Home
The council and democracy
Democracy portal

Agenda item

979-981, Harrow Road, Wembley, HA0 (Ref. 09/3376)

Minutes:

Demolition of existing petrol station and erection of part 4-storey and part 2-storey building comprising 10 flats (6 x three-bedroom, 4 x two-bedroom) with 16 cycle spaces, 7 parking spaces, bin stores, associated landscaping and alterations to access from Harrow Road, and formation of new vehicle access from Thomas A Beckett Close (as amended by revised plans dated 03/12/09).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 legal agreement and,

(a)       To authorise the Director of Environment and Culture, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission if the applicant has failed to demonstrate the ability to provide for the above terms and meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document by concluding an appropriate agreement.

 

 (b)      If the legal agreement has not been entered into by the application's statutory expiry date of the 21st  January 2010, to delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Culture, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission; and

 

(c)        If the application is refused for the reason in (b) above to delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Culture, or other duly authorised person to grant permission in respect of a further application which is either identical to the current one, or in his opinion is not materially different, provided that a satisfactory Section 106 has been entered into.

 

In reference to the tabled supplementary information, the Planning Manager Neil McClellan reported that he had received additional representations from local residents requesting more time to be allowed to enable them consider the changes relating to access.  He added that officers had responded with a copy of the revised plans to local residents and a note explaining that re-consultation was not necessary as change to the plans was minor in nature and therefore inappropriate to delay the application.  The Planning Manager continued that officers had confirmed to the residents of Thomas A Beckett Close (TABC) that as the access land had been adopted by the Council the only authorisation required for the crossover was from the Council's Highway department.

 

Mr J Laferty an objector stated that by placing more strain on existing infrastructure and local services without providing the required level of amenity space, the proposed development would constitute an over-development of the site.  He continued that due to its height, massing, unsatisfactory design and appearance the proposal would fail to make a significant contribution to the character of the area.  Mr Laferty added that the impact of the proposed development including parking and congestion levels had not been addressed.  He also added that height of the flats would result in loss of light and loss of privacy to the residents in TABC.

 

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Lorber, a ward member and Leader of the Council stated that he had been approached by the applicant and the residents in connection with this application.  Councillor Lorber stated that whilst he welcomed the principle of development on the site, he did not think that the proposal addressed the needs of the residents particularly those on TABC.  These included refuse arrangement, parking and congestion issues.  He urged officers to meet with the applicant to negotiate a proper solution to those issues.

 

Mr Peter Smith the applicant’s architect submitted that the proposed development was in accordance with the London Plan and the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP).  He continued that with lowered height and a reduced number of dwelling units demand for parking would be reduced.  Mr Smith informed the Committee that the siting of the refuse/recycling storage area within 10m of Harrow Road accorded with refuse arrangement requirements, and fire access requirements.  He added that by confining vehicular access to the site at one point along Harrow Road, the proposal would reduce access points to a London distributor road.  He also drew members’ attention to the Section 106 legal agreement which the scheme provided.  In response to the Chair’s enquiry as to why the applicant did not implement the consented scheme, Mr Smith stated that the type of units was changed in order to comply with higher standards of houses in multiple occupation (HMO).

 

DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 legal agreement and,

(a)       To authorise the Director of Environment and Culture, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission if the applicant has failed to demonstrate the ability to provide for the above terms and meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document by concluding an appropriate agreement.

 

 (b)      If the legal agreement has not been entered into by the application's statutory expiry date of the 21st  January 2010, to delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Culture, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission; and

 

(c)        If the application is refused for the reason in (b) above to delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Culture, or other duly authorised person to grant permission in respect of a further application which is either identical to the current one, or in his opinion is not materially different, provided that a satisfactory Section 106 has been entered into.

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Navigation