Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Chair welcomed the following new members to the Committee; Councillors Kabir, Kataria and Powney.  He also paid tribute to former members of the Committee; Councillors Daly, RS Patel and Krupa Sheth for their contributions during their term of office on the Committee.

None declared.

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 17 April 2013 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

(a)       Granted 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.

Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager in reference to the tabled supplementary report, informed the Committee that additional issues raised including loss of playspace and loss of soft landscaping had been addressed in the main report. She then reported on the view from the Council’s Transportation officers in relation to the level of congestion during the peak rush hour and the number of vehicles that the proposed drop-off could accommodate as amplified in the supplementary report.  Members heard that on balance, it was considered by the Council's Transportation officers that any off-street drop-off facility would help to reduce instances of on-street parking on yellow lines around the Ridgeway/Draycott Avenue junction.  She therefore reiterated the recommendation for approval subject to conditions.

In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Kansagra, ward member stated that he had been approached by residents about the application. Councillor Kansagra stated that the loss of playground to accommodate the proposal would not only have a detrimental impact on the education of the school pupils but also give rise to traffic congestion as parents drove in and out of the school.  He added that as Draycott Avenue was heavily parked, the traffic conditions in the area including The Ridgeway would worsen as a result of the proposal.  Councillor Kansagra felt that the traffic management plan would not be able to resolve the situation that would ensue.

In response to members’ questions on how best to address the situation, Councillor Kansagra expressed a view that the imposition of parking controls principally, an ‘unhappy hour’ between 10:00-11:00 and 15:00-16:00 hours would assist in resolving the traffic conditions.

In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor BM Patel, ward member stated that he had been approached by residents about the application.  Councillor BM Patel spoke in endorsement of the views expressed by Councillor Kansagra.

In the discussion that followed, Councillor Cummins stated that the proposal which would lead to loss of play space would not only result in traffic congestion but also a detrimental impact on the children’s education.  He added that the Council’s standards on nursery play areas could be applied.  This view was also shared by Councillor Baker.

In responding to concerns raised, Rachel McConnell stated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

(a)       Granted planning permission subject to conditions, informatives and Heads of Terms as set out in the supplementary report.

(b)       Granted delegated authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission if within a reasonable period the applicant fails to demonstrate the ability to provide for the 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.

Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager informed the Committee that since the last meeting when the application was deferred, officers had continued to negotiate on the financial appraisal to support the affordable housing that was being proposed. He added that as a result, the applicants had now agreed to offer an additional affordable rent 2 bedroom unit which had brought the total number of affordable units to 7, accounting for 35% of the development.  He added that the applicant had also submitted revised plans to confirm that the two proposed affordable 3 bedroom units would each have an additional toilet. Andy Bates continued that having discussed the results of the negotiations with Housing colleagues, Officers were satisfied that the level of affordable housing achieved was reasonable.  He therefore amended the recommendation from refusal to approval subject to conditions, Section 106 legal agreement and Heads of Terms and informatives as set out in the tabled supplementary.

In accordance with the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Adeyeye, ward member stated that he had been approached by residents about the application.   He spoke to thank both officers and the applicant for efficiently reaching a satisfactory agreement which would enable the proposal to progress.

Both the applicant and the agent also thanked the officers for the amended recommendation for approval subject to a legal agreement and informatives.

(a)       Granted planning permission subject to conditions,  incorporating revisions to conditions 3, 6, 10, 19, 21, 37 and 40, additional condition  relating to community use of school, additional Head of Term requiring link between the retail element of the scheme and housing and referral to the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan and 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.

Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager in reference to the tabled supplementary report informed members about additional concerns raised on traffic, lack of public green space/children's play, the size of the proposed community space and inadequate consultation with the Chinese community.  She informed members that apart from consultation, those issues raised had been dealt with in the main report. 

In respect of consultation, she stated that letters were sent to those who commented on the previous planning application and in addition to local consultation site notices and publication of press notices were posted. A Statement of Community Involvement which set out the consultation carried out prior to submission of the planning application was also submitted by the applicant as part of the planning application.  Rachel McConnell then referred to the issues raised in the two petitions submitted as well as issues raised by Robert Dunwell of Queensbury Area Residents’ Association (QARA) and drew members’ attention to officers’ responses as set out in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Granted planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.

