Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Conference Hall - Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ

Contact: Craig Player, Governance Officer  Email: craig.player@brent.gov.uk; 020 8937 2082

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Declarations of interests

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, the nature and existence of any relevant disclosable pecuniary, personal or prejudicial interests in the items on this agenda and to specify the item(s) to which they relate.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

None.

2.

Minutes of the previous meeting

None.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

None.

3.

20/2974 - 3 Millennium Business Centre & self storage to rear, Humber Road, London, NW2 6DW pdf icon PDF 304 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

PROPOSAL:

Outline planning application for proposed new warehouse building located to the rear (matters to be applied: access, appearance, layout and scale).


RECOMMENDATION:

 

Resolve to grant planning permission subject to prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations as set out in the report.

 

That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as set out in the report.

 

That the Head of Planning is 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.

 

Paige Ireland, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report, set out the key issues and answered members’ questions. The Principal Planning Officer advised that the proposal followed an application for a similar form of development in 2019 which was refused for transport related reasons.

 

In reference to the supplementary report, the Principal Planning Officer drew members’ attention to the following points:

 

·         The applicant had submitted a Fire Statement since the publication of the main report. However, as it did not fully meet the submission

·         requirements a Fire Statement prepared by a suitably qualified third party assessor was still needed.

·         A local resident had requested that the application be considered in light of the impact of the Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme on Humber Road.

·         A further query had been raised as to how carbon reduction was being achieved in the development which was addressed in the supplementary report.

 

Andrew Crossley, objector, then raised several concerns including:

 

·         The basic floor data in the Transport Statement was thought to be 7900 square metres rather than 2900 square metres. As such, the transport impact had not been assessed correctly and the development would lead to increased traffic congestion.

·         The development did not represent an extension of an existing business as suggested, but rather a separate business location. There was little consideration of the relationship with neighbouring properties, especially regarding access, layout and fire safety.

·         The proposed layout would block the main loading bay of Henfield Storage, the adjacent business. This would result in heavy traffic and congestion at the front of the site and onto the road.

 

In response to questions from members, Andrew Crossley made the following points:

 

·         Henfield Storage had engaged with the applicants and made its objections clear. However, these conversations had not led to any alterations to the proposed development.

·         The warehouse was not heated and as such there was little potential for internal overheating and reliance on air conditioning systems. The offices at the front of the site were being refurbished and it was assumed that environmental considerations would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.

21/0686 - 14 Canterbury Road, London, NW6 5ST pdf icon PDF 285 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

PROPOSAL:

Development authorised by the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Act

2017 relating to the Canterbury Works Headhouse and Compound, consisting of: the vent shaft headhouse building comprising three principle connected headhouse elements (mechanical and electrical plant building, fan room and vent stacks); road vehicle parking within the compound with a hardstanding area; earthworks within the compound area for the headhouse building, including retaining walls and associated hardstanding area; an autotransformer station (location only); fencing (location only) encircling the headhouse building to create a secure compound; and artificial lighting equipment affixed to the headhouse building and within the compound.


RECOMMENDATION:

 

Resolve to grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the report.

 

That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions as set out in the report.

 

That the Head of Planning is 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.

 

Paige Ireland, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report, set out the key issues and answered members’ questions. The Principal Planning Officer advised that, as the proposal was not a planning application, members would need to consider whether the works ought to, or could reasonably be, modified. Members would need to consider: whether the proposal would preserve the local environment or local amenity; prevent or reduce prejudicial effects on road safety or on the free flow of traffic in local area; preserve a site of archaeological or historic interest or a nature conservation; and whether the development ought to, and could reasonably, be carried out elsewhere within the development’s permitted limits.

 

In reference to the supplementary report, the Principal Planning Officer drew members’ attention to the following points:

 

·         A further objection had been received since the publication of the main report regarding the potential impacts on surrounding properties.

·         The supplementary report addressed discrepancies in the main report regarding the 30-degree rule when considered in relation to Canterbury Terrace.

 

Lucy Neal, the agent, then addressed the Committee on several matters including:

 

·         Operational personnel would visit the site infrequently to undertake scheduled maintenance. The site would also be a dedicated intervention point, allowing access down to the Euston Tunnels for the emergency services in the event of an incident occurring.

·         During a normal night, only the site entrance would be lit to a dim 5 lux and there would be no light spill. Maintenance events were expected to be infrequent and, if undertaken at night time, would result in a 1-5 lux light spill. In the event of an intruder at night, there would be 1-5 lux  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Any Other Urgent Business

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Head of Executive and Member Services or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 60.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

None.