Agenda and minutes

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, any relevant financial or other interest in the items on this agenda.

13.       Palace of Arts & Palace of Industry (Ref. 09/2450)

All Councillors declared personal interests as members of the Council of the London Borough of Brent, the applicant.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 24 February 2010 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

The Area Planning Manager Rachel McConnell informed the Committee that a copy of the amended drawings had been sent to the adjoining neighbour who still maintained that the proposal would lead to loss of light, a matter which she added had been adequately addressed in the main report.

Mr Bakrani the adjoining neighbour objected to the proposed development on grounds of significant loss of light to his adjoining property due to the height of the proposal and particularly the first floor side extension.

With reference to the tabled supplementary report, the Area Planning Manager Rachel McConnell drew members’ attention to an amended description for the proposed development and clarified the queries raised by members at the site visit. She confirmed that the closest part of the proposed development to No 37 Moot Court would be about 18-19m which was within the Council’s SPG17.  She drew members’ attention to additional objections to the scheme including those raised by Councillor Dunwell and officers’ responses to them as set out in the tabled supplementary report.  The Area Planning Manager also drew members’ attention to the amendment suggested by the Borough Solicitor and an additional condition on Air Quality Assessment.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Dunwell, an adjoining ward member stated that he had been approached by the residents.  Councillor Dunwell objected to the proposed development on grounds of over-development of the site, significant overlooking and the lack of a transport assessment.  The proposed development, in his view, would exacerbate the parking problems created in the area by the adjoining Jewish Free School (JFS).

Mr Alfred Munkenbeck the applicant’s agent stated that the scheme which complied with SPG17 was an appropriate development in an area that was close to good public transport network.

In the discussion that followed, Councillor R Moher suggested a review of the nearby pedestrian crossing in Fryent Way to prevent traffic congestion around the Kingsbury Circle area.  The Chair also suggested a review of the Section 106 legal agreement with JFS to ascertain their compliance.  He also suggested a further condition that control parking zone (CPZ) permits should not be issued to the residents of this development.  The legal representative advised against the suggestion to deny permits to residents as the area was currently not within a controlled parking zone.

Members discussed the possibility of a car club as a means of addressing the potential parking problems and the need to ensure the provision for disabled parking.

Mr Adrian Levy objected to the proposed demolition on the grounds that there was no justification for the demolition at this stage until an associated planning application for a replacement building was also being considered.  In urging members to defer the application, he added that there were no health and safety issues such as bats and rats in the existing building.

Mr Bill Kemp, Chair of Preston Amenities Protection Association (PAPA) echoed the views expressed by the objector and urged members to refuse the application.

In responding to the issues raised, the Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks stated that a scheme for a replacement building was currently being assessed by officers.  He submitted that the demolition of the house and the landscaping of the site would make a positive contribution to the Mount Stewart Conservation Area.  The Chair expressed a differing view that the proposal would not enhance the area.

With reference to the tabled supplementary report, the Area Planning Manager Rachel McConnell clarified the relationship between the proposed building and the existing Brahma Kumaris University building located adjacent to the rear of the subject site.  She also clarified that the contribution of £36,000 being sought from applicant under the Section 106 legal agreement would be used to mitigate against the likely impact of the proposed development on local transport, sports, open space and educational infrastructure.  In reference to the disputed land, the Area Planning Manager added that issues relating to site ownership were outside the remit of the Committee and added that as the subject site had been revised to exclude the disputed land the latter site would not be required for the development.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Jones, ward member stated that she had been approached by the applicant, residents and Brahma Kumaris University.  Councillor Jones welcomed the “car free development” however she raised concerns on the following issues:

The excavation of a basement could harm the structural stability of nearby properties.

The proposed roof terrace would give rise to overlooking

The rear of the proposed building could harm privacy and natural light.

The balconies would not make a sufficient contribution to overall amenity space.

Concerned regarding the applicants assessment of the character of the surrounding area.

There were some inconsistencies in the Design and Access Statement.

Councillor Jones requested the Committee to ensure that the forecourt used by the garage was constantly cleaned up.

Mr Martin Evans the applicant’s agent stated that the application had been revised to overcome previous concerns on height, residential mix, roof terrace, elevational treatments and the siting of windows to the rear elevation. He added that the proposed development would provide mixed use, high quality accommodation with no detriment to the environment and amenities. Mr Evans confirmed that the applicant would clean the unsightly bins requested by Councillor Jones.

The Area Planning Manager, Neil McClellan informed members that the applicant had submitted two additional plans that sought to clarify the relationship between the proposed nursery building and the surrounding area particularly No 49 Chatsworth Road, the ground level and the projection of the roof.  He continued that the height and proximity of the proposed building failed to comply with the guidance contained in Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 (SPG17) in that it would have an overbearing impact on the outlook and visual amenity of adjoining occupiers.

Mr Robert Middleton speaking in support stated that the application would, in addition to creating more nursery places in an area that was deficient in that provision, enable the Bowling Club to benefit from a new roof without which the Club would need to close down.

Mr Andy McMullan the applicant’s agent stated that the application which sought to re-use a brownfield site would create additional nursery places in the area.  He added that the existing land which had no recreational value would be landscaped subject to further details to be secured through a condition.  Mr McMullan also indicated that the applicant would accept a further condition to control any consequent on-street parking.  The agent did not welcome suggestions by the Chair on how to ensure compliance with SPG17 in future applications by considering building on the pavilion site and re-siting the nursery, as it would involve a major landscaping scheme without meeting the existing needs of the Bowling Club.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Shaw, ward member stated that she had been approached by the applicant.  Councillor Shaw stressed the urgent need for a nursery provision in the area, a view that was also supported by the Council’s Early Leaning Years’ Officer and the local residents.  She continued that the proposal which would involve a single storey building would not result in any significant impact on the adjoining neighbour.  Councillor Shaw pointed out that the site was not part of the wildlife corridor and that the proposal would not result in loss of public open space.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Arnold, an adjoining ward member and the Labour Group spokesperson for Children’s and Families stated that she had been approached by the applicant.  Councillor Arnold noted that there had been no objections from neighbours to the proposal as it involved a single storey building.  She urged members to grant planning permission for the proposal which was situated in an area deficient in the provision of nursery school places, an outcome that in her view would also have beneficial effect for the Bowling Club.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Dunn, an adjoining ward member stated that he had been approached by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

The Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks informed the Committee that the applicant’s agent had submitted a revised plan removing all windows to the flank wall facing rear gardens of Chaplin Road. This would ensure that the existing amenities of residents at Numbers 76 - 80 Chaplin Road would not be harmed by reason of overlooking.  He added that the maximum height of the proposed development had been reduced from 7.0m to 6.2m which was the same as the original building.  The Head of Area Planning drew members’ attention to an amendment to condition 3 as set out in the tabled supplementary report.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Jones, ward member stated that she had been approached by the residents.  Councillor Jones welcomed the reduction of the height of the proposal which she felt would reduce overshadowing however she requested that an informative be added to ensure that there was a right of way to the vehicle access and that the contractor be required to sign up to the Considerate Contractors’ Scheme.

In responding to the points raised by Councillor Jones, the Head of Area Planning stated that issues relating to right of way were a civil matter.  He continued that condition 4 addressed the request for considerate construction.

The Area Planning Manager, Neil McClellan started by saying that the applicant had submitted revised drawings in response to CABE Design Review Panel and officers’ enquiries on a number of areas including an “Energy & Sustainability Q&A” sheet details of which were set out in the tabled supplementary report.  The responses were considered appropriate.  In respect of members’ enquiry about flood risk measures, he stated that although a number of measures to reduce flood risk had been incorporated, the Environment Agency had confirmed that as the site was below 1 hectare in size the statutory referral of the application to the Agency was not required. Members noted that the disabled parking proposed was in accordance with the Council's standards and was considered appropriate by the GLA/TfL.  In respect of concerns about the location of fuel deliveries in Engineers Way, the Area Planning Manager submitted that this would be secured through the “Delivery and Servicing Management Plan” and recommended that an additional condition be added regarding the treatment of the footway/highway if fuel deliveries were required within the Engineers Way frontage.  He then referred to a number of comments made by Wembley National Stadium Limited and officers’ responses to them as set out in the tabled supplementary report. The Area Planning Manager also drew members’ attention to a number of additional and amended conditions and the deletion of condition 21 as set out in the supplementary report.

