Agenda, decisions and minutes

None.

None.

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

In relation to Agenda Item 4 Councillor Kelcher advised that as one of the ward councillors for Harlesden & Kensal Green he had been involved in campaigning against the application and therefore withdrew from the meeting for the consideration of that item.  Councillor S.Butt (as Vice-Chair) therefore took over as Chair for the consideration of Agenda Item 4.

All Committee members confirmed they had received approaches from the local Residents Association in relation to Item 6 on the agenda but confirmed they had not engaged in discussion on the application.

In relation to Agenda Item 6 Councillor Begum also advised that whilst one of the ward councillors for Kilburn she had not sought to take any position on the application and therefore felt able to consider the application impartially and without any form of predetermination.

In relation to Agenda Item 4 (23/0989 5-6 Park Parade, London, NW10 4JH), Councillor Kelcher advised that as one of the ward councillors for Harlesden & Kensal Green he had been involved in campaigning against the application and therefore withdrew from the meeting for the consideration of that item.  Councillor S.Butt (as Vice-Chair) therefore took over as Chair of the meeting for the consideration of Agenda Item 4. 

All Committee members confirmed they had received approaches from the local Residents Association in relation to Item 6 (22/3669 – Kilburn Square Estate, Kilburn, London) on the agenda but confirmed they had not engaged in discussion on the application.  Councillor Begum also advised that whilst one of the ward councillors for Kilburn she had not sought to take any position on the application and therefore felt able to consider the application impartially and without any form of predetermination.

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 9 August 2023 as a correct record.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 9 August 2023 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on Wednesday 9 August 2023 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting

Refused planning permission on the basis of overconcentration of such uses, contrary to Policy BE5 Paragraph D of Brent’s Local Plan.

PROPOSAL

Change of use from betting office to amusement centre (adult gaming centre) and alterations to shopfront at 5 Park Parade. Retention of (reduced size) betting office and alterations to the rear elevation comprising removal of louvre vent and installation of new door at 6 Park Parade.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

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

Damian Manhertz, Team Leader, South Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application sought a change of use from betting office to amusement centre (adult gaming centre) and alterations to shopfront at 5 Park Parade. Retention of (reduced size) betting office and alterations to the rear elevation comprising removal of louvre vent and installation of new door at 6 Park Parade. The existing site currently comprised of a vacant betting shop that sat within a three storey Victorian terrace with residential properties above. The site was located within secondary shopping frontage within Harlesden Town Centre, and the Harlesden Creative Cluster. The site was located in an Archaeological Priority Area, with a site of Archaeological Importance situated to the rear boundary. The site was within an air quality management area and the Harlesden and Willesden Junction Air Quality Focus Area. The site was not listed nor located within a conservation area.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda that provided information in relation to how Policy BE5 had been applied in terms of ensuring there was not an overconcentration of betting shops/adult gaming centres within town centres with the Officers’ recommendation remaining to approve the application subject to the conditions and informatives as detailed in the report and an additional condition requiring formal Secured by Design accreditation prior to first occupation of the units.

The Chair thanked Damian Manhertz for introducing the report.  As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker Will Newton (objector) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application with the following key points highlighted:

·                Local residents were strongly opposed to the application.

·                Residents were making a conscious effort to take pride in the community and would welcome positive uses of the site; however, it was felt that the proposed use of an adult gaming centre and betting shop would have a negative community impact.

·                Concerns were raised that the proposed application was particularly exploitative of the most vulnerable members the community.

·                There were already adult gaming centres in close proximity, therefore it was questioned why another one was necessary.

·                Residents were concerned that the addition of a further adult gaming centre would exacerbate the existing anti-social behaviour (ASB) prevalent around Park Parade.

·                On the basis of the concerns raised, Mr Newton urged the Committee to reject the application.

The Vice Chair (in the Chair) thanked Mr Newton for addressing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Granted planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed in the Committee report; and the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report; and supplementary report.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of the existing building and the erection of building of up to five storeys to provide residential dwellings (Use Class C3); car and cycle parking; landscaping, amenity space and play area; and refuse storage and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      The completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the Committee report and the Head of Planning is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement.

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

(3)      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.

(4)      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.

The Committee were reminded that the application to be considered had been deferred at the 9 August 2023 Planning Committee due to the Committee’s concerns in relation to affordable housing, scale of development, site optimisation and potential and potential planning benefits. David Glover, Development Management Manager advised that the application remained unchanged since it was last presented to the Committee, however the report now included additional comments from officers in response to the issues the Committee had cited as reasons for potential refusal and subsequent deferral. The Committee was reminded that following its previous deferral, Member’s would need to consider the application based on the report and representations they were presented with at the meeting in order to support any decision to refuse or approve the application.

James Mascall, Planning Officer, North Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application sought the development of a 3 to 5 storey building to provide a total of 42 new homes with the following mix; 15 x 1 bedrooms, 16 x 2 bedrooms and 11 x 3 bedrooms, 5 homes would also be wheelchair accessible. The proposal included 24 car parking spaces with vehicular access into the site to remain from the service road alongside Sudbury Court Drive and Watford Road. A communal amenity area to include a children’s play area would be situated towards the south western part of the site.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda that provided information in relation to an additional point of objection  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Due to technical issues experienced in the meeting room during the meeting, which had affected the AV equipment, the Committee agreed to defer the consideration of this application to a future meeting (date to be confirmed).

Due to technical issues experienced in the meeting room at this stage of the meeting, which had affected the AV equipment, the Committee AGREED to defer the consideration of this application to a future meeting (date to be confirmed).

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

None.

None.