Agenda item
Car park Montrose Crescent & Land N/T 499 & 509 High Road, Wembley (including existing steps connecting to High Rd, Wembley with Station Grove), HA0 (Ref. 15/4473)
Decision:
Planning permission granted as recommended and the following additional conditions; that the Use Class D1 use shall exclude places of worship; an additional servicing bay is provided on Montrose Crescent; applicant to upgrade the pavement on south side of the High Road to the junction with Ealing Road; the highway controls to be reviewed pursuant to the Section 278 agreement.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of Montrose Crescent car park and land n/t 499 and 509 High Road, Wembley to include a part 3, 6, 13 and 18 storey development on Curtis Lane and a part 4 and 6 storey building on the High Road, Wembley comprising of 186 residential units (43 x 1 bed, 108 x 2 bed and 35 x 3 bed), 1,312 sqm of commercial space comprising A1, A2, A3, A5, B1(a) and/or D1 uses, replacement public car park comprising of 89 public car parking spaces, associated amenity space, landscaping, cycle parking, new lift access to High Road together with alterations to existing stepped access from the High Road to Curtis Lane and Station Grove and public realm improvements.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the referral to the Mayor of London and 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 and conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice and to amendments in the Section 106 Heads of Terms as set out in the supplementary report.
David Glover (Area Planning Manager) introduced the scheme and by reference to the supplementary report clarified the issues raised at the site visit. He advised that extensive works including a new road layout to upgrade Curtis Lane had been accepted by Transportation officers and that the proposed loading bays to serve existing commercial units along Ealing Road could be used by both commercial vehicles and delivery vans. In respect of the impact on Lodge Court, he submitted that robust testing of daylight and sunlight conditions carried out had confirmed that adequate sunlight and daylight environment would be maintained, thus the scheme complied with BRE Guidelines. He drew members’ attention to the separation distance of 26metres between buildings which was in excess of the 20m required under SPG17. He clarified that the affordable units would be 38 and not 34 as stated in the main report and drew attention to amendments to the Heads of Terms of the s106 legal agreement in respect of s278 works.
Ken Meadows objected on the grounds that the proposed development would result in loss of sunlight and loss of privacy. He urged the Committee to require the applicant to relocate the blocks to the west side of Lodge Court in order to preserve the amenities of Lodge Court residents.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor W Mitchell-Murray, ward member, stated that she had been approached by residents of Lodge Court and Manor Court. Although welcoming the application, Councillor Mitchell-Murray expressed concerns about loss of light particularly to the eastern side of Lodge Court and felt that the orientation of the building could be re-arranged to minimise the impact. She added that residents of Lodge and Manor Court were not consulted on the application and questioned the need for an 18 storey block. Councillor W Mitchell-Murray sought officers’ comments on wind assessment and the potential conflicts between delivery vehicles and the bus stand to the front of the proposed building.
Emma White (applicant’s agent) and Michael Harper (Daylight and Sunlight Consultant) attended the meeting to respond to queries raised. Emma White informed the Committee that the scheme, which would deliver 186 new homes including affordable units, would assist in the regeneration of the site by the re-provision of the car park and public realm improvements, whilst respecting the amenities of other neighbours. She continued that the application was widely consulted upon which resulted in significant revisions to achieve a scheme that minimised any potential negative impact to other neighbours. Michael Harper explained the daylight and sunlight assessments and the findings which concluded that Lodge Court and Manor Court residents would continue to receive uninterrupted sunlight levels above guideline requirements. The applicant’s agent added that the public car park, which the parking survey found to be under-utilised would be privately managed and would be within the Council’s controlled charging structure. She confirmed that there would be no bus stand on Station Grove.
Stephen Weeks (Head of Planning) added that an extensive consultation including a public exhibition was carried out last year in addition to about 550 letters sent to local residents including those at Lodge Court. He confirmed that the applicant submitted wind and impact assessments with the application. In response to a member’s question, the Head of Planning stated that the development should not normally affect local water supply during construction.
John Fletcher (Development Control, Highways) advised that the applicant would be required to enter into a s278 agreement to ensure that highway controls would be in place for the development.
In welcoming the application, members agreed to add further conditions as set out below to address potential highways impact.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended and the following additional conditions; that the Use Class D1 use shall exclude places of worship; an additional servicing bay is provided on Montrose Crescent; applicant to upgrade the pavement on south side of the High Road to the junction with Ealing Road; the highway controls to be reviewed pursuant to the Section 278 agreement.
Supporting documents:
- 5 - Car Park Montrose Cres High Road, item 5. PDF 2 MB
- 5 Car Park Montrose Cresc High Road, item 5. PDF 114 KB