Agenda item
19/3092 Ujima House, 388 High Road, Wembley, HA9 6AR
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Demolition of the existing building and erection of a new building up to a maximum height of 39.6m comprising up to 5,000sqm residential floorspace (Use Class C3), up to 600sqm of flexible workspace (Use Class B1A, B and C), with ancillary cafe (Use Class A3) up to 600sqm ancillary floorspace, associated hard and soft landscaping, wheelchair car and cycle parking.
RECOMMENDATION: To resolve to grant outline planning permission, subject to the Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London and the conditions and informatives recommended in this report.
That the Committee resolve to GRANT outline planning permission subject to:
1. Any direction by the London Mayor pursuant to the Mayor of London Order
2. Any direction by the Secretary of State pursuant to the Consultation Direction
That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions 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 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.
This application was deferred from the last meeting of the Committee held on 6 May 2020 to allow officers to consider a late letter of objection sent on behalf of the owners of the adjoining building (Lanmor House, 370 High Road) objecting to the proposal.
June Taylor (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report and answered Members’ questions. She informed the Committee that since the deferral, a further letter of objection had been received on behalf of the owners of the adjoining building (Lanmor House) and part owner of No. 26 to 29 Ecclestone Place, setting out in more detail the grounds of the objection. Members heard that officers had addressed the matters raised by the objectors within the main report and further amplified within the supplementary report to which she referenced. She highlighted that officers would assess the scope for overlooking and other issues raised, at the reserved matters stage of the application.
Mr Thomas Darwall-Smith (in remote attendance) read out a statement on behalf of Jaine Lunn, a resident and co-freeholder of 26-29 Ecclestone Place Golftemp Ltd, the owners of Lanmor House. She requested deferral of the application raising the following concerns:
· The original application which residents were asked to consult on was 8 storeys not the 11 currently proposed.
· Daylight/ Sunlight Assessment’s accuracy with respect to 26-29 Ecclestone Place
· Noise and Vibration report’s accuracy regarding impacts of piling and demolition.
· The need to widen and strengthen the proposed access road prior to commencement of any work.
· The need to widen and strengthen the proposed access road prior to commencement of any work.
Mr Darwall-Smith (representing the owners of Lanmor House) echoed similar sentiments particularly with respect to the Daylight Sunlight Assessment, suggested that these issues went to the heart of the matter and could not be addressed through reserved matters, and raised a legal issue that alleged the Council had failed to meet a legal expectation set up by consultation correspondence dating back to 2018.
Maire Grogan and Sam McDermott (applicant and agent in remote attendance) addressed the committee and answered Members’ questions. Ms Grogan informed Members that in designing the scheme the applicant had held four public consultation events and extensive engagement with the local community and their positive feedback incorporated. Residents of Lanmor House were included in leaflet drops informing residents of these events. The outline proposal would activate the High Road with workspace, a café and the residential lobby at ground floor level and apartments with significant private amenity in the form of a balcony and access to the communal roof terrace.
Prior to Members’ discussions, the Chair invited Saira Tamboo (Senior Planning Lawyer) to advise the Committee on the legal issues raised by Goldtemps, the solicitors acting for the objectors. Saira advised that in her view the Council as a Local Planning Authority had complied with its statutory requirement for consultation and community engagement. Members then invited officers to clarify other issues raised relating to the need to strengthen the road for construction traffic, affordable housing and tenure mix and employment space. Officers submitted the following responses:
· The Construction Logistics Plan at the reserved matters stage would address the road widening and strengthening including those to the rear of Ecclestone Place, and alternative arrangements should this not be possible.
· The daylight and sunlight report submitted with the application was acceptable taking into account the flexibility afforded by the BRE guidance and the NPPF policy.
· Recommended condition 9 would secure the affordable housing and tenure mix.
· The current office floor space was not commercially let, and on balance, officers consider that the provision of the proposed quantity of flexible B1 floorspace on the site would respond better to current demand and would contribute to strategic regeneration aims for Wembley High Road more effectively than providing a greater quantum of traditional office floorspace.
· That the consultation had not been undertaken for an 8-storey building, but that re-consultation had been undertaken early in the application as the description initially referred to a height of 39m AOD rather than 39m.
With no further issues raised, the Chair, having established that all members had followed the discussions, asked members to vote on the recommendation.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended subject the Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London.
(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 7, Against 0).
Supporting documents: