Agenda item
Car Park Next to Rokesby Place, Wembley (Ref. 14/4078)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday 11 February 2015 7.00 pm (Item 7.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 7.
Decision:
Deferred for further consideration of matters relating to access for emergency vehicles/servicing, provision of parking spaces, scope for disabled parking and the width of the pavement.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Erection of 2 semi-detached houses and associated hard and soft landscaping including the provision of parking spaces, bins and bike stores, and alterations to existing parking and landscaped areas (as amended plans).
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions listed after paragraph 51 of the remarks section of the main report and an additional condition to secure the applicant’s agreement to carry out a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) consultation..
With reference to the supplementary report, Rachel Murrell (Area Planning Manager) summarised the additional list of objections received since the report was published. These included reference to the use of the car park, Rokesby Place as an adopted road, turning room for lorries, parking facilities for local residents and, over-development of the site. She informed members that in an attempt to address residents’ concerns, the applicant, Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) had removed the proposed changes to the parking arrangements. She added that as the land was not within the control of BHP, they withdrew their ‘Wings’ permit scheme and agreed to fund consultation on the CPZ. She recommended an additional condition to secure that. In respect of concerns for over-development, with regards to the turning head, the Area Planning Manager advised that as refuse vehicles were not currently using the car park for turning but rather reversing up Rokesby Place, the proposal would not alter the current situation. Members heard that as the minimum distance between the proposal and 24 Crawford Avenue was in excess of the standard set out in SPG17, the proposal complied with guidance in terms of protecting the privacy of adjoining occupiers and would not result in overlooking.
In respect of disabled parking provision, Rachel Murrell noted that whilst currently there was no dedicated disabled parking provision, as an adopted highway, residents could make an application for a marked bay to be provided which would be considered by Transportation. The third space proposed as part of the application (the ‘visitor space) was not of sufficient size to accommodate a disabled space. In terms of impact on amenity, she advised that as the site was a car park, limited weight could be given to any value as an amenity/play area in the assessment. She confirmed that the tree identified would be removed.
Nila Gor (objector) informed members that the withdrawal of the ‘Wings’ permit scheme had resulted in inadequate parking spaces for residents, adding that the car park had been in regular use rather than being redundant. She also expressed concerns about inadequate turning room for vehicles and lack of disabled parking spaces. In response to members’ questions, the objector stated that there were only 17 spaces and that vehicles reversed in from Copland Avenue due to inadequate turning room, particularly for refuse vehicles.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, the following Councillors made representations:-
Councillor Hoda-Benn stated that she had been approached by an objector for whom she read out a statement to the Committee. Councillor Hoda-Benn highlighted the loss of car park, especially for disabled persons, loss of safe play area and accessibility issues which residents felt had not been addressed by BHP. Members heard that there were about 8 blue badge holders on the estate who would be deprived of parking facilities.
Councillor Daly stated that she had been approached by local residents. Councillor Daly echoed similar sentiments and added that the application did not comply with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act (Equality Act) and policy BE4 on access for disabled people. She urged members to refuse the application.
Councillor McLennan (Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Housing) informed the Committee that part of the current administration’s target was to build affordable homes so as to be able to release families trapped in temporary accommodation and the private sector housing. She urged members to app[rove the application.
Keith Harley (Director of Development, BHP) stated that the proposed development which complied with design guidance and lifetime homes would provide increased family sized accommodation with an appropriate standard quality of accommodation in the Borough. The design of the new dwelling houses which was considered acceptable would not adversely impact on the amenities of adjoining properties as was the layout and parking provision for the site which were also considered acceptable. He added that in light of comments from residents, changes were made to the scheme to ensure it complied with the Council Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). Officers had ensured that outstanding issues including the cost of consultation for CPZ would be addressed by imposition of conditions.
In response to members’ questions on parking issues, Keith Harley stated that the majority of the parking spaces would be on-street and that as Rokesby Place was an adopted road, BHP could not make changes to its layout. Mr Harley was not able to indicate to the Committee where the proposed 20 parking spaces would be situated but stated that BHP would work with Transportation Officers to progress the parking issues raised. Patricia Bramwell, legal representative, advised that members’ questions on refund of money to residents for the ‘Wings’ scheme were not relevant for planning consideration.
Councillor Kansagra noted that the tightness of the site would reduce parking spaces and worsen the area’s parking situation and urged refusal. The Chair moved an amended motion for deferral for further consideration of matters relating to access for emergency vehicles/servicing, provision of parking spaces, scope for disabled parking and the width of the pavement. This was put to the vote and declared carried. Voting on the amended motion for deferral was recoded as follows:
FOR: Councillors Marquis, Agha, Filson, Hylton and Mahmood (5)
AGAINST: Councillor Colacicco (1)
ABSTENTION: Councillor Kansagra (1)
DECISION: Deferred for further consideration of matters relating to access for emergency vehicles/servicing, provision of parking spaces, scope for disabled parking and the width of the pavement.
Supporting documents: