Agenda item
Parkwood House, Albion Way, Wembley, HA9 0LP (Ref. 17/2782)
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building including clearance of site, and erection of a part 13 and part 17 storey building comprising 113sqm of affordable workspace (Use Class B1) at ground floor level and 283 bedroom student accommodation (Use class Sui Generis) on the above floors with ancillary student reception area on the ground floor, cycle parking, bin stores, amenity space, landscaping, public realm works, installation of a rainwater attenuation tank and other associated works.
RECOMMENDATION: Resolve to grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and referral to the Mayor.
That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement to achieve the matters set out in the report.
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 in the report.
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 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.
Victoria McDonagh (Area Planning Manager) introduced the rep[ort and summarised the key issues as set out in the report. She added that 3 letters of objection were received from residents from Danes Court and Empire Court highlighting issues including anti-social behaviour of students.
Fatema Karim-Khaku (objector) stated that out of 350 flats in Danes Court and Empire Court, only a few residents received consultation letters, although letters were sent to all students in the nearby student accommodation. She continued that as the Wembley Area Action Plan (WAAP) policies did not make any mention of student accommodation, she considered that the proposal constituted a breach of policies. In response to a member’s question, the objector clarified that noise nuisance and drug dealing would be on an increase at night and therefore the proposal would be inappropriate within the area. She added the management plan referred to in the report would not be adequate to control the resulting harm.
Simon Marks (applicant’s agent) stated that the proposal which would be managed by Fresh Living would be completed with 2 years of the grant of planning permission and would respond to the high demand for student accommodation in the Wembley area. He added that the proposal which complied with daylight and sunlight assessments would make significant contributions to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), CPZ for the area as well as the local economy.
In response to members’ queries, Simon Marks stated that as part of the engagement process, 2 public exhibitions were held and leaflets were sent to residents of Dane Court and Empire Court. He added that the management plan submitted with the application included a Student Liaison contact and the installation of CCTV. Members heard that the proposal would incorporate sprinkler systems throughout the building and although there would be no requirement a car park, a lay-by would be provided for drop off, pick up and to minimise any possible disturbance.
In the ensuing discussion, members sought clarification on the height of the building, the potential impact of the proposal on on-street parking, the potential impacts of students on surrounding areas and whether the 20% cap for student accommodation had been reached or breached by the proposal. Officers were also asked to explain the consultation process with the residents and clarify measures to resolve possible anti-social behaviour.
Victoria McDonagh clarified that while the building was in an area identified as “inappropriate for tall buildings”, the stepped approach to height between the proposed building and the existing and approved buildings in the immediate vicinity meant that the height of the building fitted well with is context and that student accommodation was supported by the London Plan. In overall terms, the proposal which would not constitute a breach of the 20% cap on student accommodation in the area complied with the Site Specific Allocation for the site which did not exclude the provision of student accommodation. In respect of anti-social behaviour, she recommended an amendment to condition 25 for a Dedicated Community Liaison Contact to be specified within the management plan.
David Glover (Acting Development Management Manager) added that in accordance with legal advice sought the 20% cap under policy WEM 23 had not been reached. He added that the CPZ contribution was a for a 5 year period to limit the impact of the proposal on parking in the immediate area.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended with reference to a “Dedicated Community Liaison Contact” to be specified within the management plan – condition 25.
(Voting on the recommendation for approval was unanimous: For 5; Against 0)
Supporting documents: