Agenda item
Moberly Sports and Education Centre, Kilburn Lane, London, W10 4AH (Ref.13/3682)
Decision:
Agreed in principle to grant planning permission subject to amended conditions 2 and 6 and subject to;
(a) any direction by the Mayor of London to refuse the application. In accordance with Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 following the Council’s determination of this application, the Mayor is allowed 14 days to decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged or to direct the Council under Article 6 to refuse the application;
(b) satisfactory prior completion of a Section 106(s) under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and/or other form(s) of agreement/undertaking in order to secure the S106 matters as detailed in the report.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of all existing buildings and erection of a part 7/part 6/part 5/part 4-storey building with 9293sqm of Sports and Leisure Centre (Use Class D2), 56 flats ( 22 x 1-bed, 34 x 2-bed) and 240sqm of retail floor space (Use Class
A1/A2/A3) and erection of 15 terraced townhouses (15 x 4-bed) with associated car and cycle parking and landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant planning consent in principle subject to amended conditions 2 and 6 and the following;
(a) any direction by the Mayor of London to refuse the application. In accordance with Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 following the Council’s determination of the application, the Mayor is allowed 14 days to decide whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged or direct the Council under Article 6 to refuse the application;
(b) satisfactory prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and/or other form(s) of agreement/undertaking in order to secure the S106 matters as detailed in the report.
With reference to the tabled supplementary Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager informed members that the site had public transport accessibility level (PTAL) rating of 6a which was considered to be excellent and parking provisions which accorded with transport planning policies. He continued that the proposed parking provision would provide satisfactory parking facilities including 3 mini-bus parking bays for the sports centre, parking bays for disabled residents and disabled users of the leisure centre and a single space for each of the town houses with servicing to be provided within the car park. The Transport Assessment demonstrated that refuse vehicles and delivery vehicles would have sufficient space to manoeuvre in the turning space provided. Members heard that the proposed facilities which would be of a significantly improved quality would allow for a wide range of sporting and recreational activities to take place for the residents of both Brent and Westminster. He added that the applicant had sought to reduce the impact of the massing and scale by locating the larger parts away from the more domestic residential environment on Kilburn Lane.
The Area Planning Manager noted the concerns expressed about the lack of affordable housing and submitted that an independently assessed viability report in support of the £20m investment in public sporting facilities was being reviewed by an independent consultant. He continued that the review would establish that should there be any surplus at the end of the project as a result of increases in residential values, there would be a claw back arrangement within the Section 106 so that the Council would receive a proportion of any surplus for the provision of offsite affordable housing. Members heard that the approach had been accepted by the GLA in the Stage 1 response. Andy Bates drew members’ attention to additional concerns raised by the ward member for Queens Park in Westminster City Council as set out in the supplementary report, adding that those issues had been addressed in the main report. It was noted that Sport England had expressed their support and that English Heritage had not raised significant concerns regarding the scheme.
In reiterating the recommendation for an in principle approval subject to referral to the Mayor of London and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, Andy Bates drew members’ attention to amendments to conditions 2 and 6 as set out in the tabled supplementary report.
A number of local residents spoke in objection to the application highlighting the lack of affordable housing within the scheme, loss of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing to neighbouring properties due to its height, loss of football pitch and inadequate parking facilities. The Committee also heard that the lack of affordable housing would result in overcrowding and homelessness with additional traffic impact and congestion. Particular reference was made to Chamberlayne Road which, members were informed, would experience a high level of congestion and pollution as it was a major bus route with bus stands and passing motor vehicles.
Mr Martin Ward speaking in support of the application stated that the proposed sports facilities would replace the existing building which had become costly to maintain. He outlined the health benefits including a teaching swimming pool for residents including the disabled.
Councillor Mashari, Lead Member for Environment and Neighbourhood also spoke in support of the application and drew members’ attention to the improved sporting facilities with concessionary fees which would increase uptake and consequently lead to improved health and well-being of Brent residents.
Alison Gayle of Westminster City Council and Simon Taylor representing Wilmot Dixon, the applicant, addressed the Committee. They informed members that the applicant had fully engaged with residents in drawing up the scheme that incorporated their feedback for a quality replacement sporting facility with no extra cost to both Westminster Council and Brent Council. Members heard that the scheme had the support of the GLA, English Heritage and Sport England. They emphasised that under the Section 106 legal agreement, concessionary fees and charges would be offered to residents for use of the facility.
In response to members’ questions, they pointed out that the range of facilities and community rooms would have flexible uses. They continued that the £20m investment in the public facility would outweigh the lack of affordable housing adding that an independent viability assessment had supported this view. The built in claw back clause would also enable the Council to receive a proportion of any surplus from the sale of the flats for the provision of offsite affordable housing. It was noted that although the development would be “car free”, provision had been made for disabled parking and that each of the town houses would have its own parking space. In addition the site had high PTAL rating (6A). A consultant daylighting specialist in answering queries raised by members clarified the methodology used in assessing potential loss of daylighting and concluded that on balance, there would be good levels of daylighting to all living rooms in nearby properties.
Prior to voting, Councillor Cummins suggested that an informative be added reminding the applicant to make available part of the premises for use as a polling station in future elections. The applicant’s agent indicated their consent.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended.
Supporting documents: