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: Councillor Anwar declared that he was a resident of Crawford Avenue and owned a property in Llanover Road. He therefore did not participate in the voting or discussion on the following applications; 15. 19 Crawford Avenue Wembley (ref. 09/2468) 16. 3 Crawford Avenue/St John’s Hall, High Road Wembley (ref. 09/3104) 17. 75 Llanover Road Wembley (ref. 09/2340)
Councillor Jackson declared that he was a resident of Crawford Avenue and therefore did not participate in the voting or discussion on the following applications; 15. 19 Crawford Avenue Wembley (ref. 09/2468) 16 3 Crawford Avenue/St John’s Hall, High Road Wembley (ref. 09/3104)
Councillor R Moher declared a personal interest in the application for 7-8 Elmwood Crescent Kingsbury (ref. 09/1851). |
|||||
Minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 January 2010 Minutes: RESOLVED:-
that the minutes of the previous meeting held on 13 January 2010 be approved as an accurate record subject to the following amendments; Item 11, paragraph 3 add the following after third sentence: “Councillor R Moher also questioned the efficacy of the Conservation Area Guidelines.” Show Councillor Powney as having voted for the recommendation for refusal and amend figures accordingly. |
|||||
8A & 8B Keyes Road, London NW2 3XA (Ref. 09/3308) PDF 276 KB Minutes:
The Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks submitted the following in response to members’ request for additional information i relation to the detailing of the windows and the original upper obscured glazing panels on the main front windows. He stated that whilst it may not be possible to replicate the exact appearance of this obscured glass, the applicant's suggested film treatment was not considered appropriate. The key issue was whether another pattern may be acceptable and whether resisting this may be supported on appeal. He submitted that on balance, it was considered that a currently available obscured glass could adequately reflect the contribution that this part of the glazing would add to the houses and the streetscene. He added that the front doors would remain as existing and that the only doors that were proposed to be replaced were those on the rear of the dwellings.
Mrs Sheelagh Putnam an objector stated that whilst she was pleased that the front door was being retained, she questioned the need for the windows to be replaced. Notwithstanding this view, she confirmed that a condition controlling the materials would be acceptable.
In endorsing the recommendation for approval subject to conditions, members delegated to the Head of Area Planning the responsibility to ensure that the replacement glazing detail was as close to the existing windows as reasonably possible but that a currently available glass should be acceptable.
|
|||||
15A & 15B Keyes Road, London NW2 (Ref. 09/3306) PDF 263 KB Additional documents: Minutes:
See item 3 above for discussion at the meeting.
|
|||||
44A-44C Keyes Road, London NW2 (Ref. 09/3367) PDF 252 KB Minutes:
See item 3 above for discussion at the meeting.
|
|||||
32A-32C Keyes Road, London NW2 (Ref. 09/3374) PDF 253 KB Minutes:
See item 3 above for discussion at the meeting.
|
|||||
Dollis Hill House, Gladstone Park, Dollis Hill Lane NW2 6HT (Ref. 09/1470) PDF 253 KB Additional documents: Minutes:
The Head of Area Planning recommended a deferral of this application to allow for further consideration of the Chinese Welfare Trust’s interest in the building to be considered.
|
|||||
7-8 Elmwood Crescent London NW9 0NL (Ref. 09/1851) PDF 272 KB Additional documents: Minutes:
Members agreed an amendment proposed by Councillor Powney for a deferral of this application for a site visit to assess the impact of the proposed development. This was put to the vote and declared carried.
Note: Councillor R Moher having declared a personal interest in the application did not take part in the voting and discussion. |
|||||
6 Barn Way, Wembley, HA9 9LE (Ref. 09/3265) PDF 243 KB Minutes:
This application was reported to Committee under the provisions of Clause 24 of the Planning Code of Practice following the previous meeting of the Planning Committee on 13th January 2010 at which members were 'minded to grant' consent for the retention of UPVC windows to the front elevation of the dwellinghouse, contrary to the recommendation to refuse consent. The Head of Area Planning reiterated the recommendation for refusal on the grounds that the replacement UPVC windows would significantly detract from the appearance and character of the original dwellinghouse and the visual amenity of the locality, and as such, would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Barn Hill Conservation Area. In his view the replacement windows would not reasonably reflect the original design and detailing in all practical respects and would have implications for the future of the Conservation Area including setting undesirable precedents. The Head of Area Planning expressed concerns that to grant consent for the retention of the replacement windows which were of such a poor quality in their design when compared to adopted policy would inevitably set a precedent for future applications in all similar conservation areas. This in turn would significantly impact upon the character and appearance of these conservation areas, and would undermine the purpose of the Article 4 Directions. He then drew members’ attention to examples at Nos. 3 and 5 Barn Way and in the Mount Stewart Conservation Area which were considered satisfactory.
Mrs Tugby the applicant referred to discussions she had had with officers about the replacement windows and confirmed her acceptance of the conditions set out in the main report for the grant of planning permission.
During discussion of the application Councillor Baker stated that he observed very little difference between the replacement windows and the previous windows and for that reason he indicated his support for the application. Councillor Powney reiterated the need for consistency in applying the guidelines for Conservation Areas around the Borough. The Chair added that the guidelines required developments to enhance the conservation area status and in his view the replacement windows observed at the site visit were an improvement on the previous windows. Being in keeping with the area, the replacement windows enhanced the Conservation Area status without any likelihood of setting a precedent for future developments in the area. The Committee voted to approve the application for the reasons stated above.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, voting on the recommendation for refusal was recorded as follows;
FOR Councillors Powney, R Moher and Thomas (3)
AGAINST Councillors Kansagra, Anwar, Baker, Hashmi Jackson and Steel (7)
ABSTENTION Councillor Cummins (1)
|
|||||
37 Geary Road London NW10 1HJ (Ref. 09/1962) PDF 286 KB Minutes:
This application was deferred at a previous meeting to allow for further investigation of the issues raised at the site visit in relation to the current status of the property and whether it was being used as a single family dwelling, the combined impact of all the proposed extensions and the status of the front gates and boundary treatment.
The Head of Area Planning reported that officers had received verbal confirmation that the property would be for personal use and although there would be more than 6 people resident at the property the relationship between the residents was such that they could be considered to form one household (single family dwelling unit). He continued that the proposed development would result in an increase of 1 bedroom and whilst it would result in a larger building it was not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. He went on to clarify that by proposing to reduce the height of existing gates and railings from 2.3m to 1.2m with soft landscaping planted behind, the submitted revised application for boundary treatment would result in a significant improvement in the appearance of the property within the streetscene.
|
|||||
Workshop 1 rear of 92 Villiers Road NW2 5PJ (Ref. 09/2452) PDF 296 KB Minutes:
|
|||||
Beulah Apostolic Church, 130 Church Road NW10 9NH (Ref. 09/2588) PDF 312 KB Additional documents: Minutes:
Members noted that the applicant had submitted amended plans which revised the layout of the proposed church to orientate the main entrance towards Church Road and confirmed that the access towards Conley Road would be for emergency escape only. In view of that the planning Manager recommended an amendment to condition 2. He added that following discussion with Officers, the applicant had agreed in principle to plant a new tree, of a suitable species, towards the corner of the site adjacent to the junction between Conley Road and Church Road. This was generally welcomed as it would act as an additional buffer between the church forecourt and the surrounding area, and would enhance the setting of the church within the streetscene. In order to secure the tree planting he recommended an amendment to condition 4 as set out in the tabled supplementary report. He also drew members’ attention to an amendment by the Borough Solicitor to condition 7 for acoustic insulation prior to occupation.
|
|||||
8 Brondesbury Park Mansions, 132 Salusbury Road, NW6 6PD (Ref. 09/3377) PDF 255 KB Minutes:
|
|||||
243 Ealing Road, Wembley HA0 4LF (Ref. 09/2116) PDF 568 KB Additional documents: Minutes:
In response to members’ request the Planning Manager Neil McClellan reported that the Environment Agency had confirmed that the revised Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), Revision B, submitted by the developers was acceptable subject to conditions requiring the mitigation measures set out in the revised FRA being fully implemented and a scheme for dealing with surface water drainage based on sustainable drainage principles being submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the development. He added that these points were covered by Conditions 20 and 21. He continued that a screening opinion of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had concluded that having regard to the characteristics of the development, its location and potential impact, the proposed development would not have significant environmental effects and therefore an EIA was not required. He reiterated the recommendation for approval subject to conditions as amended in conditions 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 15. 16, 17, 18, 20, 26, 27 and 28, the deletion of condition 25a or 25b, condition 30, as set out in the tabled supplementary report, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and referral to the London Mayor.
Councillor Steel sought clarification on the number of affordable units and was told that there would be 111 out of 440 units. The Planning Manager explained that the development was not grant funded but a private let development.
|
|||||
19 Crawford Avenue, Wembley HA0 2HX (Ref. 09/2468) PDF 232 KB Minutes:
Mr M Sweeney an objector stated that the full impact of the proposed development had not been assessed. He added the proposal would result in overlooking, loss of light to the garden of No. 19 Crawford Avenue and loss of privacy. He continued that the extension would exacerbate the existing parking problems and result in a detrimental impact on the character of the area. Mr Sweeney urged members to give consideration to a site visit to assess the impact of the proposed development.
The Planning Manager Neil McClellan stated that amendments were sought in order to ensure that the proposal complied with the guidelines set out within Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 5 (SPG5). He added that the revised application had resulted in a reduction in the width of the two storey side extension to 3.5m, an increase in the size of the rear bathroom window to match the remaining fenestration within the rear elevation and the submission of an annotated site plan showing landscaping and off-street parking on the site frontage. He added that the.
During discussions, Councillor Jackson moved an amendment for a site visit which was supported by Councillor Thomas. Prior to voting, the Chair reminded the Committee to note the officer’s conclusion that the application complied with the Council’s SPG5. Members voted on the amendment which was declared lost.
Note: Councillors Anwar and Jackson having declared interests in the above application did not participate in the voting or discussion on the application. |
|||||
3 Crawford Avenue & St John's Hall, High Road, Wembley HA0 2AF (Ref. 09/3104) PDF 401 KB Additional documents: Minutes:
Members noted the officer’s responses as set out in the tabled supplementary report which clarified the proposed boundary treatment, the public access through the church grounds and confirmed that the scheme would not involve any disruption to the burial grounds. The Planning Manager drew members’ attention to the revised heads of terms of the Section 106 total contribution payable on material start from £136,800 to £132,000 and amendments to the following conditions; 4, 5, 12 and 22 and the deletion of condition 23.
Note: Councillors Anwar and Jackson having declared interests in the above application did not participate in the voting or discussion on the application. |
|||||
75 Llanover Road, Wembley HA9 7LW (Ref. 09/2340) PDF 266 KB Minutes:
Note: Councillors Anwar having declared an interest in the above application did not participate in the voting or discussion on the application. |
|||||
Barham Park Estate, Wembley HA0 2NE (Ref. 09/2350) PDF 548 KB Additional documents: Minutes:
In response to members’ enquiry as to whether there was any scope for improving the estates junction of the estate road with Harrow Road, and whether or not full vehicular access could be provided onto Central Road, the Planning Manager Neil McClellan referred to the full Transport Assessment submitted as part of the application. The assessment tested the junction capacity at Saunderton Road/Harrow Road and found that the junction would continue to operate well within capacity even when accounting for increased flows that might be expected from the development. In view of that, there was no requirement to upgrade the junction in order for the redevelopment of the estate to be acceptable on transport grounds. He continued that the close proximity of the junction to the roundabout and pelican crossing to the south of the site would make a right-turn movement out of the estate unacceptable on road safety grounds, whilst the amount of traffic entering and leaving the estate was not sufficient to justify the provision of an alternative junction design. The only alternative would be to provide a vehicular exit from the site onto Central Road which according to the Transport Assessment was not necessary and that a single point of access onto Harrow Road was considered satisfactory.
Mrs Angela Tanner, Chair of Barham Park Residents’ Focus Group, stated that although the group welcomed the proposed development, she wished to highlight a few of their concerns.
(i) The height, density and appearance of the proposed development in the Sudbury Town area characterised by low rise low density buildings would be out of character.
(ii) The plans show that the scheme had not designed out crime particularly the car park in the south west corner of the estate which could attract crime and anti-social behaviour.
(iii) The development should have mixed tenure within each block instead of a segregation of socially rented and private homes which would create a ghetto atmosphere.
(iv) As there was a single access/egrees point to the estate, this could give rise to health and safety issues for residents and emergency vehicles.
Ms Diana Brown, Secretary of the Tenants and Residents’ Association, welcomed the proposed redevelopment as it would improve the living ... view the full minutes text for item 18. |
|||||
Planning and Enforcement Appeals Oct to Dec 2009 PDF 51 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Head of Area Planning drew members’ attention to a selection of appeal decisions and explained the reasons why some Inspectors upheld those appeals. Members noted that costs were awarded against the Council in respect of the appeal for 1 The Leadings. He urged members not to change their approach to applications involving lightwells despite the appeal for 29 Hopefield Avenue being upheld.
The Chair requested officers to encourage members to attend planning inquiries in order to put forward the Council’s case from a members’ perspective.
RESOLVED:
That the planning and enforcement appeals for the period October to December 2009 be noted. |
|||||
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 at this meeting. |