Granted planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement

and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms

thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.

Granted planning permission subject to conditions.

Refused planning permission.

Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager, informed members that following the site visit officers had taken the opportunity to review the merits of the scheme and had picked up additional factors in sufficient detail.  These included the specific relationship of the proposed extension to the shared use of the existing outside space between the two ground floor residential units. He clarified that the submitted plans failed to represent the existing boundaries and would thus result in the loss of virtually all valuable outside space to the application flat and also relate poorly to the outside space currently assigned to the other ground floor unit. As a result, the proposal would lead to an unacceptable quality of environment for occupiers of both ground floor flats.  As a result of this review and for reasons set out in the tabled supplementary report, he amended the recommended to refusal.

Debbie Leonard, speaking on behalf of her parents (adjoining occupiers) objected to the proposed development on grounds of over-development of the property and loss of sunlight.  She also expressed concerns about the impact of the proposed extension on drainage and residential amenities for a property that was originally built as a 3-bedroom family home but currently had a certificate of lawfulness for four flats.  

Granted planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.

Granted planning permission subject to conditions.

Granted planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement

and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms

thereof on advice from the Director of Legal Services and Procurement.

This report reviews Brent’s approach to basement developments and proposes some measures to assist the assessment of applications as well responding to the concerns that are raised.

Endorsed the proposals set out in paragraphs 3.14 and 3.16 for consultation with local residents groups and industry representatives with a view to reporting back prior to formal adoption. 

Members gave consideration to a report which reviewed Brent’s approach to basement developments and proposed some measures to assist the assessment of applications.  Steve Weeks, Head of Area Planning highlighted the principal concerns that had been raised in conservation Areas which included the following and drew members’ attention to officer responses as set out in the report;

a)      Design/Landscape impact – including impact on front and rear gardens where basements are not a feature of the local area.

b)       Structural Damage –due to construction method leaving adjoining, often attached properties on their original shallow foundations.

c)         Hydrological or geological considerations including fears of particular impacts on water courses, ground water levels or the safety of substrata.

d)        Construction nuisance and amenity – noise and mess during excavation, obstruction and inconvenience due to the number of skips required, inconvenience to neighbours – including occupiers of upper floors.

In order to address the above issues and concerns, the Head of Area Planning proposed the alteration to Brent planning application validation requirements to require additional information when applications involving basements were submitted which would inform planning assessment and also support local statutory planning consultation.  This requirement may be varied when any basement development was outside the notification area for the Party Wall Act.  He continued that the requirements would entail more detailed plans and the submission of a report by a qualified structural engineering company detailing the proposed construction and build methodology and how it would relate specifically to the site. The Head of Area Planning anticipated that the new requirement would involve a detailed site survey of buildings, levels and landscaping. It would also require a desk study of any site specific geological or hydrological considerations with appropriate site investigations. 

With respect to concerns about noise nuisance, he proposed that applicants be required to indicate that they would employ a contractor who was part of the Considerate Contractor Scheme (CCS) as well as providing an indicative construction programme.  He also proposed to refer potential issues relating to skips to Safer Streets with any formal response to this consultation in order to assist them in deciding on the need for any review of current practices.

Robert Dunwell, Chair of QARA informed members that the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) were currently in the process of drawing up policies on basements including technical and cost implications.  With that in view, Mr Dunwell urged members to defer the report until the DCLG report had been released.

In response to members’ query, the Head of Area Planning stated that whilst he was aware of the DCLG report, he had no knowledge as to its completion or release dates.  He added that other local authorities had adopted policies similar to those he had proposed.  He advised members that through the use of electronic means, consultation would not involve a major cost exercise.

RESOLVED

that the proposals set out in paragraphs 3.14 and 3.16 of the report be endorsed for consultation with local residents groups  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Noted.

RESOLVED:

that the planning appeals for April 2013 be noted.

It was noted that the next meeting will take place on Wednesday 19 June 2013 at 7:00pm.

The meeting ended at 9:00pm

KETAN SHETH

Chair