Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Conference Hall - Brent Civic Centre, Engineers Way, Wembley, HA9 0FJ. View directions
Contact: Joe Kwateng, Democratic Services Officer 020 8937 1354, Email: joe.kwateng@brent.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of personal and prejudicial interests Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, any relevant financial or other interest in the items on this agenda. Minutes: None. |
|
Minutes of the previous meetings: 12 and 19 February 2014 PDF 121 KB Additional documents: Minutes: RESOLVED:-
that the minutes of the previous meetings held on 12 and 19 February 2014 be approved as an accurate record of the meetings. |
|
110 Walm Lane, London, NW2 4RS (Ref. 13/3503) PDF 721 KB Decision: Refused planning permission for the following reasons:
(1) Height, scale, massing & density of the development in the Mapesbury Conservation Area and in close proximity to Willesden Green Conservation Area and Grade II Listed Willesden Green Station.
(2) Inadequate provision of on-site affordable housing.
(3) Absence of legal agreement to secure Community Access Plan, Sustainability, job & training opportunities for local residents (‘Brent 2 Work’), Considerate Contractors Scheme, Travel Plan and Permit Free. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing Public House and Conservative Club and erection of 2 to 10 storey building containing A4/D1 use unit on ground floor and 53 residential units on the ground and upper floors (13 x one bed, 30 x two bed and 10 x three bed). Formation of revised vehicular access from Walm Lane to basement car park comprising 23 parking spaces and associated amenity space, landscaping works and pedestrian access from Walm Lane, subject to Deed of Agreement dated under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended (revised description).
RECOMMENDATION: (a) Grant planning permission, subject to an appropriate form of agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 details section of this report and referral to the Secretary of State, or (b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
With reference to the tabled supplementary, Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager informed members about matters raised at the site visit, most of which had been covered in the main report. In response to a particular comment made by Save the Queensbury group about permitted development rights, the Area Planning Manager confirmed that the wording of the condition as drafted covered the removal of all permitted developments so a change of use to any use other than A4 Use Class would require planning permission. The Area Planning Manager also referred to objections raised by Councillor Pavey on the closure of Busy Rascals and responded that the Section 106 Agreement required the new ground floor space to provide a minimum of 18 hours of community access a week. In addition, there was a requirement for Busy Rascals to be relocated as an interim arrangement during the construction period. She also drew members’ attention to a letter of support for the scheme and the schedule of accommodation to be attached as an appendix to the main Committee Report. In response to comments raised by the Council's Tree Officer, the Area Planning Manager recommended that an amendment to condition 9 to include details of Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of works on site.
A number of local objectors including representatives of Save the Queensbury, NW2 Residents’ Association, Willesden Green Town Team and Busy Rascals spoke in objection to the proposed development highlighting density, height, loss of public house which is an asset of community value, unacceptable level of affordable housing and contrary to the Mapesbury Conservation Area principles.
Councillor Navin Shah, Assembly Member (AM), in objecting to the proposed development referred to a recent motion passed by the Greater London Assembly that sought to protect public houses. He reiterated ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|
Ex Willesden New Social Club, Rucklidge Avenue, London, NW10 (Ref. 13/3702) PDF 317 KB Decision: (a) Grant planning permission, subject to amended condition 2, an appropriate form of agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 details section of this report and referral to the Secretary of State, or (b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission. . Minutes: PROPOSAL: Erection of a part three, four and five storey building, with a setback fifth storey, accommodating 21 flats (100% affordable rent) and ground floor A1 retail use, together with associated cycle storage, landscaping and amenity space.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to amended condition 2, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager, in reference to the tabled supplementary drew members’ attention to the scheme, presented at the site visit, which consisted of minor revisions to ensure the building did not overhang the public highway. In addition, the massing along the Park Parade and Rucklidge Avenue elevations would be reduced by 1.6m and 1.5m respectively. Members heard that most of the objections raised at the site visit had been addressed in the main report. The Area Planning Manager continued that the proposed building represented a relatively minor change to the scheme already approved for the site with relatively similar massing, number of storeys and a marginal increase in height. He drew members’ attention to some significant reductions on the ground floor and third floor on Rucklidge Avenue. The Area Planning Manager continued that the set back of the ground floor from the pavement would be an improvement on the current situation.
In responding to concerns about affordable housing, the Area Planning Manager submitted that as a relatively modestly sized scheme with a single core, 100% affordable rented housing was not considered appropriate however, the Council would have nominations rights to meet local housing needs. He continued that Transportation Officers had confirmed that any disabled resident could apply for an on-street parking bay to be provided in the future. He clarified the amendment to condition 2 to reflect the submission of revised plans and the revised drawing numbers.
Rita Taylor, an objector circulated pictures and expressed concerns about the building lines, loss of daylight particularly to numbers 14-19 Park Parade, overlooking to the rear gardens of adjoining residents and thus loss of privacy. Rita Taylor added that for the above reasons, the proposed development would contravene the Council Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 (SPG17).
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Hector, ward member stated that she had been approached by the local residents in connection with the application. Councillor Hector stated that due to its height the proposed development would result in overbearing, overlooking and lack of privacy. She added that the cantilevered design of the scheme would encourage street drinkers to the site, adding to anti-social behaviour in the area. Councillor Hector expressed a view that the development should be mostly for affordable housing and that there was no need for the scheme to incorporate shops (use class A3).
Dominic Tombs, the applicant’s agent informed members that minor changes made to the scheme complied with the ... view the full minutes text for item 4. |
|
Decision: Granted consent subject to an additional condition on Construction Method Statement and informatives. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building and external staircase, retention of the façade and construction of 5-bed dwelling with basement and commercial office space on the ground floor.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to an additional condition on Construction Method Statement and informatives.
With reference to the tabled supplementary, Andy Bates, Area Planning Manager informed members about a resident’s request for deferral to enable them to undertake their own examination of the submitted daylight study. He clarified that such technical reports of that nature were not consulted upon the study. Members heard that in respect of additional information submitted covering issues such as a flood risk, drainage and sewers to support the construction methodology of the development, an additional condition was recommended as set out in the tabled supplementary which sought to safeguard the amenity of the neighbours by minimising impacts of the development.
Dr Elizabeth Tuckey in objection stated that the proposed development would create an overbearing impact on neighbouring gardens and also reduce sunlight to neighbouring properties. She added that the proposal would be out of character with existing properties in the area characterised by Victorian architecture.
Veronica Newson objecting on behalf of Kensal Triangle Residents’ Association expressed concerns that the basement development would cause noise vibration, interrupt structural stability of neighbouring properties and damage to party wall and water tables. She also raised concerns about the hours of operation during construction.
Lydia Lambert, the applicant’s agent informed members that the proposal would result in a high quality building that would maintain the existing footprint. She added that as the basement would not be visible externally, the development would not create an overbearing impact nor result in loss of daylighting. She also referred to letters of support of the application.
In responding to the issues raised, the Area Planning Manager suggested that an existing condition should be amended to require the applicant to submit further details on the roof and also to include with informatives relating to hours of operation and protection of street trees.
DECISION: Granted as recommended subject to revision to the condition on materials and additional informatives relating to hours of work and protection of street trees. |
|
STORAGE LAND OPPOSITE LINDEN AVENUE, Station Terrace, London (Ref. 12/2511) PDF 735 KB Decision: Deferred in order to serve relevant ownership notices. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Erection of 9 residential units with 5 (A1) retail units and 1 (B1) office.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and Delegate Authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement.
In reference to the tabled supplementary, Stephen Weeks, Head of Area Planning advised members that issues about ownership that transpired at the site visit would impact on the development, the required servicing bay and the asset protection measures required by Network Rail. He therefore amended the recommendation to deferral in order to allow the opportunity to clarify land ownership issues.
DECISION: Deferred as recommended. |
|
30 Second Way, Wembley (Ref. 13/2832) PDF 526 KB Decision: Granted planning permission subject to amended conditions 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19 and 20, referral to the Mayor of London and subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement. Minutes: PROPOSAL: Erection of a Costco warehouse club (Sui Generis), including a tyre installation centre, sales and associated facilities including parking, landscaping, servicing arrangements and access to the highway.
RECOMMENDATION: (a) Grant planning permission subject to referral to the Mayor of London and subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Director of Legal and Procurement; or (b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission
With reference to the tabled supplementary, Stephen Weeks, Head of Area Planning set out the applicant’s responses to comments made by Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL) in respect of car park management plan. He added that further information received regarding emergency egress for disabled visitors and staff was considered to be acceptable. Members heard that the wording of conditions reviewed and discussed with the applicant had resulted in minor changes to conditions 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 19.
In response to a member’s question about employment, Mr Deeks the applicant’s agent stated that about 70% of the workforce would be local and that Costco would offer apprenticeship to enable local people to get into the company’s training scheme.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended with amended conditions 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 19. |
|
Sudbury Court Design Guides PDF 77 KB Additional documents: Decision: Endorsed the draft Sudbury Court Estate Conservation Area Design Guide for public consultation scheduled to commence in April 2014.
Minutes: This report presented a draft of Sudbury Court Estate Conservation Area Design Guide which was being reviewed with the overall aim of producing up to date documents to give a clearer guidance to residents on types of developments that would be considered acceptable. The report sought members’ comments on the draft prior to public consultation scheduled to commence in April 2014. Members heard that the draft Design Guide had been widely consulted on with interested groups including the Sudbury Court Residents Association, ward councillors and the Lead Member for Regeneration & Major Projects.
In welcoming the report members noted the key changes to the Design Guide which included detailed illustrations, diagrams and further detail regarding replacement windows. Stephen Weeks, Head of Area Planning stated that the key changes added clarity to the Design Guide, making it user friendly to applicants for developments in the Conservation Area.
RESOLVED:
that the draft Sudbury Court Estate Conservation Area Design Guide be endorsed for public consultation scheduled to commence in April 2014. |
|
Any Other Urgent Business Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Democratic Services Manager or his representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 64.
Minutes: None.
The meeting closed at 10:50pm
KETAN SHETH Chair
Note: At 9:30pm the meeting was adjourned for 5 minutes. At 10:30pm, the Committee decided to dis-apply the guillotine procedure to enable all applications to be considered. |