Agenda item
Red House building, South Way, Land and Pedestrian walkway between South Way and Royal Route, Wembley Park Boulevard, Wembley (Ref.15/3599)
Decision:
Minded to refuse planning consent due to the design, siting, scale and massing in relation to adjoining buildings, the proposed boulevard and future development; the width of the boulevard during construction and associated pedestrian safety implications; the alignment with and route to Stadium Station Square;
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
A hybrid planning application for the redevelopment of the site including;-
a) Full planning permission for the demolition of existing building and erection of a 13-storey building comprising a 312-bed hotel (Use Class C1) with ancillary and/or ground uses including a restaurant, bar, offices and gym (Use Classes A1-A4/B1 and/or D2) (referred to as Plot W11), on-site cycle parking and
b) Outline planning permission for the demolition of existing building (The Red House, South Way) and erection of a 4-storey building comprising 1610sqm of and/or A1-A4/B1/D1 and D2 uses, with all matters reserved (referred to as Plot W12) and new pedestrian boulevard (outline) with associated service yard, landscaping and infrastructure works.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the draft decision notice and an additional condition relating to public access.
David Glover (Area Team Manager) outlined the proposal and with reference to the tabled supplementary report responded to the issues raised by members at the site visit. He clarified the separation distances between the proposed hotel building and the IBIS and Holiday Inn hotels and the width of the hotel and the remaining boulevard. He added that the off-street service yard could accommodate a coach and a servicing vehicle at the same time. He continued that up to five servicing vehicles were expected to use the service yard daily, and as such the proposal would not give rise to highway safety concerns. He advised members that the children’s play centre had always been a meanwhile (interim) use of the building and that vacant premises may be available for them to re-locate to within the nearby Wembley Retail Park on Engineers Way. The Area Team Manager then referred members to additional conditions as set out in the supplementary report in respect of contaminated land, control of noise and vibration and on the advice of the Metropolitan Police, the submission and approval of details relating to the resilience to terrorism.
Paula Carney (applicant’s agent) endorsed the recommendations in the report and added that the proposal, in addition to job creation, would assist Quintain in achieving its policy aspirations for Wembley as well as accord with the regeneration principles of the North West Lands, thus demonstrating Quintain’s continued commitment to Wembley.
In the discussion that followed, members expressed concerns about the narrowness and safety aspects of the boulevard, the separation distance to the existing buildings and the design and scale of the proposed development. Concerns were also expressed about the over-development of the site and the uncertainty about the future of the children’s play area. Members also asked why the proposal was not in the Masterplan, why the application did not accord with the London Plan and raised concerns regarding the number of marshals for events and the fact that the original boulevard consent was given on the basis that the boulevard would remain a clear route connecting Wembley High Road and the Triangle to the London Designer Outlet (LDO).
In responding to the concerns, Paula Carney stated that concerns about the boulevard would be addressed by it being made wider (23m) once the development was completed. She added that studies by Quintain about pedestrian movement confirmed that the boulevard would be able to accommodate crowds without raising safety issues. The applicant’s agent continued that although the children’s play area was a meanwhile use, there would be an opportunity for the play area to be incorporated into the new masterplan.
Members were minded to refuse the application contrary to officers’ recommendation, stressing that the site was a key gateway site and whilst they acknowledged that Quintain had given Wembley lots of attractive buildings, they were concerned about the narrowness of the boulevard for safety purposes and for the reasons set out below and referred the report to the next meeting.
DECISION: Minded to refuse planning consent for the following reasons:
i) As a significant gateway site to the LDO and Wembley Stadium there were concerns that due to the the design, siting, scale and massing and the relationship with adjoining buildings, the proposed boulevard and future development, the proposal gave the appearance of overdevelopment on a relatively constrained site;
ii) The width of the boulevard during construction and associated pedestrian safety implications; and
iii) ?Concerns around the alignment of the proposed new boulevard and its relationship with the route to Stadium Station Square which does not appear to improve the connectivity, the openness and flow of the boulevard, from the High Road town centre through to the LDO.
Voting on the recommendation for approval was recorded as follows:
FOR: None (0)
AGAINST: Councillors Marquis, Agha, Choudhary, Colacicco,
Ezeajughi, Mahmood, Maurice and Mili Patel (8)
ABSTENTION: None (0)
Supporting documents:
- 4- Red House Building South Way, item 5. PDF 1 MB
- 4 Supplementary Red House Building, item 5. PDF 99 KB