Agenda item
245-249 and 253 Ealing Road, Wembley, HA0 1EX (Ref 16/3606)
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of the site to provide two new buildings of part 9 and part 10 storeys high to accommodate 92 flats (10 x studios, 42 x 1 bed, 25 x 2 bed and 15 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 (Revised plans submitted changing the floorplans and elevations of Block B and Daylight/Sunlight Report addendum).
RECOMMENDATION:
(1) That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions set out in the report and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Heads of Terms or other legal agreement and referral to the Mayor.
(2) That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above and to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the report.
(3) 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.
(4) That, if by 3 months of the committee date the legal agreement has not been completed, the Head of Planning is granted delegated authority to refuse planning permission.
(5) 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.
David Glover (Area Planning Manager) introduced the report and reminded Members that the application had been subject to initial consideration by the Committee on 9 August 2017, where planning permission had been granted subject to conditions, a Section 106 Agreement and referral to the Greater London Authority (GLA). Prior to the final decision being issued, however, it had been identified that one letter of objection had not been fully discussed and the original committee report had contained some inaccuracies relating to the description of the relationship between the proposed development and an adjoining development site at 253a Ealing Road. The application had therefore been bought back to Committee for reconsideration. In order to further examine the relationship between the application site and No.253a Ealing Road, the applicant had commissioned a further daylight and sunlight assessment and had proposed a number of revisions to the internal layout and external façade, which had resulted in a re-consultation being undertaken on the proposed revisions.
Whilst not felt to have an unduly detrimental impact given its location, concerns had been raised during the re-consultation process regarding the lack of a daylight/sunlight assessment for the south side of Braunston House. As a result the applicant had provided additional information to clarify the position, which had been detailed within the supplementary report provided for the Committee. The supplementary report also outlined an additional comment received following publication of the original report from a resident of Cosgrove House and informed Members of the submission of additional CGI visualisations of the proposed development. In addition, the Committee was advised that since publication of the supplementary report, the applicant had submitted a revised plan in order to address objections raised in relation to the location of a fire escape originally located at the rear of the Public House proposed at 243 Ealing Road. Having taken account of the additional information provided, officers recommendations remained approval, subject to the conditions and s106 obligations detailed within the report and previous report to the Committee.
Kathryn Andrews (local resident of Braunston House) in objection, raised concerns in respect of the proposed development including:
(i) the detrimental impact on surrounding residents in relation to outlook, access, privacy, loss of daylight and sunlight, density, parking, traffic, road safety and local amenities;
(ii) the use of the public house as a community asset given concerns regarding anti-social behaviour;
(iii) the environmental impact in relation to air quality, amenity space, noise and the detrimental impact on the micro climate in the area;
(iv) the impact of the construction on the surrounding area given the proximity of the development to adjacent buildings and as access would rely on land outside the applicant’s ownership;
(v) the failure of the application to deliver the required proportion of affordable housing and to meet planning and non-planning guidance in relation to density, privacy and design of the windows;
(vi) the failure of the applicant to engage with all relevant stakeholders, with specific reference made to a letter of objection submitted by Network Homes; and
(vii) the style of the proposed development was not in keeping with the style and materials used in surrounding developments;
In addition, Andrew Linnie (local resident of Braunston House) also in objection, referred to the concerns raised by the previous speaker and raised a number of other concerns including:
(i) the detrimental impact on surrounding properties given its excessive density in relation to current guidance and number of windows which had failed the Building Research Establishment (BRE) light test;
(ii) the proximity of the development to surrounding buildings, which was felt to contravene spatial planning guidance;
(iii) the impact on parking and traffic given the lack of visitor parking provision;
(iv) the reliance on public transport and cycling, given the transport figures referred to within the report and limited cycling infrastructure in the surrounding area and concerns regarding safety;
(v) the potential loss of commercial/retail space;
(vi) access arrangements to the development and public house;
(vii) the failure to advertise the existing public house unit;
(viii) the failure of the development to deliver the required level of affordable housing.
Chris Whitehouse (applicant’s agent) in responding to the issues raised, felt it was important to recognise that a number of the concerns highlighted had already been subject to consideration by the committee when approving the original decision. As a result of the outstanding issues highlighted, further detailed technical and design work had been undertaken to test the suitability of the design with these results detailed within the committee and supplementary report. The terms of the draft s106 Agreement had been agreed (including relevant housing and community benefit) and there had been no objections from the statutory consultees. The development proposals were felt to be robust in planning policy terms and officers had once again recommended approval, having assessed the overall benefits associated with the type of mixed use development proposed.
In the discussion that followed, members sought further clarification in relation to the daylight and sunlight impact assessment of the proposed development on surrounding properties and the concerns raised in relation to the potential impact on privacy at adjoining sites. In response, David Glover advised members that it was considered amended plans submitted by the applicant as a result of concerns regarding the privacy relationship between the proposed development and that at No.253a Ealing Road had sufficiently addressed the issues identified. Similarly the daylight and sunlight assessment undertaken in relation to the impact of the adjoining site development at No.253a Ealing Road was considered to be acceptable, particularly in view of the density of the surrounding urban area. Daylight and sunlight assessment of the internal accommodation within the proposed development had also confirmed that in all cases this would meet BRE guidance. In terms of the daylight and sunlight impact on surrounding developments members were advised that the revised plans would not materially alter the impact of the proposal on levels of daylight or sunlight received by surrounding residential units. Members noted the detailed outline of the assessments undertaken, which had been based on a recognised industry standard with concerns expressed about the number of windows not having been assessed as meeting BRE sunlight or daylight guidelines across a number of surrounding buildings including Cosgrove House, Braunston House, 372 and 255 Ealing Road. Additional concerns were also raised in relation to the high density of the proposed development, which members noted was beyond guidelines within the London Plan Density Matrix.
Whilst recognising that the proposed development would result in a loss of daylight and sunlight beyond BRE guidance levels for a number of windows in adjacent buildings, David Glover supported by Rachel Murrell (Development Control Manager) advised that this had needed to be assessed against the benefits associated with development of the site. The development would provide a significant number of new homes in the borough and was located within an already dense urban area within one of the boroughs Housing Development Zones and with close access to public transport. Whilst recommended for approval, it would however be a matter for the Committee to consider whether the benefits of the proposed development outweighed the harm and concerns associated with the loss of daylight and sunlight.
DECISION: To grant planning permission as recommended, subject to:
(1) the conditions and s106 obligations as detailed within the report and supplementary report as well as those detailed within the report originally considered by the committee on 9 August 2017;
(2) additional informatives being included requiring that any damage to public realm was repaired, the maximum standards were applied to fire safety issues and that commercial uses were subject to the London Living wage.
(Voting for approval was carried on the casting vote of the Chair with the initial votes cast as follows: For 3, Against 3 and Abstain 1)
Supporting documents:
- 245-249 and 253 Ealing Road, Wembley, HA0 1EX, item 3. PDF 748 KB
- Supp 16-3606 245-249 and 253 Ealing Road, item 3. PDF 123 KB