Issue - meetings

Refused planning permission on the basis that the Committee felt the application did not meet a Brent housing need, and the proposal resulted in a poor quality of accommodation due to lack of dual aspect units; and the scheme’s limited benefits did not adequately outweigh the harm caused by the scheme.

PROPOSAL

Change of use of part of ground floor, 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors from student accommodation, change of use of 1st floor retail storage, erection of extension at 2nd floor level and erection of 2 storey extension to create a co-living scheme (45 units - Use Class Sui Generis) including communal kitchen/lounges on 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor levels, creation of communal courtyard on 1st floor level and common area on ground and 1st floor levels with minor alterations to the ground floor to accommodate cycle parking and refuse facilities and replacement double glazed timber sash windows.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)        The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations detailed in the Committee report.

(2)        The Head of Planning being delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement detailed in the Committee report.

(3)        The Head of Planning being delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose the conditions and informatives as detailed in the report.

(4)        The Head of Planning being 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.

Neil Quinn, Principal Planning Officer, South Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report, members were advised that the application sought a change of use from the existing student accommodation to provide 45 co-living units, including the creation of communal kitchens and lounges, internal amenity space including a cinema, gym, and workspace at ground floor level. The site did not contain any listed buildings; however, it was located within the Harlesden Conservation Area and the Harlesden Neighbourhood Area.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary report that detailed some minor amendments to the main report, with members having noted that no further comments or objections had been received.

The Chair thanked Neil Quinn for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker Colin George, Trustee of the Harlesden Neighbourhood Forum, to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application.

The following key points were highlighted:

·             The Forum was broadly supportive of the application, however had concerns in relation to the operational impact of the development and the lack of engagement between the developers and the Neighbourhood Forum.

·             The Forum was concerned that the size of the development could have an operational impact in terms of waste disposal and fly tipping. The Forum sought assurances that all tenancy agreements would include instructions not to place waste outside on the pavement and to use all communal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4