Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Begum and Maurice, Councillor J. Patel attended as an alternate for Councillor Maurice.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Begum and Maurice, Councillor J. Patel attended as an alternate for Councillor Maurice.

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.

There were no declarations of interests made by Committee Members.

There were no declarations of interests made by Committee Members.

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. In addition, it was agreed that greater clarity would be provided in the conditions in relation to the allocation of disabled parking spaces and the expansion of E-bike charging points.

PROPOSAL

Redevelopment of site including the erection of 3no. buildings up to 32 storeys in height, comprising 515 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), flexible commercial floor space (Use Class E), indoor sports facility (Use Class E) and associated parking, landscaping and enabling works.  Application subject to an Environmental Statement.

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 laid out in the Committee report and any other planning obligations considered necessary by the Head of Planning.

(2)      The Head of Planning being delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement detailed in the Committee report.

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

(4)      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.

(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 sought the re-development of the existing site to provide 3 new buildings varying in height and mass to deliver 515 residential homes, comprising a mix of 1,2 and 3 bedroom homes and commercial floorspace, which would include designated leisure space; intended for use by the Stonebridge Boxing Club. Significant landscaping was proposed throughout the site, which would be publicly accessible. The landscaped areas had been designed to form a part of the surface water strategy, given that the site was located in a flood risk zone. The proposal would be "car free" with the exception of blue badge parking bays for both the existing flats within nearby Wem Tower and the proposed flats. Cycle parking had been proposed to meet London Plan standards.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary report that provided information in relation to some minor updates to the report and an additional objection received in relation to the impacts of tall buildings on television signals, traffic and pressure on local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

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

PROPOSAL

Proposed creation of basement level with front lightwell, single storey wraparound rear extension with internal courtyard and rear patio, loft conversion with rear dormer and 1 front rooflight, replacement of ground and first floor front windows, new front boundary treatment and associated landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

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

(2)      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.

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 planning permission of an existing two storey terraced property within the Queens Park Conservation Area to create a basement that would cover the entire width of the building and project 3 m beyond the existing outrigger, a single storey wraparound extension which infills the lightwell also creating an internal courtyard and projecting 3m beyond the rear of the outrigger and a rear dormer, less than two thirds of the width of the dwelling was proposed on the rear roofslope.

It was noted that the application had been referred for consideration by the Planning Committee as a result of three Ward Councillors raising objections and requesting that the application was determined by the Committee.

The Chair thanked Damian Manhertz for introducing the report, as there were no Committee questions raised at this stage, the Chair invited Councillor Crabb (Ward Councillor) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application. Ahead of addressing his concerns with the Committee, Councillor Crabb clarified that as well as being the Ward Councillor, he lived locally to the application site, however, would not be personally affected by the development, therefore his comments were representative of residents, not his personal position. The following key points were highlighted:

·                All three Queens Park Ward Councillors had supported the request for the application to be called in for determination by the Planning Committee as it was felt that if approved it would have a detrimental effect on the local area as well as setting a precedent for future planning applications with these concerns supported by a large number of residents.

·                It was felt the plans were in conflict with the Queens Park Area Design Guide that stated wrap around extensions should not be constructed and side infills should not extend beyond the length of the outrigger.

·                It was not accepted that the application should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Refused planning permission on the basis that the Committee felt the application was in breach of Policies DMP1 and BHC1 of Brent’s Local Plan and the guidance set out within the Sudbury Court Conservation Area Design Guide.

PROPOSAL

Proposed first-floor side extension, rear dormer, ground-floor rear canopy and replacement of ground-floor rear window with door to dwellinghouse.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to REFUSE consent.

Jasmin Tailor, 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 planning permission to construct a first-floor side extension, rear dormer, ground-floor rear canopy and replacement of ground-floor rear window with door to dwellinghouse on to the existing two storey semidetached dwellinghouse. The site was located within the Sudbury Court Conservation Area (a designated heritage asset).

The Committee was advised that the application had been refused on three previous occasions due to the excessive width of the side extension. Each refusal of the application had been appealed and dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.

It was noted that the application had been referred for consideration by the Planning Committee as a result of three councillors who supported the application requesting that the application was determined by the Committee.

The Officer recommendation remained to refuse planning consent due to the excessive width of the side extension, as this would be considered to have a harmful impact on the character of the host property and wider Sudbury Court Conservation Area.

The Chair thanked Jasmin Tailor for introducing the report, as there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited Barbara Carredo (applicant) and Edward Seaman (architect) both of whom attended in person to share the allocated time slot to address the Committee. Edward Seaman highlighted the following key points:

·                The application before the Committee was presented after significant consideration and collaboration with Brent Council, dating back to 2017.

·                The proposed small side extension had been designed to be sensitive to the architectural fabric of the ground floor extension and local context.

·                The key issue of the width of the side extension was not being challenged arbitrarily; it was felt that the guidance in relation to the width of side extensions was a standard guideline that was generally applicable to semi-detached homes, however the property in question was large in size and occupied a spacious corner plot.

·                It was felt that on this occasion the guidance standards should be looked at in line with the unique features of the property.

Barbara Carredo the continued, to sharing the following key points:

·                It had taken many years and failed attempts to negotiate an acceptable proposal in order to obtain planning approval for the required modest side extension.

·                The negotiations and previous refusals had seen the application reduce the width of the side extension repeatedly, coming down from an initial 6m width to the current proposal of 4.5m.

·                It was felt at this point that no further reductions could be made by the applicant as anything smaller in width would look out of character.

·                It was felt that the proposed application was not dissimilar to one that had been approved locally.

·                The application was supported locally, evidenced by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

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.

The meeting closed at 8.23pm

COUNCILLOR KELCHER

Chair