Agenda item
18/4919 1-26A, coachworks & storage areas, Abbey Manufacturing Estate, all units Edwards Yard, Mount Pleasant, Wembley, HA0
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Demolition and erection of a mixed use development of buildings ranging between 3 and 14 storeys in height comprising residential units (use class C3), flexible commercial floorspace falling within use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, B1(a), B1(c), D1 or D2, associated car parking, landscaping and ancillary facilities (Phased Development)
RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to the referral of the application to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out within the Committee reports.
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 within the Committee reports.
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 the “expiry date” of this application (subject to any amendments/extensions to the expiry date agreed by both parties) 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.
The Committee deferred this application at the last meeting on 17th March 2020 when Members were minded to refuse the application owing to concerns that related to the following aspects of the proposal: Affordable Housing provision,Loss of employment and Sunlight and daylight impact. Ms Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Team Leader) informed the Committee that further to the deferral, officers had provided additional information and clarification including changes in respect of housing mix, the loss of employment and the sunlight and daylight impacts. With those in view, officers considered the application policy compliant and reiterated the recommendation for planning permission to be granted as set out within the Committee reports.
Councillor Anton Georgiou (ward member) objected to the application on several grounds including the following; inadequate infrastructure to address the level and intensity of the development, excessive height, over-development of the site which would alter the character of the area to the detriment of residential amenity, major traffic concerns, lack of green and open space and concerns about affordability.
Members then sought further clarification on affordable housing provision, viability assessment for the scheme, infrastructure and loss of employment. Ms McDonagh drew Members’ attention to the revised affordable housing offer as set out within the report highlighting that there would be a reduction of 27 Shared Ownership units with 22 Shared Ownership units remaining, a reduction of 3 Affordable Rented units with the remaining 53 units switching to London Affordable Rent She considered that both affordable housing offers set out within the report were acceptable and policy compliant, representing more than the maximum reasonable provision of affordable housing in both cases.
Mr Alastair Westlake (Development Officer) gave a detailed breakdown and the methodologies of the financial viability assessment. He informed the Committee that the affordable housing offer was justified through the submission of a financial viability assessment which robustly set out why the projected costs and revenues (based on present day values) of the development would have resulted in a scheme that would be unviable, even where no affordable housing had been provided. He continued that the scheme would still be compliant with both adopted and emerging policy with regard to the amount of Affordable Housing. Mr Westlake added that the applicants had agreed to an early, middle and late stage viability review that would enable opportunities for additional affordable housing to be provided on the development subject to the conclusions of the reviews.
On the loss of employment, Ms McDonagh clarified that the proposed development would see the reinstatement of 1,200sqm of commercial floor space, 575sqm of which would constitute light industrial space within the B1(c) use class as managed affordable workspace. She continued that Site Allocation BSWSA5 of the emerging local plan promoted the residential led redevelopment of the site, with an indicative capacity of 590 new homes. In addition, there would be some re-provision of employment floor space along the ground floors of the new buildings as well as other potential uses such as small scale retail, commercial leisure or community uses. Members heard that
all of the light industrial floor space (545sqm) has been proposed as managed affordable workspace, at 50 % of market rent. In addition, the applicants have confirmed that they have been working with the existing tenants of the site where existing tenants have requested assistance to identify alternative opportunities for them wherever possible, although this is not a planning requirement.
Ms McDonagh explained that although there was no specific need to provide social infrastructure within the site, the scheme would provide a public canal pathway allowing for east/west connection in the future and that there would be a number of pocket parks, public open spaces and flexible uses including D1 uses. She added that the development would provide £8million in CIL contributions.She clarified that there was sufficient primary school capacity in the area and that the neighbouring Northfields development secured planning permission for a a medical facility.
Prior to voting Ms Saira Tamboo (Senior Planning Lawyer) advised the Committee to vote on the new scheme without regard to the scheme presented to Members at the meeting in March.
Prior to voting, all Members confirmed that they had followed all the proceedings and arguments throughout consideration of the application. Members then voted by a majority to refuse the application on grounds of level of affordable housing, social housing mix and lack of infrastructure to support the scheme.
Voting on the substantive recommendation for approval was recorded as follows;
For Councillors Denselow and Johnson (2)
Against: Councillors S Butt, Chappell, Maurice and Sangani (4)
Abstention: Councillor Hylton (1)
DECISION: Refused on grounds of level of affordable housing, social housing mix and lack of infrastructure to support the scheme and subject to stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London.
(Voting on the above decision was as follows: For 4, Against 2, Abstention 1)
Supporting documents:
- Abbey_drawings_pack, item 3. PDF 6 MB
- 6_May_photos to print, item 3. PDF 8 MB
- Abbey 18.4919, item 3. PDF 641 KB
- 18.4919 Abbey Supplementary Report, item 3. PDF 97 KB