Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Mahmood.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Mahmood.

An apology for lateness was received from Councillor Rajan-Seelan.  As he was not present for the entire consideration of the first application (22/2225 – Fairgate House, 390 – 400 and 402 – 408 (Even), High Road, Wembley, HA9) Councillor Rajan-Seelan did not participate in the consideration of that item.

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.

All Committee members received approaches from local residents objecting to Item 6 Application – 22/1282 7 & 7A Sidmouth Road, NW2 5HH

All Committee members received approaches from local residents objecting to Item 6 Application – 22/1282 7 & 7A Sidmouth Road, NW2 5HH

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on Tuesday 13 September 2022 as a correct record.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on Tuesday 13 July 2022 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on Tuesday 13 September 2022 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

Granted planning permission subject to referral to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations, and conditions and informatives  as detailed in the Committee report and supplementary report.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of an up to part 13 and part 17 storeys (including ground level) building comprising purpose built student bed spaces (Use Class Sui Generis) together with ancillary communal facilities, flexible non-residential floor space (Use Class E), cycle parking, mechanical plant, landscaping together with other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION~:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)        The application’s referral to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed in the report.

(2)        That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement as detailed in the report.

(3)        That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as detailed in the report.

(4)        That the Head of Planning is delegated 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.

(5)        That, if by the “expiry date” of this application (subject to any amendments/extensions to the expiry date agreed by both parties) the legal agreement has not been completed, the Head of Planning is delegated authority to refuse planning permission.

(6)        That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Victoria McDonagh, Team Leader, North Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application site consisted of Fairgate House, a vacant seven-storey office building at 390-400 High Road, and Pitsman House, a vacant three-storey office building at 402-406 High Road. The site adjoined an area of hardstanding and mixed scrub to the north, and further to the north there was railway embankment land and the Chiltern Line railway tracks. The site was not in a conservation area and did not contain any listed buildings.

There had been a number of amended plans received during the course of the application as detailed in the report to secure minor changes to the ground floor landscaping proposals and first floor cycle storage. None of the amended plans received materially affected the nature of the scheme, therefore did not require a further period of consultation.

The proposed application sought to redevelop the site as a single building, partly 13-storey, 16 storey and 17-storey, to provide purpose built student accommodation with commercial floorspace (Use Class E) comprising three commercial units totalling 232sqm at ground level. A total of 349  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Committee report and supplementary report.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing garages and development of the land for 1x four bed house with one parking space, cycle and waste stores and associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION~:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)        That the Head of Planning being delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as detailed in the report.

(2)        That the Head of Planning being 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.

(3)         That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

MahyaFatemi, Planning Officer, North Area, Development Planning Team introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the site was currently occupied by four garages on the north side of Minterne Road. The side was adjacent to the front garden of. No. 1 Minterne Road located to the east and two storey flats of 3 and 5 Minterne Road located to the west.  The site did not contain a listed building and was not located within a conservation area. The application was seeking to develop the site to construct 1x four bed house with one parking space, cycle and waste stores and associated landscaping.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda that provided additional information regarding an objection received with regards to the privacy impact on neighbours.  Officers felt these issues had been addressed in the report and therefore advised that the recommendation remained to grant planning permission.

As no Committee questions were raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker, Dilip Kakar (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application.  Mr Kakar drew the Committee’s attention to the following key points:

·             Mr Kakar introduced himself to the Committee as a neighbour who would be directly affected if the proposal was approved.

·             In objecting to the application, Mr Kakar raised concerns that the character of the proposed development was not in keeping with other local properties and would look out of place.

·             It was also felt that privacy issues with regard to overlooking from the proposed development were unacceptable.  In addition to overlooking, concern was raised regarding the additional loss of light due to the height and scale of the new property.

·             The Committee were also advised that the road suffered from traffic congestion due to its close proximity to a local school and high  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Committee report and supplementary report. and an additional condition to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the ecology survey.

PROPOSAL

Proposed erection new two-storey dwellinghouse with basement level, works including associated off road cycle and car parking, private amenity, waste storage, landscaping and boundary treatment.

RECOMMENDATION~:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)            That the Head of Planning be delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as detailed in the report.

(2)            That the Head of Planning be delegated 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.

Damian Manhertz, Team Leader, South Area, Development Planning Team introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the current site comprised the rear garden of 7 Sidmouth Road, adjoining 60 Milverton Road on the side and 9 Sidmouth Road at the rear. The site location did not fall within a Conservation area as designated in Brent’s Local Plan. The application proposed the erection of a new two-storey dwellinghouse with basement level, works including associated off road cycle and car parking, private amenity, waste storage, landscaping and boundary treatment.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda that provided additional information regarding the addition of a condition to ensure that the development was carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the ecology survey.

Before moving the meeting on to hear from registered speakers on the application, the Chair sought clarification from officers as to what was different about the application before the Committee on this occasion, given that there had been various proposals on the same site that had been refused historically.

Officers confirmed that the primary reason for refusal of prior applications had related to the proposed design being in conflict with the character and appearance of the local area.  Officers advised that the scheme brought to the Committee on this occasion was therefore significantly different from previously dismissed schemes.

As no further Committee questions were raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker, Suzanne Scott (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application, who drew the Committee’s attention to the following key points:

·             Ms Scott introduced herself as a planning consultant who was present to represent the objectors of the application, notably close neighbours who would be directly affected if planning permission was granted by the Committee.

·             The site had been the subject of five planning applications and two planning appeals over the last two years, with the proposals for the site having been a long term source of stress for neighbours.  This had recently been exacerbated by the revised application that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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.

None.

None.