Agenda item
16/1506 - 290B Ealing Road, Wembley, HA0 4LL
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing warehouse (Use Class B8) and ancillary buildings and erection of part-two, part-three storey residential development providing 9 self-contained units (1 x 1 bed and 8 x 2 bed) with associated cycle parking, bin stores, landscaping and amenity space (car free development) (Revised drawings).
RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to 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 to secure the benefits set out in the agreement.
And, to authorise the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission if the applicant has failed to demonstrate the ability to provide for the terms of the agreement and meet the policies of the Development Plan by concluding an appropriate agreement.
That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and Impose conditions (and informatives) to secure the matters set out in the report.
Chris Heather (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the application and answered members’ questions. He referenced the supplementary report which reiterated issues previously raised and covered in the main report., They included access to the site and how the existing and proposed uses would co-exist, refuse storage, security and overlooking, loss of daylight and sunlight, noise, pollution and rodents.
He informed members that the principle of a residential use was acceptable as the existing situation was not suitable for continued use as B8 or ideal in terms of land use or design. The existing access was a fixed characteristic of the site and the only opportunity to improve it would be to re-surface it as widening it was not possible. The height was broadly similar to existing terrace of properties and it would maintain an acceptable relationship with the existing residential units nearby and would provide natural surveillance of the access road. He advised that the level of impact on surrounding residential dwellings was not considered to be unduly detrimental.
James Holmes, objecting on behalf of his client who owned properties in the surrounding area, raised concerns about inadequate amenity space for each dwelling unit, overlooking and lack of privacy. He added that the access to the site was too narrow to allow service vehicles into the site and accordingly would conflict with pedestrian use.
Debbie Quail speaking in a similar vein on behalf of his mother added that the excessive height which she felt would result in a loss of privacy, loss of light and overlooking to bedroom and gardens, would constitute a significant detriment to the quality of life of adjoining residents.
Simon Toplis (applicant’s agent) addressed the Committee and answered members’ questions. He referenced the derelict state of the site in excess of five years, resulting in a considerable state of disrepair and poor visual amenity. He added that despite the challenges and constraints of the site, the development proposed generous internal layout, improved amenity and outlook to each dwelling unit. Members heard that due to its proximity to Alperton station and access to public transport network, the site had a good PTAL rating.
Members raised queries about access for emergency vehicles, refuse arrangements including bin storage, construction arrangements, gate arrangement and ventilation. The agent responded that ambulances could gain access to the site and that issues relating to fire were covered under Building Regulations. He continued that Veoila (refuse contractor for Brent) were satisfied with the refuse arrangements and that the developer had made arrangements with Alperton Community school for use of the access road during construction in order to minimise any potential disruption. In respect of ventilation he confirmed that although no report had been submitted, each flat would have a dual aspect.
Prior to voting, the Chair referred to the site visit during which members observed that the proposed site was in a real mess and requested that officers from the relevant service departments be requested to inspect the site with a view to addressing the following issues of concern:
· Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) issues and Landlord licensing
· Planning Enforcement and Environmental Health.
· Waste management issues including licensing for commercial waste.
· The owner of the proposed development be asked to open or establish communication links with the residents.
In the ensuing discussion, members expressed concerns about over-development of the site in respect of safety aspects of future residents, narrowness of the access to the site with a possible conflict for vehicles and pedestrians, poor outlook and poor living conditions. For the above reasons, Members voted to refuse the application contrary to officers’ recommendation.
Voting on the officer’s recommendation for approval was recoded as follows:
FOR: Councillors Agha, Moher and Choudhary (3)
AGAINST: Councillors Colacicco, Daly, Hylton, W Mitchell Murray
and Maurice (5)
DECISION: Refused planning permission for reasons as set out above.
Supporting documents:
- 16.1506 - 290B Ealing Road, Wembley, HA0 4LL, item 3. PDF 276 KB
- Supp 03 - 16.1506 290B Ealing Road, item 3. PDF 82 KB