Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice.

DECISION: Permission granted subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice and contained in the supplementary report and to an additional Informative that the lease/licence of future residents to include that they must access the building from around the side of the existing frontage building.

PROPOSAL: Change of use of existing flats at 24-51, John Barker Court, into a hostel (Use class Sui Generis) for a temporary period of 1 year

RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice.

Andy Bates (Area Planning Manager) introduced the item and referenced the supplementary report tabled at the meeting.

Qyem Noor (objector) submitted that the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on his family and neighbours particularly around the potential for an increase in anti social behaviour.  He expressed surprise that the proposal had reached the stage of being reported to committee without him being informed about it. It was suggested that not all the occupiers of Alan Preece Court had been consulted.

Rob Churm (objector) spoke in his capacity as chair of the Brondesbury Park Action Group.  He tabled a paper outlining his objections to the proposal.  He questioned the consultation carried out and claimed the report contained factually incorrect information and omitted other important information.  He submitted that the building contained asbestos, was a fire risk and presented a risk of legionella.

Councillor Shaw (ward councillor) submitted that the secluded nature of the building presented opportunity for the sort of bad behaviour that might be associated with such a hostel.  She claimed that residents of Alan Preece Court had not been consulted.  She questioned why the previous occupiers of the property had been required to leave because of the faulty boiler and yet it was now proposed that homeless families take occupation.  There were significant health and safety concerns and the costs to address these would undercut the financial viability of the proposal.  She asked that the application be refused.

Councillor Davidson (ward councillor) stated that he had been in contact with the Brondesbury Park Action Group and that there were a wide range of objections to the proposal.  He claimed the consultation was flawed, there were car parking issues and the claim in the report that the proposal would result in the Council saving £75,000 was erroneous given the money that needed to be spent on the property to make it habitable.  He asked that the application be rejected.

Zaheer Iqbal (for the applicant) stated that lettings to the property would be managed sensitively and that the proposed management arrangements and provision of cctv suggested that there would not be issues of anti social behaviour associated with the proposal.  He re-iterated the level of saving to the Council and submitted that the proposal would make a valuable contribution to housing vulnerable Brent families.

In answer to questions from members of the committee, Mr Iqbal confirmed that the property would be habitable and would offer better standards than some bed and breakfast accommodation.  There would be a maximum residency of 52 minus a void ratio of 10-15% and £40,000 had been put aside for works to the boiler. 

Members were concerned that the access route to the property should be controlled and whilst provision for signage was a condition set out in the supplementary report it was agreed that a requirement only to use the main entrance to the building could be included in the leasing arrangements.

DECISION: Permission granted subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice and contained in the supplementary report and to an additional Informative that the lease/licence of future residents to include that they must access the building from around the side of the existing frontage building.