Dr Sharah Ali objected to the proposed development on the grounds that the Council had not adequately consulted with all residents within the Borough.  He added that the feasibility study into the project had never been placed in the public domain to enable residents of the Borough to ascertain the cost implications and whether there was widespread acceptance of a new Civic Centre for Brent.  Dr Ali urged members to defer the application until the issues he had raised had been addressed.

Mr Gareth Daniel Chief Executive of Brent Council speaking on behalf of the applicant started by saying that the proposal was a culmination of eight years worth of work and numerous consultations including reports to the Council’s Executive meetings which were open to the press and public.  He continued that the proposed building had been designed in partnership with experts in the field with sustainability measures receiving a top priority.  He also emphasised the beneficial impact of the proposal on the regeneration of Wembley. In endorsing the recommendation for approval, Gareth Daniel  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks informed the Committee about further comments received from objectors who were unable to attend to address the Committee but reiterated the depth of their opposition to the proposed change of use.  He drew members’ attention to a revised wording for reason 1 for refusal as set out in the tabled supplementary report.

The Area Planning Manager Neil McClellan informed the Committee that the applicant had submitted revised plans/documents to reflect changes made to the layout.  He continued that the daylight/sunlight report submitted had demonstrated that the scheme was in compliance with BRE guidelines.  With reference to the supplementary report tabled at the meeting he drew members’ attention to the list of additional conditions requested by the Council’s Environmental Health Team in respect of site investigation works, controls over noise, vibration and emissions from extraction equipment, post completion noise testing and controls over demolition and construction works.

The Head of Area Planning highlighted the significance of the changes to the proposal in terms of improving the relationship and outlook for the proposed flats and the introduction of a range of landscaping to the frontage.

The Committee had before them a report that dealt with the extensive planning and enforcement history of the extensions to 19 Brook Avenue, Wembley, HA9 8PH and update members on the current enforcement position.

The Chair raised the background to the current report and queried whether Members would benefit from a site visit to understand the changes that had taken place and any outstanding matters.  Members agreed to defer for a site visit.

RESOLVED:-

That the report on 19 Brook Avenue, Wembley HA9 8PH be deferred for a site visit to enable members to assess the development and objections raised to it.

The Committee gave consideration to a progress report that summarised the outstanding matters relating to Leisure Golf since the centre was opened. The report also addressed each of the principal unresolved planning matters individually, detailing the planning context and made recommendations for unresolved matters.  With reference to the tabled supplementary report the Head of Area Planning drew members’ attention to the list of concerns that had arisen since the golf centre was opened and gave an assurance that officers would continue to discuss the outstanding matters with Leisure Golf Limited and provide updates to the Committee in future.

Ms Gaynor Lloyd a local resident confirmed the breach of planning conditions including unauthorised uses of the conference rooms for weddings and excessive number of cars in the car park.  

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Detre, a ward member stated that he had been approached by the residents.  In welcoming the report, Councillor Detre urged members to give their support and encouragement to officers to resolve the issues outstanding and to take enforcement action within a reasonable period of time if the breaches continued.

Members welcomed the progress report and,

RESOLVED:-

That Officers should continue to pursue resolution of all the outstanding issues outlined in the report, and if they consider that Leisure Golf Limited were not addressing these properly, to proceed with such enforcement action as considered appropriate to secure compliance.

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Democratic Services Manager or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 64.

Article 4 Directions

The Head of Area Planning informed members that Article 4 Directions had been agreed for Roe Green and Mapesbury Conservation Areas.