Decision details
19/1241 Car Park next to Sudbury Town Station, Station Approach, Wembley, HA0 2LA
Decision Maker: Planning Committee
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
Decisions:
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: That the Committee resolve 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 and 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 application "expiry date" the legal agreement has not been completed, the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to refuse planning permission.
The decision on this application was deferred from the last meeting when Members were minded to refuse it because of its failure to provide an appropriate level of Affordable Rented housing to meet an identified local need contrary to policies. The Chair reminded Members to focus on the reasons for being minded to refuse the application and any new information that might have arisen since the last meeting.
Neil Quinn (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report and answered Members’ questions, focussing on additional information since the last meeting and referenced the supplementary report. He highlighted the applicant’s proposal to resolve the concerns expressed by members regarding the housing mix by increasing the financial contribution for off-site delivery of affordable rented homes to £600,000 to enable the provision of six 3-bedroom family homes. The applicant had also included an additional Blue Badge space on the site, closest to the main entrance and next to Building A without affecting the layout of the proposed buildings. Highways officers had reviewed this and considered it acceptable in terms of its size and position. He added that officers would encourage an early review of the CPZ.
Mr Paul Lorber (in remote attendance) spoke on behalf of Sudbury Town Residents’ Association (STRA), answered Members’ questions and reiterated objections to the scheme for several reasons including the following;
· Loss of parking facility which would deny disabled persons step free access to Sudbury Town Station.
· Loss of parking which would result in displacement parking in a heavily parked area to the detriment of residents.
· Lack of servicing facilities and deliveries to the site.
· Over-development of the site that would add to pressure on local facilities.
· Excessive height to the detriment of neighbouring properties and contrary to the local plan for the site.
In conclusion, Mr Lorber urged members to refuse the application and ask the applicant to review the scheme for a smaller development that would be more suitable for the area.
Mr Samji Meghani (in remote attendance) spoke in Gujarati through a translator on behalf of STRA, in objection to the application and answered Members’ questions. Mr Meghani echoed the loss of car parking and the resulting congestion particularly around Sudbury roundabout and nearby streets. The situation that would worsen because of the recently consented scheme for the former Keelers Garage site, could not be addressed by the proposed CPZ as the latter would give rise to displacement parking.
Mrs Carol O’Connell (in remote attendance) objected on grounds of height, loss of privacy, minimal access to the development and obstruction to emergency vehicles and lack of family homes at affordable rents.
Councillor Daly (in remote attendance) addressed the Committee and answered Members’ questions. She urged the Committee for refusal and raised several objections including the following:
· Failure to address policy CP21.
· Loss of car parking particularly for persons with protected characteristics and blue badge holders.
· Amenity space deficiency.
· Inadequate servicing provision and inappropriate access to the site.
Councillor Stephens (in remote attendance) addressed the Committee, answered Members’ questions and raised several concerns on the scheme including the following:
· Loss of parking which could result in parking displacement to residential streets particularly for blue badge holders.
· Lack of disabled parking space for commuters.
· The proposal failed to comply with Development Management Policy DMP12 and other adopted policies including the Local Plan.
· Lack of private external amenity space
Mr Lee Jay (an owner of Pocket Living Property in Haringey) spoke (in remote attendance) in support of the application and answered Members’ questions. Mr Lee highlighted the affordability and design quality of the applicant’s properties. In his view, the development would assist in the recruitment and retention of key workers. Members heard that the communal roof space compensated for the lack of private outside amenity space in the applicant’s properties. He continued that pocket residents were typically more concerned about getting on the property ladder than the ability to own a car.
Mr Marc Vlessing (applicant in remote attendance)) stated that the proposed scheme for 52 properties with priority sales to local keyworkers would be key in the Borough’s ability to recruit and retain such workers. He highlighted the substantial increase in financial offer with an offsite payment of £600,000 to deliver six family sized, affordable rent homes in a more appropriate location in the Borough. This would represent a dent in the viability of the scheme but a testament to the partnership commitment with Transport for London (TfL). Mr Vlessing appreciated the concern felt by local residents about TfL’s irreversible decision to close the car park but added that it was part of the London Mayor’s Housing and Healthy Streets programmes.
In the ensuing discussions, Members made the following points;
· Loss of heavily used car park that could result in parking displacement.
· Lack of family sized dwelling units.
· Lack of amenity space for future occupiers of the scheme.
· The site was inappropriate for the proposed development.
· Lack of facilities for servicing vehicles.
· Departure from Development Management Policies and Local Plan
Officers submitted the following advice in response:
· That the site had been allocated for residential development but that the height and proximity of the proposal to neighbouring properties arose from its specific circumstances.
· The site was suitable to residential development but not for family sized homes, hence the applicant’s increased offer of £600,000 for off-site family homes.
· Financial contribution was available for CPZ reviews in Brent and Ealing areas in order to extend its geographical spread.
· The station car park was owned by TfL which had decided to close it.
· In highways terms, the turning courtyard would be adequate for use by servicing and maintenance vehicles to the site without impact on local streets.
With no further issues raised, the Chair, having established that all members had followed the discussions, asked members to vote on the recommendation. Members voted by a majority decision to refuse the application for the reasons stated below.
DECISION: Refused planning permission contrary to officers’ recommendation for the following reasons:
The proposal would fail to provide an appropriate level of Affordable Rented housing to meet an identified, local need within the Borough, as well as failing to provide an appropriate mix of unit sizes within the development. This would be contrary to Core Strategy (2010) policies CP2 and CP21, Development Management Policy (2016) DMP15(b), policies 3.11 and 3.12 of the adopted London Plan (2016) and policy H6(a) of the Draft 'Intend to Publish' London Plan (2019).
Voting on the officers’ recommendation for approval was recorded as follows:
For: Councillors Chappell and Hylton (2)
Against: Councillors S Butt, Johnson, Maurice and Sangani (4)
Abstention: Councillor Denselow (1)
Wards Affected: Sudbury;
Publication date: 10/06/2020
Date of decision: 10/06/2020
Decided at meeting: 10/06/2020 - Planning Committee
Accompanying Documents: