Agenda, decisions and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

There were no apologies for absence.

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 during the meeting.

There were no declarations of interests made during the meeting.

(a) Wednesday 11 December 2025

(b) Wednesday 15 January 2025

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meetings held on Wednesday 11 December 2024 and Wednesday 15 January 2025 be approved as a correct record of the meeting.

RESOLVED:-

That the minutes of the previous meetings held on Wednesday 11 December 2024 and Wednesday 15 January 2025 be approved as a correct record of the meeting.

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)      The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the committee report.

(2)      The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the committee report.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 4x 3-storey semi-detached dwellings including hard and soft landscaping, off street parking spaces, boundary treatment, alterations to existing drop kerbs and formation of new drop kerb, subject to Deed of Agreement dated xx under Section 106 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the committee report.

(2)      The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the committee report.

Nicola Blake (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report, detailing the proposal for the demolition of the existing detached bungalow at 21 Copland Avenue and the redevelopment of the site to provide four new residential dwellings. The proposed

development comprised two pairs of semi-detached, three-storey dwellinghouses — four units in total — all of which would be family-sized homes with either three or four bedrooms.

The dwellings would be arranged in two pairs. Plots 1 and 2 would front Copland Avenue, occupying a similar building line to neighbouring properties, while Plots 3 and 4 would be positioned to the rear, fronting onto the head of the Copland Close cul-de-sac. The dwellings had been designed to reflect the scale and rhythm of the surrounding suburban context, with pitched hipped roofs and traditional materials such as facing brick and clay roof tiles, complemented by detailing such as soldier course brickwork around window and door openings.

The Chair thanked Nicola Blake for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then invited Graham Harris (who had registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• Graham Harris, residing adjacent to 21 Copland Avenue, expressed strong opposition to the proposed development at 21 Copland Avenue.

• It was noted that the objection to the proposed development was supported by 6 nearby homeowners from roads Copland Close, and Crawford Avenue, as well as local ward councillors from both Graham Harris’ ward and the neighbouring ward.

• It was highlighted that no support for the proposed development was noted during the consultation.

• The proposed development of four large, three-storey semi-detached properties on a small site was deemed an overdevelopment. The site was described as overly cramped and not in accordance with the space available in other properties backing onto Barham Park in the vicinity, either in Copland Avenue or Copland Close. It was felt that the development would result in approximately 30 residents on a site historically occupied by only two residents.

• The objector referenced Brent Design Guide SPD1 Principal 5.1, which stated that new developments should protect the privacy and amenity of existing properties. The objector felt that the proposed development would severely impair the privacy and amenity of the property, particularly the back garden and the rooms and windows at the rear of the house. It was also felt that the proposed semi-detached houses, positioned  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

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.

There was no other urgent business.