Agenda item
Kingsland Hotel, Kingsbury Circle, London, NW9 9RR (Ref. 10/3262)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Thursday 12 May 2011 7.00 pm (Item 6.)
- View the background to item 6.
Decision:
(a)Grant Planning Permission, subject to an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 as amended,or
(b)If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Demolition of the existing 28 bedroom hotel and external store and erection of a new 3, 4, 5 and 6 storey, 92 bedroom hotel with associated alterations to car park layout and vehicular access off The Mall and landscaping along the frontage. |
RECOMMENDATION: (a) Grant Planning Permission, subject to an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section of this report,or (b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission. |
Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager, confirmed that the external area at 6th floor of the proposed building would not be used as amenity space but rather for maintenance and emergency access only. She therefore recommended imposition of a further condition as set out in the tabled supplementary report to restrict the use of that external area. Members noted that there was no standard contribution for hotel bedspace to mitigate the impacts of the development. Rachel McConnell stated that the section 106 financial contributions had been amended to provide training and employment for local residents and still ensure funding was available towards improvements in the local area including funding for highway improvements.
She then referred to the consultation and the responses received including those from QARA Group of Associations and added that the objections raised had been addressed within the remarks section of the committee report. She advised that although Policy CP17 was not directly referred to in the report, full consideration was given to character of the surrounding area. Rachel McConnell also confirmed that the recent developments within the vicinity of the site were taken into consideration when assessing the impact of overspill parking on the adjoining highway.
Rachel McConnell confirmed that consultation letters were not sent to the properties in the adjoining borough of Harrow as detailed in the supplementary report and she advised that letters were to be sent with the revised consultation period expiring on 3 June 2011. It was requested that authority be delegated to the Head of Area Planning to consider any significant substantive issues raised in objection to the scheme following this additional consultation. In addition, Members were advised that a letter of objection had been received from the London Borough of Harrow stating that the building would detract from the character of the area.
Mr Robert Dunwell Chairman of QARA Group of Associations raised objections to the proposed development on the following grounds;
a) Lack of on-site car parking spaces which would exacerbate traffic congestion and parking problems to the detriment of current and future residents in the nearby streets, the development under construction at 1-3 The Mall and the local Jewish Free School (JFS).
b) No traffic and transport assessment had been conducted or provided to give an overall assessment of the parking and traffic flow from JFS, the new 143 block of flats at 1-3 The Mall and around the vicinity of the Kingsbury roundabout.
c) The scale massing and density of the proposed development would be contrary to UDP policy CP17 which sought to protect and enhance the suburban character of Brent.
Mr Andrew Long the applicant’s architect stated that the scale and massing of the proposed development respected and acknowledged the surrounding buildings. He added that the development would assist in the regeneration of the area would be similar in height to Azure Court. Mr Long continued that the scheme had been designed to discourage car usage due to the proximity of the site to good and accessible public transport network in the area and there is provision for an on-site coach parking space. He added that the provision of 7 car parking spaces on-site would be adequate to cope with parking demands without giving rise to traffic problems in the area.
Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning, in responding to a query by Councillor RS Patel clarified that the use of section 106 financial contribution would not be restricted to a particular ward. He added that the scale, massing, height and materials were considered acceptable.
DECISION: (a) Planning permission granted subject to a section 106 agreement as recommended with delegated authority to Head of Area Planning to consider any new substantive objections received during the extending consultation period, (b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission. |
Supporting documents: