Agenda, decisions and minutes

1-16 Greencrest Place        Councillor Cummins declared a personal interest and left the meeting room.

Preston Manor High            Councillor Baker declared a personal interest and left the meeting room.

1-16 Greencrest Place NW2 6HF.

Councillor Cummins declared a personal interest, withdrew from the meeting room and did not take part in the discussion or voting.

Preston Manor High School, Carlton Avenue East, Wembley, HA9 8NA.

Councillor Baker declared a personal interest, withdrew from the meeting room and did not take part in the discussion or voting.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 2 February 2011 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 2 February 2011 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Refused planning permission.

Stephen Weeks, Head of Area Planning drew members’ attention to the supplementary report which set out the advice by the Director of Legal and Procurement for amendments to the reasons for refusal.  In view of the advice he recommended amendments to reasons 1 and 7 and added a further reason (8) as set out in the tabled supplementary report

Mrs Truman, Chair of Board of Directors of Neville and Dollis Hill Court objected to the proposed development on grounds of its excessive height which she felt would be out of character with the properties in the area.  She considered that an increase from 16 to 27 flats would constitute an over-development of the site which would give rise to parking problems and traffic congestion.  Mrs Truman also expressed her concerns at the lack of consultation by the applicants with local residents.

Mr Leigh Scheindlinger also raised objections on the following grounds;

(a)       Over-development of site which would result in over-population.

(b)       Excessive height of the proposed development.

(c)        Lack of privacy.

(d)       Inadequate parking spaces.

Mr Scheindlinger noted that the development would include one disabled person’s ground floor flat but added that in view of the distance and the slope it would not be feasible for a disabled person to access the property without an additional electrical support.

Ms Kerry Branford the applicant’s agent started by saying that the proposed development which had been designed to a high standard to improve the area would assist in meeting the Borough’s housing shortage.  She added that the development which would be set well back from the school and about 50 metres away from Dollis Hill Court would not dominate the streetscene.  Ms Branford continued that there would be no loss of parking to the residents of Neville Court.  In conclusion, she urged members to grant consent to what she considered to be a high quality sustainable development that would provide affordable housing for local residents.

Note: Councillor Cummins having declared a personal interest left the meeting room and took no part in the voting and discussion during consideration of this application.

Grant planning permission 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 & Procurement.

Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager submitted the following clarifications in response to queries raised at the site visit:

Tree Protection

An Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) had been submitted with the application setting out full details of proposals to ensure that the Holm Oak would be protected during the development of the site. The Tree Protection Officer’s assessment was that the AMS would be sufficient to ensure that the development could be carried out without causing unreasonable harm to the health of the tree.  This had been strengthened by condition 9 to ensure that the development would be carried out in strict accordance with the proposals contained in the submitted AMS.

Drawings

The applicant had submitted revised plans to correct the discrepancy on drawing no. 09TA-101-E&P Rev A and in view of that he recommended that condition 2 be updated to refer to the revised plan (09TA-101-E&P Rev B).

Character of the Area

Officers had appraised the design of the proposed building on its own individual merits and considered that the design of the proposed building would provide an appropriate, albeit modern, response to the context of the surrounding area.  He added that the relationship of the proposed development and the existing property at No. 11 The Avenue was considered acceptable in design terms.

Overdevelopment and impact on amenities

The planning permission would be subject to the applicant entering into a s106 agreement which would secure a contribution of £45,000 to be used towards mitigating the impact of the development on local amenities.

Sustainability

Having carried out an assessment it was the view of Officers that through other sustainability measures, such as recycling materials from the demolished building, the proposed development would comply with the Council's normal sustainability standards. Compliance with the Council's sustainability requirements would be secured through a s106 legal agreement

Mr David Spero objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it would be out of character with the properties in the area, contrary to the Council’s Unitary Development plan policies and standards on Areas of Distinctive Residential Character (ADRC) and Conservation Areas.  Mr Spero claimed that the applicant’s design and access statement were factually incorrect and added that the proposed development was likely to set a precedent for similar undesirable developments in the area in future.

Mr Robin Mills also an objector started by informing members that there was a petition signed by 51 residents objecting to the proposed development on grounds of loss of wildlife, loss  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Grant planning permission subject to an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section of this report,or

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, the Area Planning Manager Andy Bates explained the reasons for the amendment to condition 5 and the removal of condition 8.   

Grant planning permission, subject to 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.

Stephen Weeks, Head of Area Planning, recommended that consideration of this application be deferred in order to allow the Mission Dine Club to formally comment on the planning application. He anticipated that the proposal would be considered at the Planning Committee meeting on 16 March 2011.

Grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.

Grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.

Grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.

Grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.

Members noted that since the report was published there had been an additional letter of objection which did not raise any new objection.  In order to allay objectors’ concerns on future use Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager drew members’ attention to condition 3 which restricted the use of the basement.

Mr Martin West in objecting to the application stated that the proposed dome rooflight would be obtrusive and affect the privacy of the neighbour's property through increased lighting.  He added that there was no indication as to how the development could be carried out without trespassing the neighbouring properties and causing further damage.  Mr West considered that the proposal was inconsiderate as it did not contain details of extraction, ventilation and adequate fire exits and unnecessary as there were several other gyms in the area.

Mr Maris Sillis an objector felt that the application for variation to enable the size of the basement to be increased was unnecessary as the original scheme was considered sufficient for the proposed development. He added that although the stated use of the basement would be for a gym and utility room, there was no certainty that it would not be used as a bedroom in the future resulting in a more cramped property.  This prospect would give rise to safety concerns, traffic congestion and the whole development being out of character with its surroundings.

Mr Paul Baker, the applicant’s agent stated that the application which complied with the Council’s standards would provide an enlarged space for lobby and leisure activities but not for habitable use.  He added that the outside form had not been altered and therefore the proposal would not have any impact on the streetscene.  Mr Baker continued that details of ventilation, landscaping and tree report had been submitted to the Council’s Building Control for permission.  In response to a member’s query, Mr Baker stated that the proposed development would be nearer to the boundary than the original scheme that was granted.  He added that the size of the basement had never been an issue with this or the application that was previously refused.

(a)     Grant planning permission, subject to a s106 legal agreement, or

(b)     If the applicant fails to demonstrate the ability to provide for the s106 terms and meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document by concluding an appropriate agreement prior to the application's statutory expiry date, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.

Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager informed members that the applicant had submitted additional sustainability information, further improvements to which could be achieved through the Section 106 legal agreement. He added that the applicant had also submitted drawings detailing the amendments agreed which had been agreed previously with him.  In reference to the supplementary report Neil McClellan drew members’ attention to an additional condition on external satellite, following consultation with the design officer. 

(a)     Grant Planning Permission, subject to a s106 legal agreement, or

(b)     If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to demonstrate the ability to provide for the s106 terms and meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document by concluding an appropriate agreement, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.

Neil McClellan, the Area Planning Manager clarified the following issues raised at the site visit.  He started by saying that the applicant’s pre-application consultation with residents had advised that the school was initially envisaged as single-storey but that the statutory consultation had described the building as proposed.  He continued that the highway capacity study carried out by consultants and agreed by the Council’s Highways Engineer had confirmed that Carlton Avenue East was more suitable than Ashley Gardens. In respect of the locked vehicle barrier to deter fly tipping, he informed members that once the school was established, the barrier would be removed and with increased pedestrian activity and enhanced security measures such as CCTV the likelihood of fly tipping would be reduced.  The Area Planning Manager added that concerns raised by residents on traffic and parking would in part be addressed through the applicant’s proposed Travel Plan.  In reporting on land contamination he stated that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) had confirmed that further testing had confirmed that the site was not contaminated and as such conditions were no longer required to address that.  He referred to amendments to a number of conditions and an additional condition as set in the tabled supplementary report.

Mrs Monica Patel objecting on behalf of Elmstead Avenue Residents’ Association raised the following issues;

(i)      Lack of adequate consultation with the residents of Elmstead Avenue.

(ii)     Members’ visit to the site was not properly conducted.

(iii)    The proposed Travel Plan was flawed and failed to take account of extra 97 cars that would access the site.

(iv)    There was no budget provision from Highways Unit to address the poor state of the pavements in the area.

(v)     Contrary to the views expressed by the EHO, the site was contaminated

(vi)    A covenant existed that prevented additional building on the site.

(vii)   All 3 local schools; Preston Manor High, Wembley High, Preston Park Primary, Wembley Primary objected  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Refuse planning permission.

Stephen Weeks informed the Committee that he had received a letter from the applicant’s agents (ASK Planning) dated 20.02.2011 stating that the applicants had withdrawn the application.  In view of the withdrawal he stated that members were no longer able to make a decision on the application.

Noted.

Noted.

None.

The meeting ended at 9:15pm

RS PATEL

Chair