Agenda, decisions and minutes

Unit 16, The Tay Building, 2A Wrentham Avenue, London NW10 3HA

Councillor Adeyeye declared a personal interest that his daughter used the facilities at the site.  He therefore left the meeting room and did not take part in the discussion or voting on this item.

I Fernbank Avenue, Wembley HA0 2TT

Councillor Daly declared a personal interest that she had received representations from an objector about this application.  She therefore left the meeting room and did not take part in the discussion or voting on this item.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 16 March 2011 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting subject to the following addition to the list of declarations of personal and prejudicial interests;

Newfield Primary School, Newfield Nursery & Mission Dine Club

Councillor Long declared a prejudicial interest that she was a member of Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) Board.  She left the meeting room and did not take part in the discussion and voting on this item.

(a)      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.

Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Grant planning consent.

Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning, informed the Committee that further to the publication of the main report, comments were received from a resident which raised no additional issues.  He added that the applicant had stated that he would observe all the proposed conditions set out in the officer's report. Steve Weeks continued that the applicant’s arboriculturist’sreport submitted had been agreed by the Council’s tree protection officer.

Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Neil McClellan the Area Planning Manager referred to the adjoining resident’s request for the last two metres of the extension to be set off the boundary by an additional 63cm so as to mirror the gap at No 64 Wrentham Avenue.  He submitted that extensions built up to the common boundary were routinely approved by the Council.

Mr Iain Lindsey an objector stated that the proposal would constitute an infilling development which could set a precedent for similar undesirable developments in the area.  He requested that the flank wall be brought only 63cms further away to increase the gap between the boundary to 1.3 metres over the rearmost 2 metres of the extension for the following reasons: to mirror the gap left between the boundary at No.64; to produce a much more consistent and complementary design; and to reduce significantly the bulky impact of the extension on No. 64.

In responding to the above, Steve Weeks stated that the proposal which incorporated a satisfactory design would have no significant harm to the objector.

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 and Procurement.

The Head of Area Planning drew members’ attention to the amendment to condition 3 as set out in the tabled supplementary report on landscaping and measures for tree replacement.

Mr Jay Dalu-Chandu in objecting to the application expressed concerns about the impact of the proposed development on sunlight and residential amenities in general.  He added that the likely increase in population as a result of the development would put an undue pressure on available local amenities.

Mr Jonathan Cross the applicant’s agent stated that the application complied with the standards and policies of the Borough both in terms of sunlight and intensification.  He endorsed the recommendation and urged members for approval.

Steve Weeks informed the Committee that it was difficult to envisage the impact on sunlight being significant and that the applicant’s BREEAM statement was satisfactory.

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 and Procurement.

Neil McClellan the Area Planning Manager referred to concerns expressed with the loss of the Yoga Centre (D2) and clarified that the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the newly adopted Core Strategy did not contain policies that protected D2 uses. He added that whilst the contribution of the Yoga Centre seemed to be well known to the community, owing to the identified need for residential units, it would be difficult to resist the proposal on use grounds.

Mr Kieran Rafferty the applicant’s agent spoke only to point out that the address of the site was incorrect.

Members agreed that delegated authority be granted to the Head of Area Planning to effect the necessary correction.

Note: Councillor Adeyeye declared a personal interest in the application in that his daughter attended the centre.  He therefore left the meeting room and did not take part in the discussion and voting on 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 and Procurement.

Neil McClellan informed members that on the advice of the Director of Legal and Procurement, should permission be granted it should be subject to the completion of a new s106 agreement as opposed to a Deed of Variation. The new s106 agreement would encompass all of those Heads of Terms for both the current and previous applications, as set out under the heading "S106 DETAILS" in the main report.  He therefore amended the description and condition 8 as set out in the tabled supplementary report.­   The Area Planning Manager added that due to the proximity of the site the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea were consulted but they raised no objections to the application. He continued that the Council’s Highways Engineer and the Environmental Health Officer had no objections to the scheme and that the concerns raised by the Landscape Design Team would be satisfied through suitably worded conditions on landscape requirement.

Mr Piers Warne, an agent objecting on behalf of the adjoining premises (Regent Public House) claimed that by failing to provide adequate measures on noise attenuation the proposed development could cause unreasonable noise transmission to his client’s premises. He clarified that the new owner could apply for a premises licence with hours of operation of up to 2:00am which could adversely impact on the public house in terms of noise and parking problems.   In requesting members to defer the application, Mr Warne suggested the installation of the following as additional conditions; triple glazing, extra sound attenuation system and air-conditioning.

