Agenda item
245-249 and 253 Ealing Road, Wembley HA0 1EX
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of the site to provide two new buildings of part 9 and part 10 storeys high to accommodate 92 flats (7 x studios, 45 x 1 bed, 26 x 2 bed and 14 x 3 bed units), ground floor commercial use within Use class A4 (drinking establishment) or Use class D1 (community centre) with associated basement for car and cycle parking spaces and storage, vehicular crossover, bin stores, amenity space, landscaping and associated works
RECOMMENDATION: To GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement with Heads of Terms as set out in the report
That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out draft decision notice.
That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.
That, if by 3 months of the Committee date the legal agreement has not been completed, the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to refuse the planning permission.
That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Chris Heather (Deputy Area Planning Manager) introduced the report, referenced the supplementary report and answered members’ questions. He informed members that although the scheme was “car free”, the applicants had already provided information on how the development would achieve 10% wheelchair accessible units. In view of that, he recommended an amendment to condition 15 of the draft decision notice to require compliance. In terms of unit sizes, members heard that of the 92 flats proposed, only 6 would fall short of the London Plan standard, with the other 86 flats exceeding the standards. Although the distance would not achieve the 20m separation distance in many instances, SPG17 stipulates that 20m was a standard for privacy and not for outlook. He added that at least 20m should be established between facing windows for privacy and at least 10m of unobstructed space should be achieved from habitable room windows to establish suitable outlook.
In respect of density, he noted that the proposed development would have 1,997 habitable rooms per hectare, which was substantially higher than the 725 habitable rooms per hectare achieved at the 243 Ealing Road development. Both of these densities are higher than the recommended 200-700 habitable rooms per hectare within the London Plan. Whilst it was acknowledged that its relationship with the existing buildings was slightly tighter than that established within 243 Ealing Road, the building still sits within more open surroundings that cannot be accounted for within a density calculation that only considers land within the applicant’s ownership. In terms of daylight and sunlight impacts, he explained that out of 589 windows, only 78 (13.2%) did not meet BRE recommendations
Chris Heather informed members that the scheme would deliver 24 affordable housing units which was considered to represent the maximum reasonable amount when compared against the viability and development costs/constraints, as backed up by correspondence from BNP Paribas. In addition there was a clause for post implementation financial review mechanism to reasonably capture any improvement in viability for deferred affordable housing planning obligations within the S106 agreement. He added that the scheme would also retain the public house in accordance with Brent’s planning policy DMP21, the community use of which would be secured through the S106 agreement. To ensure retention of the pub, he recommended a new condition revoking permitted development rights for the unit to convert to an A1, A2 or A3 unit.
Andrew Linnie, speaking on behalf of the local residents raised concerns on loss of daylight, massing, density, noise and access. He alleged that 122 neighbouring windows failed the light assessment test. He continued that the building was too large and access points have thus been included in the rear and side block A, which would create problems for emergency exits and access to refuse stores. Members heard that the balconies would look directly into nearby homes thus resulting in overlooking and lack of privacy. The objector then highlighted the excessive density of the scheme at 800 units/hectare as against 200 under the London Plan and for surrounding homes and lack of adequate infrastructure including schools to support the scheme. He noted that although the scheme would be “car free”, that would be insufficient to address the parking situation in the area adding that the nearby Alperton station would not be able to provide adequate public transport facility for the additional population. The objector added that the applicant failed to seek and incorporate the views of residents.
Steve Buckmaster (applicant’s architect and agent) informed members that in terms of massing, height and scale, the proposed development was appropriate for the site as was the principle of development which was in accordance with the Development Plan for the area. He continued that in addition to housing provision, the scheme would deliver community use at ground floor level, £1.6m in CIL to offset any deficiencies. He added that the mix of units was appropriate as was the affordable housing and viability issues which had been scrutinised by PNB Paribas, the Council’s assessor.
Members then discussed the application during which they raised issues of concern relating to community access, density, transport links, upgrade to Alperton station, play space and infrastructure including schools to support the scheme.
Chris Heather stated that the community access to the public house for Corib Rest at Salusbury Road NW6 did differ from this proposal as there were already agreements in place relating to this. He reiterated that although the density was higher, the buildings would sit within more open surroundings. The upgrade of Alperton Station was a matter for Transport for London (TfL) whose officers would feed into the Stage 2 consultation with the Mayor of London. In respect of play space, he was of the view that both on-site play space and Alperton Sports Grounds would be adequate to satisfy the needs of the children in the development. He continued that in terms of school places, Children’s Services make provision for proposed developments.
Members then voted to approve the application as set out below on the Chair’s casting vote.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended subject to an additional condition revoking permitted development rights, the removal of condition 25 as set out in the supplementary report and with additional informative requiring the applicant to ensure that any damage to public realm is repaired and that maximum standards were applied to fire safety issues.
(Voting was recorded as follows: For 3 + Chair’s casting vote; Against 3; Abstention1).
Supporting documents:
- 16.3606 245-249 and 253 Ealing Road, Wembley, HA0 1EX, item 5. PDF 429 KB
- Supp Ealing Road HA0 1EX 16-3606, item 5. PDF 362 KB