse planning permission.

 

Mr Neil Quinn (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report and answered Members’ questions.  In reference to the supplementary report, Mr Quinn drew the Committee’s attention to the additional letters of objection to the scheme and officers’ responses to them.  He informed members that the number of dual aspect units within the scheme should read as 20 units, rather than 36 units referred to in paragraph 73 of the main report.  For the avoidance of doubt, the correct full text was set out within the supplementary report.

 

Mrs Carol O’Connell (objector) addressed the Committee and answered members’ questions.  Mrs O’Connell raised several issues including the following; over-development of the site, overlooking and loss of privacy, narrow access to the site and thus obstruction to large and emergency vehicles, excessive height and parking problems.

 

Councillor Daly (ward member) addressed the Committee and answered Members’ questions.  Councillor Daly objected to the application on several grounds including amenity deficit, inadequate access arrangements for emergency and waste collection vehicles, inadequate facilities for servicing and delivery, loss of parking at the station which could give rise to parking displacement and additional on-street parking.  

 

Mr Paul Lorber an objector addressed the Committee and answered members’ questions. He raised several issues including the following; over-development of the site for 52 flats; inadequate visitor and delivery facilities, inadequate provision for wheel chair users, detrimental impact on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

19/3092 Ujima House, 388 High Road, Wembley, HA9 6AR pdf icon PDF 464 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

PROPOSAL: Demolition of the existing building and erection of a new building up to a maximum height of 39.6m comprising up to 5,000sqm residential floorspace (Use Class C3), up to 600sqm of flexible workspace (Use Class B1A, B and C), with ancillary cafe (Use Class A3) up to 600sqm ancillary floorspace, associated hard and soft landscaping, wheelchair car and cycle parking.

 

RECOMMENDATION: To defer the application to a subsequent Planning Committee meeting.

 

The Head of Planning informed the Committee about a letter received on behalf of the owners of the adjoining building (Lanmor House, 370 High Road) objecting to the proposal.  As a result, officers had amended the recommendation from the grant of planning permission deferral to allow the consideration of the matters raised within their letter.

 

DECISION: Deferred to a subsequent Planning Committee meeting.

6.

19/3259 1-7 and 15-33 Peel Precinct and garages, 97-112 Carlton House, Canterbury Terrace, 8-14 Neville Close, 2 Canterbury Road, London, NW6 pdf icon PDF 624 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

PROPOSAL: Full planning application for a phased development for the demolition of 2 Canterbury Road, 1-7 and 15-33 Peel Precinct and 8-14 Neville Close, and erection of seven buildings (A to G) ranging between 5 and 16 storeys, plus part basement, comprising private sale residential units (Use Class C3), shared ownership residential units (Use Class C3), social rented residential units (Use Class C3); new health centre (Use Class D1), new gym (Use Class D2), flexible use class within retail and commercial units (Use Class A1/A3/B1) at ground floor, associated landscaping, highways and public realm improvements (including new public space and market square), private open space, associated car parking, cycle parking and servicing provision.

 

RECOMMENDATION: Subject to any Stage 2 Direction by the Mayor of London pursuant to the Mayor of London Order, grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement as set out within the Committee reports and delegate authority to the Head of Development Management or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal Services and Procurement.

 

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions to secure the matters set out within the Committee reports.

 

That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee's decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee not that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.

 

That, if the legal agreement has not been completed by the statutory determination date for this application (including determination dates set through agreement), the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to refuse planning permission.

 

Mr Sean Newton (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report and answered Members’ questions.  Members heard that the revised scheme, a revision to the extant scheme would deliver significant elements of infrastructure and significant benefits, including the new health centre for South Kilburn and the provision of 127 (41%) affordable homes (56% by habitable room) and affordable workspace.  Additionally, it would not give rise to harm to the identified heritage assets of South Kilburn Conservation Area

 

Mr Laurence Brooker (agent) in addressing the Committee stated the scheme was widely considered to be an exemplary case of estate regeneration, and one that gained significant support from stakeholders including local residents and the GLA.  In design terms, the proposal was compliant with policies and would also provide significantly more public realm comprising a destination market square, activated by additional commercial uses around its edges. He then summarised the key benefits of the scheme. In conclusion, Mr Brooker stated that the proposal would be of the highest quality  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

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 60.

 

Additional documents: