Agenda item
Land Junction at Yeats Close and Great Central Way, NW10 (Ref. 14/4469)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday 11 February 2015 7.00 pm (Item 8.)
- View the declarations of interest for item 8.
Decision:
Deferred for investigations into issues relating to the width of the entrance, parking facilities, airborne pollution in connection with the use of the site, speed humps, 24 hour access and waiting vehicles, location of the gate and tracking information about vehicles entering the site and signage.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Erection of a warehouse / industrial building for flexible use within Use Class B1(b) (research and development), B1(c) (light industry), B2 (general industry) and/or B8 (storage or distribution) purposes with ancillary B1(a) (office) floor space on the first and second floors; vehicle, cycle and bike parking, landscaping and fencing.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed after paragraph 27, 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 Chief Legal Officer.
With reference to the supplementary report, Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) informed members that the site was owned by Brent Council and that Oxfordshire County Council provided day to day management of the fixed travellers site opposite the development site. Residents parked their vehicles on the travellers’ site with overspill on Yeats Close, although management ensured that the road way into the site was not blocked in order to allow access for emergency and refuse vehicles. Officers reviewed the site to see if there were access alternatives but could not identify any. He continued that if a new main entrance was created on Yeats Close it would need to be at least 40m from the roundabout junction at Great Central Way, so as to minimise the risk of queuing back from the roundabout and avoid blocking access into the site. This arrangement would give sufficient space for articulated lorries to straighten up and get into position to turn into the site. He continued that if double yellow lines were painted on both sides of Yeats Close, parking which would otherwise be available on the southern side of the road would be removed.
The arrangement as currently proposed had a secondary opening onto Yeats Close, which would not be used as an entrance for large vehicles and as such would not require yellow lines on both sides of the road. Members heard that Transportation had accepted a request for a Traffic Regulation Order which would add parking controls (double yellow lines) to the northern side of the road along the development site. The proposal would allow for parking to be maintained on the southern side to accommodate overspill parking from Lynton Close. He advised that the height of the fence had been proposed at 4m to follow the recommendations of the acoustic report and to allow access for vehicles with refrigeration units to access the site and also minimise potential noise from such machinery. The proposed height of the building was noted but, in terms of the local context, it was not considered a significant reason for refusal. Andy Bates also referred to two additional conditions as set out in the supplementary report.
Sara Corchran (objector) informed the Committee that due to over-occupation of the travellers’ site, residents were experiencing problems with parking and expressed concerns about the safety of children on the estate as HGV vehicles reversed into Lynton Close. She continued that as a result of the over-occupation, the residents of Lynton Close were having to park on Yeats Close. In her view, measures suggested by officers to address the parking problems would not work.
Les West (applicant’s agent) stated that the application was in accordance with National Planning Framework. He added that impact from the proposal had been kept to the minimum with an acoustic fence and improved visual amenity. He continued that Yeats Close was suitable for heavy traffic and that there was no need for vehicles to reverse into Yeats Close. In response to members' questions, the applicant’s agent stated that it was the responsibility of the Council’s Highways Authority rather than the applicant to ensure that public highways were kept free of traffic. He added that an acoustic fence would be erected as an additional measure to alleviate and mitigate pollution.
In bringing the discussion to an end, the Chair observed that there were unanswered questions regarding parking issues including the width of the entrance to the site. She therefore moved an amendment for deferral for investigations into issues relating to the parking facilities and the impact of double yellow lines on lorries using the site and residents of Lynton Close. In addition the Chair indicated that members also had concerns about the width of the entrance, airborne pollution in connection with the use of the site, whether speed humps would be appropriate, 24 hour access and waiting of HGV, location of the gates and recommended the applicant consider clear signage to warn HGV drivers to be alert to the residential area and children's play area.
The amendment was put to the vote and declared carried. Voting on the amended motion for deferral was recoded as follows:
FOR: Councillors Marquis, Choudhary, Filson, Hylton,
Kansagra and Mahmood (6)
AGAINST: None (0)
ABSTENTION: Councillors Agha and Colacicco (2)
DECISION: Deferred for investigations into the parking and access to the development site. The following issues were raised for further review by the Council and the applicant - the width of the entrance, airborne pollution in connection with the use of the site, speed humps, 24 hour access and waiting vehicles, location of the gate and tracking information about vehicles entering the site and signage.
Supporting documents: