Agenda item
19/1241 Car park next to Sudbury Town Station, Station Approach, Wembley, HA0 2LA
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Re-development of existing car park for the erection of two blocks of residential dwellings, with associated residential amenity space, refuse storage, cycle parking, landscaping and other ancillary works, together with re-provision of disabled car parking bays nearest to Station Approach to serve Sudbury Town Underground Station (DEPARTURE FROM POLICY CP21 OF BRENT'S LOCAL PLAN).
RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to:
A. Any direction by the Secretary of State pursuant to the Consultation Direction
B. 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.
Mr Neil Quinn (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report and answered Members’ questions. In reference to the supplementary report, Mr Quinn drew the Committee’s attention to the additional letters of objection to the scheme and officers’ responses to them. He informed members that the number of dual aspect units within the scheme should read as 20 units, rather than 36 units referred to in paragraph 73 of the main report. For the avoidance of doubt, the correct full text was set out within the supplementary report.
Mrs Carol O’Connell (objector) addressed the Committee and answered members’ questions. Mrs O’Connell raised several issues including the following; over-development of the site, overlooking and loss of privacy, narrow access to the site and thus obstruction to large and emergency vehicles, excessive height and parking problems.
Councillor Daly (ward member) addressed the Committee and answered Members’ questions. Councillor Daly objected to the application on several grounds including amenity deficit, inadequate access arrangements for emergency and waste collection vehicles, inadequate facilities for servicing and delivery, loss of parking at the station which could give rise to parking displacement and additional on-street parking.
Mr Paul Lorber an objector addressed the Committee and answered members’ questions. He raised several issues including the following; over-development of the site for 52 flats; inadequate visitor and delivery facilities, inadequate provision for wheel chair users, detrimental impact on the amenity and sustainability of the local area. Mr Lorber urged the Committee to defer the application for a site visit to enable Members to assess the full impact of the development.
Councillor Stephens (ward member) addressed the Committee and answered Members’ questions. Councillor Stephens’ objections included the following; the affordability and housing mix were in contravention to Brent’s policies and Local Plan policies, lack of family housing units, inadequate amenity space provisions, inadequate parking provisions including for disabled drivers and loss of parking which would give rise to parking displacement to the detriment of on-street parking.
Mr Alex Shillito (applicant) addressed the Committee and answered members’ questions. Members heard that the scheme would provide affordable housing units for key workers with a further discount of 20% for local residents. In addition to being a sustainable development with landscaping, financial contributions would be made to Brent Council (£30,000) and Ealing Council (£20,000) for consultations and implementation of CPZ. Mr Shillito continued the scheme would complement the Grade II listed Sudbury Town Station, reflecting some of the key architectural features. He continued that the three existing disabled parking bays for station users would be re-provided with five of the homes made available for wheelchair users.
Mr Simon Topliss (architect) stated that he had given notice to speak only to clarify issues about design which had been covered in detail in his presentation.
In the ensuing question time, Members raised issues about affordable housing and tenure, amenity provisions, parking and departure from policies.
Mr Neil Quinn advised that the scheme would provide 100% affordable 1-bed units at an intermediate rate (sold at 80 % of market value). Although this did not accord with Brent and London Plan policy targets, sufficient justification and other benefits have been secured following robust financial viability assessment tests that officers consider outweighed this policy conflict. He added that the S106 legal agreement had secured £200,000 affordable housing grant for family affordable housing elsewhere within the borough. Members heard that the amenity space provisions were acceptable for the constrained site that lent itself to 1-bed flats whilst providing vehicular access that met minimum standards. He added that the scheme would provide an appropriate turning space within the courtyard and satisfactory delivery and servicing plans.
Mr John Fletcher (Highways Development) in responding to highways and access issues drew Members’ attention to condition 23 which sought to address initial concerns raised by highway officers regarding the narrow width of the access road. However, he considered that the proposed development, including the loss of the station car park (except for the disabled parking), would accord with adopted policy and would not have a significantly detrimental impact on local parking or highways conditions. He referenced the financial contributions of £30,000 to Brent Council under the S106 legal agreement towards a review of local CPZ operating hours and boundaries and towards improved bicycle parking facilities at Sudbury Town station. The legal agreement also provided for £20,000 for LB Ealing to review of its Controlled Parking Zone and to seek to implement any changes that they deemed necessary.
Prior to voting, all Members confirmed that they had followed all the proceedings and arguments throughout consideration of the application. Majority of the Members were minded to refuse the application for the following reasons; lack of family housing, loss of parking amenity and departure from policies, namely affordable housing tenure split. The Committee therefore deferred the application to a future meeting for a report assessing the reasons for refusal.
DECISION: Deferred to a future meeting, contrary to officers recommendation, for the following reasons to be tested, assessed and reported to Committee; failure to provide a policy compliant tenure split of affordable housing, lack of on-site family sized units, loss of parking amenities for particularly users of the station, lack of on-site disabled parking spaces.
(Voting on the above decision was as follows: For 4, Against 3, Abstention 0)
Supporting documents: