Agenda item
Texaco Star Market, Forty Avenue, Wembley HA9 8JS (Ref. 11/2976)
Decision:
Planning permission granted as recommended with an additional condition relating to sustainable drainage materials and a correction to Condition 5 referring to the British Standard.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of the site to provide a five storey residential building comprising 32 flats and a terrace of 3 three storey houses, car and cycle parking, private and communal amenity space including a children's play area and landscaping
|
RECOMMENDATION: Grant consent subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
|
Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager informed members that the scheme had been amended to two 3-storey houses for which the section 106 financial contribution had also been revised to £183,600. He then responded to a number of issues raised at the site visit which required clarification. He advised that the quality of accommodation complied with the minimum floor space standards set out in the current London Plan and external amenity and play space standards. He referred members to condition 8 which covered landscaping and sought to address issues about boundary security to the rear. He advised members that the Council’s Highways officers had re-confirmed their view that the proposed access arrangements would be satisfactory in road safety terms. Neil McClellan drew members’ attention to condition 5 that sought to control noise and disturbance during demolition and construction, adding that the s106 agreement required the developer to join and adhere to the considerate construction scheme.
The Chair exercised his discretion to allow three (3) objectors in view of the prior agreement to requests to speak and the late request by a resident adjoining the site.
Mrs Myers, speaking on behalf of the neighbour at 152 Elmstead Avenue stated that whilst she was not against the principle of development on the site, she had concerns about the height of the scheme. She stated that the development should not exceed two storeys so as to match the character of the properties in Elmstead Avenue and prevent loss of privacy. She also expressed concerns about noise and disturbance during demolition and construction.
Mr Paul Horwitz expressed concerns (on behalf of the resident at 182 Elmstead Avenue) on the density which he felt would constitute an over-development of the site and the height of the proposed development which would lead to loss of privacy. He added that the parking problems in the Elmstead Avenue area would be made worse by the development. Mr Horwitz also expressed concerns about noise and disturbance during demolition and construction on the 88 year old resident at No. 182.
Monica Patel, representative of Elmstead Avenue Residents’ Association expressed concerns about the development on the following grounds;
(i) The height, design, layout and appearance would not fit in with the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
(ii) The proposed development, due to its five-storey height, would overshadow the back gardens and rear living areas of adjacent properties, resulting in a loss of privacy for adjacent properties.
(iii) The proposal would significantly increase traffic in an already heavily congested area leading to further pollution and noise as well as making it difficult for emergency services to access Elmstead Avenue.
(iv) The increased traffic levels would compromise the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of the site, including children at the adjacent school.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor HB Patel, ward member, stated that he had been approached by the objectors. Councillor HB Patel, in endorsing the objections raised by objectors added that the proposed development which he considered to be of a significant density, would adversely impact on school places and facilities including drainage. He added that the proposed multi-storey block of flats could give rise to social problems in the area and urged the Committee to request the applicant to re-submit a revised application that sought to overcome the concerns expressed.
Mark Pender, the applicant’s agent informed the Committee that the applicant had held an exhibition with the purpose of addressing residents’ legitimate concerns. He continued that in addition to the section 106 financial contribution the scheme which would comply with the London Plan and SPG17 including amenity space requirements would make available six (6) affordable units. Mark Pender added that there would be no overlooking and loss of privacy from the development for which a satisfactory daylight and sunlight assessment had been submitted. He concluded that the scheme would be in keeping with the local character of the block of flats in both Forty Avenue and the houses in Elmstead Avenue.
In responding to the concerns expressed, the Area Planning Manager drew members’ attention to the remarks section of the main report for clarity. He also clarified that out of the total £183,600 in respect of the section 106 financial contribution, £15,000 would be spent on mitigating impact on transportation. Steve Weeks added that whilst there was no defined threshold level for an apprenticeship scheme, the development was smaller than any previous scheme where it had been sought.
DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions with an additional condition relating to sustainable drainage materials, a correction to condition 5 referring to British Standard and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement. |
Supporting documents: