Agenda, decisions and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Chappell with Councillor Mahmood attending as a substitute.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Chappell with Councillor Mahmood attending as a substitute.

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.

In relation to Agenda Item 4: 24/1335 5-6 park Parade, London NW10 4JH Councillor Kelcher advised that as one of the ward councillors for Harlesden & Kensal Green he had previously 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.

In relation to Agenda Item 4: 24/1335 5-6 Park Parade, London NW10 4JH Councillor Kelcher advised that as one of the ward councillors for Harlesden & Kensal Green he had previously been involved in campaigning against similar applications relating to the same site and would therefore need to withdraw from the meeting for the consideration of that item.

The Chair agreed to vary the order of business on the agenda to reflect that he would need to withdraw from the meeting during consideration of application 24/1335 5-6 Park Parade, London NW10 4JH (Agenda Item 4).  As a result, it was agreed that application 24/1219 Garages rear of 88-98 Wrentham Avenue, Tiverton Road, London (Agenda Item 5) would be considered in advance of Agenda Item 4. The minutes therefore reflect the order in which the items were dealt with at the meeting.

Granted planning permission subject to:

•         Stage 2 referral to the GLA along with the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the report; and

•         The conditions and informatives as set out in the main Committee report, as updated within the supplementary report.

PROPOSAL

Permission was sought for the demolition of all buildings and structures and comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide two linked blocks of between 6 and 15 storeys (including mezzanine storey) comprising large scale purpose built shared living (LGPBSL) units (sui generis) and two linked blocks of between 4 and 9 storeys comprising residential units (Use class C3), ground floor commercial/community use units (Use class E/F), ancillary facilities and shared internal and external amenity space, associated highway works, blue badge parking, cycle parking, refuse stores, landscaping and access arrangements.

RECOMMENDATION

(1)        That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(a)        Stage 2 referral to the GLA along the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the report.

(b)        the conditions and informatives set out in the report (as updated within the Supplementary report); and

(2)        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.

(3)        That if, by the expiry date of the 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.

(4)        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

Sean Newton (Development Management Planning Manager) introduced the report, detailing the proposal for the demolition of all existing buildings and the erection of two pairs of linked blocks. Blocks A and B were to be 6 to 15 storeys high and would comprise large shared living units. Blocks C and D were to be 4 - 9 storeys high and would include residential units, ground floor commercial/community spaces, and various facilities. The plan also included highway works, parking for blue badge holders, cycle parking, refuse stores, landscaping, and access arrangements. The total net internal floorspace (NIA) of the development was 19,583 sqm, comprising 12,696 sqm for the co-living element and 6,887 sqm for the C3 dwellings. The proportion of C3 floorspace equated to 35.2% of the total provision, thereby satisfying the minimum threshold of 35%. Additionally, the proposed tenure mix was policy compliant, with 70% allocated to low-cost social rent and 30% to intermediate rent. The proposal, in terms of affordable housing, satisfied the requirements of the London Plan and the Local Plan, subject to an early-stage review mechanism with the Committee’s attention also drawn to the corrections and clarification provided  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and additional condition detailed within the supplementary report to restrict access to the sedum roof above ground floor level.

PROPOSAL

Proposed demolition of existing garages and erection of two residential units with landscaping, private, and communal amenity areas, cycle and refuse storages and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION

(1)        That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, and additional condition detailed within the supplementary report to restrict access to the sedum roof above ground floor level.

(2)        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.

(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.

Mahya Fatemi (Planning Officer) introduced the report, with the development proposal involving thedemolition of 19 existing garages and erection of two three-bedroom family sized residential homes with landscaping, private and communal amenity areas, cycle and refuse storages and associated works.  The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the supplementary report, which included details of an additional comment received in objection to the proposals since publication of the main committee report along with the recommended inclusion of an additional condition to restrict access to the sedum roof above ground floor level.  Subject to inclusion of the additional condition alongside those outlined within the main report officers advised that the recommendation remained to grant planning permission.

Clarifying questions were raised around the significance of the shortfall in the separation distance between the development and the habitable room windows of neighbouring properties on Wrentham Avenue, which comments raised in objection had highlighted was only 13.8 metres and less than the minimum 18 metres required by SPD1.  In response, officers advised that this requirement related to directly facing habitable room windows with the ground level of the application site generally set below the rear gardens of Wrentham Road and the proposed dwellings maintaining a height and volume that sat below a 45-degree line from the rear edge of the gardens on Wrentham Avenue.  In addition, the rear habitable windows of Wrentham Avenue were positioned more than 14 meters away from the boundary, with the massing and height therefore felt to have complied with SPD1 guidance and the bulk of the proposed buildings not considered to create a detrimental impact in terms of the sense of enclosure or outlook of nearby occupiers and the 45 degree compliance also mitigating against any overshadowing on the gardens of nearby dwellings.

The Chair thanked Mahya Fatemi for introducing the report and then invited John Keutgen  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

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

PROPOSAL

Change of use from betting shop (Use Class Sui Generis) to amusement centre (adult gaming centre) (Use Class Sui Generis).

RECOMMENDATION

1.          That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

2.          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.

Sarah Dilley (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report, detailing the proposal for a change of use from betting shop (Use Class Sui Generis) to amusement centre (adult gaming centre) with the Committee advised that the existing site was previously in use as a double fronted betting shop and no external alterations were proposed.  In recommending the application for approval members were advised the proposal had been assessed to comply with Policy BE5 of the Brent Local Plan based on the weight given to the planning application and appeal history on site.

As there were no clarifying questions from members, the Vice-Chair proceeded to invite local Councillor Chan (who had registered to speak as a local ward councillor in objection to the application) to address the Committee.

The following key points were highlighted:

·             In highlighting concerns and objections raised in relation to the previous application for the same site, the opportunity was taken to remind members of what was felt to be the significant harm created by gambling and the overconcentration of adult gaming centres and other gambling premises in the vicinity of the site.  This was deemed to be profoundly detrimental not only to local residents and businesses but also to vulnerable individuals residing in the area, who would likely frequent the proposed establishment if permission were granted with the concerns highlighted based on both qualitative and quantitative grounds.

·             Given that Harlesden had already been recognised as one of the main gambling centres across London reference was also made to the concentration of existing gambling facilities situated within a 500-meter radius of the application site and its proximity to a homeless support facility providing assistance to a large number of vulnerable individuals with similar objections also raised concerning the previous application by local residents, businesses, and the police.

·             In noting that the Planning Inspector had not supported the Local Authority view in considering the appeal and overturning refusal of planning permission on the previous application in relation to the impact on crime, antisocial behaviour and disorder it was felt these remained valid concerns with the proposal likely increase antisocial behaviour, crime, disorder, littering, noise and nuisance as well as impacting on the vitality of business in the surrounding area.  ...  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.

There was no other urgent business.

None.