Mr George Vas Dekys the applicant’s agent stated that the application had been revised following an extensive consultation with interested parties and negotiations with officers to arrive at an acceptable scheme.  He added that financial contributions under a Section 106 legal agreement had been recommended to compensate for any likely loss of amenities. He also drew members’ attention to other conditions requiring insulation which would address concerns on noise.

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 and Procurement.

With reference to the tabled supplementary report Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning submitted the following responses to issues raised at the site visit. In respect of the side extension he stated that the development would maintain a distance of 3.7m between the flank wall and the kerb edge which would exceed the width of the footpath on the opposite side of Brondesbury Road.  He continued that the proposal had been inspected by the Crime Prevention Design Officers who concluded that as the area would be clearly visible from a number of properties, it would not give rise to criminal or anti-social behaviour.  He however suggested that an additional condition could be imposed to ensure that this was achieved. 

In response to Councillor Arnold’s enquiry about installing street lighting columns similar to those installed in South Kilburn, Steve Weeks reported that the Council's Transportation Unit had confirmed that it would be possible to negotiate the inclusion of this type of street lighting under the provisions made for public realm improvements as part of the s106 legal agreement.  However, in response to a query from Cllr Powney, he recognised that there may be limitations on the appropriate specification. He drew members’ attention to  condition 13 as amended and as set out in the supplementary report, which sought to address concerns about access between the existing residential units and the roof of the proposed development and further amendments to conditions 16 and 20.

Margaret Stoll in objecting to the proposed development stated that the gates to the rear of the property were not necessary and that access other than the usual route was not desired. She raised issues about security and questions about the closing times of the gates, the market and enquired about steps that were being taken to prevent graffiti.  Margaret Stoll also requested the replacement of the trees that had been removed as a result of the development and the erection of a community notice board.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Arnold a ward member sated that she had been approached by local residents and Kilburn Business Community.  Although supporting the application Councillor Arnold emphasised the need for members to take on board concerns expressed by the local residents’ association in respect of access, lighting, trees and community notice board.

Mr Michael George the applicant’s agent stated that the current application would improve and enhance the regeneration of the market making it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

Grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.

In response to concerns raised by Councillor Daly and residents about noise, noise insulation and fire regulations, the Area Planning Manager Neil McClellan informed members that the Council's building control officer had confirmed that all additions to the property complied with the relevant standards including insulation standards.  He also confirmed that the applicant had been advised by way of informatives that the compliance period of the enforcement notice had expired and therefore works on the alterations should commence as a matter of urgency in order to avoid any direct action being authorised under delegated powers.

Note: Councillor Daly declared a personal interest that she had received representations from an objector.  Councillor Daly left the meeting room and did not take part in the voting on the application.

With reference to the tabled supplementary report, Neil McClellan (Area Planning Manager) informed the Committee that officers had assessed the Travel Plan submitted as a requirement of the Section 106 legal agreement and were satisfied that on balance the development would not result in a detrimental impact on the highway network subject to further details.  He continued that with only 5 disabled parking spaces provided on site, the traffic impact of the development would not be high.  In respect of the query over the number of parking spaces proposed, he confirmed that the figure had been revised from 6 to 5 as a response to the Highway Engineer’s comments.  Neil McClellan clarified that the scale and height of the proposed development, had not significantly altered in scale from the scheme previously approved on site. 

In addressing the concerns regarding noise and odour, he informed the Committee that the Council’s Environmental Health Officers (EHO) had considered noise nuisance and odour potential and found that, the proposal, as revised, would not cause harm to local amenities. He added that the EHO had supported the high level ventilation required under condition 26 as being sufficient to address the impact of the retail A2/A3/A5 uses.  In reiterating the recommendation for approval, the Area Planning Manager drew members’ attention to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

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, the Area Planning Manager informed the Committee that planning permission reference 09/3013 remains extant, and that the current application merely proposed the insertion of two obscured glazed windows within eastern elevation facing 2 Stanley Avenue.  He added that on balance it was considered that the proposed amendments can be treated as an acceptable material minor amendment to the drawings approved through planning consent reference 09/3013.

The Head of Area Planning reminded members that the next meeting would take place on Thursday 12 May 2011 at 7:00pm.  The site visit would take place on Tuesday 3 May 2011 at 2:30pm followed by a presentation on Wednesday 4 May 2011at 5:30pm at Brent House, High Road, Wembley.

The meeting ended at 8:40pm

RS PATEL

Chair