Agenda item
Car Park, Brook Road, Wembley, HA9 (Ref. 12/3499)
- Meeting of Planning Committee, Wednesday 17 April 2013 7.00 pm (Item 13.)
- View the background to item 13.
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to amendments to Section 106 obligations and conditions 2, 19, 23 and 30 as set out in the supplementary report, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Erection of 4 blocks of flats (3x8-storey & 1x5-storey) comprising 109 flats and the erection of 2x3-storey semi-detached family houses (revised description).
RECOMMENDATION:
(a) Grant planning permission subject to amendments to conditions 2, 9, 23 and 30 and to the Heads of Terms of the Section 106 obligations or 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.
With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager, informed members that additional representations had been received since the report was circulated but raised no new issues. He also updated members about a tree that he understood from the owners of the site (Transport for London) was leaning precariously over the road and for which reason the owners were intending to remove it. The Area Planning Manager then drew members’ attention to amendments to conditions 2, 9, 23 and 30 and to the Heads of Terms of the Section 106 obligations as set out in the supplementary report.
Mr Barry Hargraves, an objector alleged that the proposed scheme would result in a shortfall of eighty car parking spaces and as Brook Avenue was already heavily parked, unbearable traffic congestion would ensue. The resultant pollution would have an adverse impact on residential amenity, giving rise to a significant deterioration in the quality of life of local residents. He also expressed concerns about the height of the proposed blocks and suggested that a 2 or 3-storey block would integrate with the character of houses on Brook Avenue.
Paula Saunders, a local resident objected to the proposed development on the following grounds:
· The proposed 8-storey blocks would be excessive in height and overbearing within a residential area which comprised mainly domestic houses.
· It would thus result in overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring residents.
· It would constitute an over-development of the site with high density flats which would be detrimental to the neighbouring houses on Brook Avenue.
· The proposed parking provision would be insufficient and despite being a “car free development”, the scheme would exacerbate the existing traffic situation on Brook Avenue particularly as there would be only one vehicular access into the development.
· As the car park (the site) was already situated in an elevated land above the road, the 8-storey building would be over-imposing when viewed from the other side of the road, despite the proposed woodland buffer.
· The 8-storey block of flats at the end of the road adjacent to the Premier Inn should not be used as a precedent for the rest of the road as that building was situated next to another 8-storey building.
· The proposal would set a dangerous precedent for future undesirable developments in the area.
In response to members’ questions, Paula Saunders stated that the proposal would lead to overshadowing especially to the residents in bungalows on Brook Avenue. She continued that as the site was situated on a bank of about one metre high, the high rise block of flats would lead to loss of privacy and overshadowing. Paula Saunders added that even with careful landscaping, the impact on the surrounding area would be overpowering and would take many years for trees/shrubs to mature enough to mitigate loss of privacy and overlooking that would ensue.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor HB Patel, ward member declared that he had been approached by the residents. Councillor Patel stated that the proposed development, in view of its height on a raised bank, would cause overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy. In addition to the above, as the scheme would provide twenty seven (27) instead of one hundred and thirty six (136) car parking spaces, the parking situation and traffic movements would be chaotic on a road that was heavily parked throughout the day. Councillor Patel urged members to defer the application for a site visit to enable members and residents to have a proper dialogue during the visit or alternatively to refuse the application in its present form.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Choudhary, ward member stated that he had not been approached in connection with the application. Councillor Choudhary expressed concerns about increased traffic that would ensue and highlighted the need for a traffic analysis report to be considered by members before deciding on the application. He also expressed concerns about the height of the blocks, the increase in population and the potential increase in demand for school places.
Mr Dominic Tombs, the applicant’s agent informed the Committee that the land had been declared surplus to requirements by Transport for London (TfL), the owners. The proposed car free development which complied with Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 (SPG17) and the London Plan in terms of its density, would maintain a separation distance of 43 metres. Mr Tombs continued that the scheme would provide a significant contribution to a much-needed family accommodation for social rent whilst providing a good living environment for future occupants as well as making a positive contribution to the visual amenities of the area. He added that the development would not cause material harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupants. The scheme, which was supported by officers, was judged to be a sustainable development that optimised the use of a site. He continued that the site was close to good transport links within the Wembley Growth Area and in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, the London Plan 2011 and the Brent development plan documents.
In response to members’ enquiries the applicant’s agent confirmed that a report on acceptable noise levels had been submitted with the application and that a separation distance to the nearest residential property of 43 metres would be maintained. He added that the Heads of Terms of the Section 106 legal agreement required the applicant to make a contribution towards school places as set out in the officers’ report. Mr Tombs then invited the applicant’s architect to clarify certain aspects of the development.
Steve Wright, the applicant’s architect clarified that the closest point to the railway line would be about 7metres and that the total height of the 9 storey block would be about 27 metres, both of which complied with the Design Access Statement submitted with the application. In respect of parking provisions, the architect stated that the parking spaces had been moderated from 63 to 27 as the development would be “car free” and had a good PTAL rating due to its accessibility to public transport network. He also confirmed that in addition to flyers sent to all neighbouring residents inviting them to comment on the scheme, the applicant’s project team visited residents and responded to their queries.
In responding to Councillor HB Patel’s request for a site visit, the legal representative clarified that in accordance with paragraphs 20 and 23 of the Planning Code of Practice the purpose of the Committee's site visit was to enable members to gain information relating to the land and buildings and that whilst on site, members were not to engage individually in discussion with applicants and objectors. With that in place he advised that exchanges between members and objectors could not take place if the Committee agreed to a site visit.
During members’ discussion, issues were raised about the decibel levels from the railways to the site, what mitigating factors had been put in place to minimise resulting vibration, contribution levels towards school places, parking spaces and the impact of the development on neighbouring residents in view of its topography.
Neil McClellan responded that all habitable windows would have double or triple glazing, fitted with sound attenuated air vents and that no primary habitable room windows would face towards the railway. He referred to condition 29 which required the residential units to be designed to meet the ‘Sound Insulation and Noise Reduction Code of Practice’ (BS8233:1999) and that following completion of the development tests would be carried out to ensure that it had met the Code of Practice. He then clarified that a contribution towards education would be included in the overall financial contribution set out in the Heads of Terms of the Section 106 legal agreement in line with the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) on Section 106 Legal Agreements. The Area Planning Manager continued that the loss of car parking was acceptable in view of the site’s accessibility to good transport network and good PTAL rating. He added that if parking displacement became a problem then additional measures including controlled parking (CPZ) would be considered. Members heard that the separation distance between the proposed blocks met SPG17 guidelines and that the scheme would benefit from a significant landscaping scheme.
Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning added that the applicant would be required by way of a condition to submit details of measures to ameliorate noise levels including rigorous testing. He also clarified that section 106 contributions were applied towards building school extensions.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended.
Supporting documents: