Agenda item

15/5564 Trinity House, Heather Park Drive, Wembley, HA0 1SU


PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building known as Trinity House and erection of a 4 storey building comprising 47 self-contained flats plus basement level comprising 708sqm of office space, car and cycle parking spaces, bin stores, amenity space and landscaping.


RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement, and the conditions and informatives recommended in this report, and to delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Chief Legal Officer.


That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.


That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions to secure the matters set out within the report.


That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.


That, if the legal agreement has not been completed by the statutory determination date for this application (including determination dates set through agreement), the Head of Planning is delegated authority to refuse planning permission.


Ms Victoria McDonagh (Team Leader, North) introduced the report and answered Members’ questions.  Members heard that the development for 47 new homes would not deliver any affordable housing as the financial viability appraisal had confirmed that this would not be viable.  She advised that this position should be reviewed, post construction, in order for the Local Planning Authority (LPA) to capture any uplift in values to go towards offsite affordable housing provision. Ms McDonagh continued that the lack of affordable housing should also be balanced against the 30% provision of family size accommodation which was in excess of the policy target of 25%. She added that the residential redevelopment to contribute towards the Borough's housing targets would be appropriate to the character of the area and on balance, officers supported the loss of employment floorspace and residential redevelopment of this site.


In the discussion that ensued, Members expressed concerns about the lack of affordable housing and to overcome that, suggested that additional housing units could be provided in place of the office space and 37 car parking spaces proposed in the basement area.  Concern was also expressed about refuse waste arrangement and potential obstruction.


Ms McDonagh responded that additional dwelling units would result in poor relationship, drawing Members’ attention to the merit of the scheme to provide 14 family size units.  She reiterated that the viability assessment would be reviewed post construction in order for the LPA to capture any uplift in values to go towards offsite affordable housing provision  She continued that Highways officers had reviewed the scheme and considered that it complied with parking standards without over-provision of parking spaces. 


Members however were minded to refuse the application contrary to the recommendation for approval on grounds of lack of affordable housing, notwithstanding the advice.  A motion to defer the application was proposed by Councillor Butt and seconded by Councillor Colacicco.  This was put to the vote and declared carried. The application was therefore deferred to another meeting for the reasons to be assessed by officers in a follow-up report.


DECISION: Deferred to another meeting for the reasons for refusal to be assessed by officers in a follow-up report.

Voting on the decision was unanimous and recorded as follows:

For:                 Councillors Johnson, Ahmed, S Butt, Chappell, Colacicco,

                         Hylton, and Sangani                                                                      (7)

Against:         None                                                                                                  (0)


Supporting documents: