Agenda item
New Horizons Development Office, Saxon Road, Wembley, Middlesex HA09 9TP (Ref. 09/3273)
Minutes:
09/3273 |
Erection of a terrace of 2 two-storey, three-bedroom dwellinghouses and a two-bedroom bungalow with garden space and refuse-storage area to front and garden space to rear of proposed dwellings (as accompanied by Design & Access Statement prepared by Katherine Hughes Associates), subject to a Deed of Agreement dated xx/xx/xxxx under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.
|
|
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant consent in principle subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement (to be entered into simultaneously with the transfer of the site to Metropolitan Housing Trust, if members see fit) and request that Members delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Culture, or duly authorised person, to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Borough Solicitor; but if the agreement has not been entered into within a time to be agreed, to refuse permission but delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning to grant permission in respect of a further application which is either identical to the current one or, in his opinion, not materially different, provided that a Section 106 agreement containing the above terms has been entered into.
|
|
|
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 redevelopment to improve open space provision in the area. He added that despite a borough wide demand for allotment plots and the constraints of the size and layout of the site, there was no planning policy reason to prevent an allotment use or to refuse an alternative housing use.
Title deeds/Restrictive Covenants
These were not planning matters and therefore could not be taken into consideration as part of the assessment of the application
Mr Vinod Patel chair of the local residents’ association in objecting to the proposed development stated that the narrowness of the land would not be adequate to ensure a satisfactory relationship between the proposed development and existing residential properties. He also objected to the proposed development on grounds of overlooking, loss of light, noise nuisance and loss of privacy and urged members to release the plot of land for allotment use in order to address the deficiency of allotment land in the area.
Ms Zarina Khalid on behalf of the applicant, Metropolitan Housing Trust (MHT) informed the Committee that the proposal was part of the Chalkhill estate Masterplan. She added that the development which would provide a much needed housing accommodation had been designed to complement with the existing properties in the area and complied with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidelines. She continued that the Council’s Highways and Transportation had not raised objections to the scheme and that there were no parking issues involved.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Dunwell stated that he wished to speak as a Councillor who was not a member of the Committee (to which the Chair agreed) and stated that he had been approached by the local residents who objected to the scheme. Councillor Dunwell referred to his list of objections as set out in the supplementary information which included loss of light, privacy and outlook, detrimental impact on parking and the character of the area. He continued that there was no evidence that the site was ever earmarked for housing as part of the Chalkhill Masterplan development. He requested members to note both the deficiency of allotment provision in the Chalkhill and immediate area and the relevant part of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan policy (the UDP) that encouraged the development of sites for allotment use.
In the discussion that followed, Councillor Anwar expressed a view that the proposed 2-storey building would constitute an over-development of the site and suggested a bungalow as the best use of the land. He added that as the area was already heavily parked, the proposed development would not be able to absorb the resulting increase in parking demand. In his summation, the Chair drew members’ attention to the fact that the proposal failed the guidance outlined in Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 17 (SPG17) in terms of privacy with properties in the area. He added that as the proposal also failed to comply with a 45-degree line, it would have a detrimental impact on the bottom 2 metres of the rear garden of the properties on the Chalklands.
Prior to voting, Steve Weeks responded that the proposed development would provide an appropriately designed building on this awkward and constrained site. He added that the scheme had been substantially reduced both in terms of height and proposed unit numbers and adequate levels of outlook and light maintained to the surrounding neighbouring properties. Steve Weeks submitted that on balance, the scheme which had addressed the concerns previously raised at the Planning Committee was not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. He continued that in addition to providing social rented housing to help meet the pressing need for affordable family accommodation in the borough, the proposal complied with the Council's parking and servicing standards and that the applicants had agreed to a Section 106 agreement, providing a range of benefits.
Members were minded to refuse to grant planning consent contrary to the officers’ recommendation on grounds of over-development of the site and failure to comply with the SPG17. Voting on the substantive recommendation for approval was recorded as follows;
FOR: Councillors Cummins, Jackson, Long and R Moher (4)
AGAINST: Councillors Kansagra, Anwar, Baker, Hashmi and HM Patel(5)
ABSTENTION: Councillor Hirani (1)
DECISION: Refused planning permission. |
Supporting documents: