Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Rooms 1, 2 and 3, Brent Town Hall, Forty Lane, Wembley, HA9 9HD. 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 meeting PDF 112 KB Minutes: RESOLVED:-
that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 4 November 2009 be approved as an accurate record of the meeting. |
|||||||||||
Brilliant Kids, 8 Station Terrace, London NW10 5RT (Ref 09/2176) PDF 291 KB Minutes:
With reference to the supplementary information tabled at the meeting the Planning Manager Neil McClellan reported that the applicant had stated his intention to apply for a retrospective planning permission for the single storey structure which he erected without planning permission. In order to secure this, he suggested that an additional informative be attached to any consent reminding the applicant of the need to resolve the issue of the existing structure and that failure to do so could result in the Council considering taking enforcement action. He pointed out that although not part of the current planning application, the applicant had been made aware of the need to resolve the issue of the existing structure by ensuring that the impact on the neighbouring property would be reasonable.
Mr Harvey an objector started by saying that he was not aware of a restaurant that was situated next to a residential property and thereby caused him the problems that he faced. These included disturbance and noise nuisance to his bedroom due to inadequate sound proofing and the movement of staff to and from the restaurant until 11.00pm. Mr Harvey added that the applicant was likely to disregard planning conditions imposed thus causing breaches of planning conditions.
Mr Stewart Freeman an objector informed the Committee that in a survey that he had privately conducted of 8 late night establishments in the Chamberlayne Road area, he did find not any restaurant that was situated next to a residential property. He therefore submitted that the location of the proposal would be inappropriate.
Mr Fitzgibbon, the applicant’s agent started by saying that the application was for a small bistro restaurant without amplified music and although not a requirement, the applicant had agreed to install acoustic boarding in order to further minimise noise impact. He continued that as the bedroom of the neighbouring property was to the rear of the property, the operation of the restaurant would not adversely impact on the amenity of that neighbour. He added that the applicant had agreed re-configure the shop prior to its operation.
During question time, Councillor R Moher enquired about the level of noise that could be created whilst staff collected items to and from the restaurant via the lightwell. Councillor Anwar asked about the significance of the door in the garden area and the likely seating capacity. In responding to the above, the agent stated that the lightwell would be used as a cold storage area and accessed from the main restaurant area so as to prevent adverse impact on other residents. He clarified that the door leading from the restaurant ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|||||||||||
18 Park View Road, London NW10 1AE (Ref. 09/2130) PDF 222 KB Minutes:
With reference to the tabled supplementary, the Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks clarified the following issues that arose during members’ site visit. In respect of the status of the building regulations application regarding the height, Steve Weeks reported that although amended plans had been received, the Council's Building Control Officer had advised that the Building Regulations issue could not be concluded until the planning issues had been resolved. He reported on the architect’s confirmation that the eaves and guttering would be constructed within the 2.3m boundary of the site. The Head of Area Planning confirmed that the proposed first floor front wall had not been constructed but that the first floor flank wall had been partially constructed. He continued that an enforcement investigation was opened however no action was taken as a full planning application was submitted one week after the complaint was received.
The applicant Mr Boota referred members to the pack of documents he had sent to all members in support of his application. He sought members’ approval to amendments to the original approved plan for the set back at first floor of 2.5metres. He added that the 2.5m set back would restrict the available headroom leading up to the staircase to the loft area. Mr Boota drew members’ attention to various precedents within the Borough particularly the property at No. 21 Park View included in his pack which had been set back only 1.9m. Mr Boota urged members to agree a setback of 1.9m similar to the property at No. 21 Park View Road.
|
|||||||||||
Minutes:
The Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks drew members’ attention to the revised details, amendments to condition 3 and the Section 106 agreement as set out in the tabled supplementary report.
|
|||||||||||
Ark Academy, Forty Avenue Wembley HA9 9JR (Ref. 09/3267) PDF 325 KB Minutes:
The Head of Area Planning, Steve Weeks informed members that he had received several letters which raised concern that the consultation letter sent out in respect of this application, on the 21st of October, was not clear enough in conveying the purpose of this application. In recognition of that officers sent out a follow-up letter which sought to clarify the previous letter and provided an additional opportunity to make a representation on the application. With that in mind, he recommended a deferral to enable residents to make additional representations and to allow officers to report to the next meeting.
|
|||||||||||
557 Kenton Road, Harrow Middlesex HA3 9RS (Ref. 09/2091) PDF 279 KB Minutes:
In reference to the tabled supplementary, the Planning Manager, Neil McClellan submitted that the application would allow the Council to impose a degree of control on the frequency and size of the activities and functions that would take place at the centre. He added that in conjunction with its management, a travel plan would be produced to ensure that the visitors to the centre were made aware of their responsibility for considerate parking, were advised about alternative means of transport and alterative places to park, thus reducing the impact on Kinross Close.
The Planning Manager continued that whilst conditions regarding hours of use and the number of people attending were difficult to enforce, their imposition would regularise and improve the existing situation. Members noted that refusal of the proposed extensions was unlikely to result in the closure of the temple and even it did, another community use could spring up as long as the existing D1 use remained lawful. He reiterated that this proposal would afford the Council a measure of control where none currently existed. He added that there was no evidence that crime would increase as a result of the extension and that issues about flood risk had been addressed within the report. The Planning Manager continued that although no loss of privacy would result from the works proposed, he recommended an additional condition to provide screen planting along the boundary with No. 555 Kenton Road.
At the start of his presentation, Mr Malik an objector referred to a petition of 20 signatures from the residents of Kinross Close on the following grounds;
(i) Visitors to the religious centre would continue to park their vehicles in Kinross Close leading to congestion in the quiet cul-de-sac and and likely to give rise to access problems for emergency vehicles to the detriment of the safety of residents.
(ii) The increase in the number of vehicles into and out of Kinross Close would lead to an increase in carbon emission, thus causing health and safety problems for the local residents
(iii) The continued use of 557 Kenton Road for religious purposes would alter and cause harm to the residential character of Kinross Close, resulting in the loss property values.
Mr N Mehta the applicant’s agent and a member of the family that donated the building for religious use started by saying that the centre would provide educational and spiritual discourse and meditation without creating nuisance to the local residents. He added that the proposed improvements would enable the centre to fulfil its spiritual objectives without attracting masses of people. He continued ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|||||||||||
New Horizons Development Office, Saxon Road, Wembley, Middlesex HA09 9TP (Ref. 09/3273) PDF 305 KB Minutes:
The Area Planning Manager Steve Weeks started by saying that the Chair of the local tenants Association had expressed support for the last phase of the development and the need for housing rather than an open space which could have potential anti-social behaviour problems. He then addressed the following new objections which had been raised:
· proposal contrary to local and regional policies In respect of these objections which primarily related to the design quality of the proposal and the need to maintain the character of the area, Steve Weeks drew members’ attention to the officers’ comments within the remarks section of the main report on the design. These explained how the scheme had been articulated adequately to ensure it would appear as an interesting feature within the streetscene and would be in keeping with the character of the area.
· loss of open corner which is a feature of the area He submitted that whilst the proposed site was narrower and more constrained than 1 The Leadings, the applicants had made significant amendments to the scheme to address the concerns raised previously at the committee meeting.
· Nuisance during construction works He explained that the applicants would be required to comply with building control regulations including environmental health regulations so as to minimise noise, smell, dust and traffic to the site.
· Opportunities for crime arising from a development There was no evidence to suggest that crime rates would rise as a result of this proposed development
· loss of open space and shortage of allotments in the area He informed members that the site which was previously used for car parking did not form part of the estate redevelopment. In response to the objectors’ request for use of the land for allotment or open space he stated that a new park was proposed within the Chalkhill Estate ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |
|||||||||||
4 Tracey Avenue, London NW2 4AT (Ref. 09/2177) PDF 254 KB Minutes:
In reference to the tabled supplementary, the Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks clarified the separation distances of the application site and 8 Henson Avenue and added that as the distances exceeded the minimum guidance outlined in SPG17, adequate levels of privacy would be maintained. He continued that the applicant had agreed to landscape the rear of the boundary with No. 5 Tracey Avenue and in order to ensure that the appearance and setting for the proposed development enhanced the visual amenity of the locality he recommended an additional condition 6 as set out in the tabled supplementary report. The Head of Area Planning then referred to additional letters of objection and stated that although the proposal would continue its projection out towards the rear garden thus resulting in some loss of light, it was not considered to be significant enough to warrant refusal. He addressed the concerns on the garage and its relationship with the proposed extension and also drew members’ attention to the reasons as to why it was not considered appropriate to refuse the proposal on design grounds.
Mr Derek Murrell an objector stated that the proposed development was likely to give rise to loss of light and outlook as well as overlooking to adjacent properties and their gardens. He therefore requested members to ask the applicant to ensure a sufficient set back in the interest of privacy.
Mr Derek Wax objected to the proposed development on the grounds that it would overlook adjoining properties leading to loss of privacy and residential amenities. He added that the proposal, with its unacceptable increase in size and bulk, would constitute an overdevelopment of the site with dominant features. Mr Wax added that the development would put pressure on parking, cause access problems and create a precedent for similar undesirable developments in the area.
Mr Brill, the applicant’s agent stated that the proposal which would remain in use as a single family dwelling would maintain distances far in excess of the SPG requirements as explained by the Head of Area Planning. He submitted that with reduced overlooking from the site, the proposal would not impact on the residential amenities of the area.
At the start of members’ discussion Councillor R Moher expressed a view that the proposal which would be overwhelming in size would constitute an over development of the site. The Chair added that the application complied with planning guidelines and as far as 8 Henson Road was concerned it would have noimpact however it would have some adverse impact on 5 Tracey Avenue. Members were minded to refuse the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation for approval for the following reasons; size of the ... view the full minutes text for item 9. |
|||||||||||
17 Waltham Drive, Edgware Middlesex HA8 5PG (Ref. 09/2181) PDF 269 KB Minutes:
|
|||||||||||
103A-D Malvern Road, London NW6 (Ref. 09/2153) PDF 231 KB Minutes:
Mrs Jennifer Barnard an objector noted that the application would involve the removal of a bedroom in order to facilitate the proposal. Although she welcomed the application, she objected to it on the grounds that there already existed a number of suitable properties in the area into which the resident could move thereby preventing to need to remove of one of the bedrooms which she considered unnecessary and a waste of resources. Mrs Barnard also alleged that the property suffered from structural problems as a result of poor construction.
|
|||||||||||
Learie Constantine Open Space, Villiers Road London NW2 5QA (Ref. 09/3161) PDF 266 KB Minutes:
The Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks in responding to comments by Councillor Sneddon set out in the tabled supplementary information stated that the proposed fencing of 2.4m in height and management of the public park including locking up from dusk to 8.00am would assist with the antisocial behaviour. He continued that improved design and management, which were both lacking previously, were proposed to work together to prevent antisocial behaviour.
|
|||||||||||
70 Donnington Road, London NW10 3QU (Ref. 09/3100) PDF 193 KB Minutes:
|
|||||||||||
31 Pasture Road, Wembley HA0 3JB (Ref. 09/2019) PDF 240 KB Minutes:
The Planning Manager Neil McClellan informed the Committee that although the applicant had submitted revised details of the existing front windows to the dwellinghouse, they were not considered to be a good match to the original windows. As such the application would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Sudbury Court Conservation Area.
Mr Patel the applicant indicated his willingness to submit further details to match the original windows and to preserve the character of the Conservation Area. Members however decided to defer the application for a site visit.
|
|||||||||||
10 Littleton Crescent, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3SX (Ref. 09/3179) PDF 201 KB Minutes:
The Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks reported that he had received further comments from Sudbury Court Residents’ Association reiterating their initial concerns and which he had addressed in the main report.
|
|||||||||||
111 Swinderby Road, Wembley, Middlesex HA0 4SE (Ref. 09/3191) PDF 263 KB Minutes:
|
|||||||||||
Tamil Community Centre, 253 East Lane, Wembley HA0 3NN (Ref. 09/1719) PDF 229 KB Minutes:
The Planning Manager Neil McClellan clarified that the primary use of the centre would remain as a day centre. With reference to the tabled supplementary, he clarified the hours of use and responded to concerns expressed by an objector at the site visit. The Planning Manager continued that this application would give the Council an opportunity to exercise a control over the hours of use with times limited to 10pm through a condition. He added that the proposed extensions would not result in a significant change in the pattern of attendance to the premises or the nature of use and therefore would not result in a significant increase in traffic. He drew members’ attention to an amendment in condition 8 and the imposition of additional conditions 9, 10 and 11 as set out in the tabled supplementary report.
|
|||||||||||
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 65. Minutes: None. |
|||||||||||
Date of next meeting Minutes: It was noted that the next meeting would take place on Thursday 10 December 2009 at 7.00pm. As that meeting would consider reports on planning policies, there would be no prior site visits on the preceding Saturday. |