Agenda item
20/1683 416 Ealing Road, Wembley, HA0 1JQ
Decision:
Granted planning permission as recommended in the main report.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of existing building and redevelopment of the site to deliver a building of between three and seven storeys in height comprising residential homes and flexible commercial space, with associated outdoor communal amenity space at courtyard and roof levels, widened pavement along Ealing Road and Alperton Lane to accommodate new outdoor public space, car parking, cycle storage, refuse storage, hard and soft landscaping and plant.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
GRANT planning permission subject to completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out within the Committee reports.
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 and informatives to secure the matters set out within the Committee reports.
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 by the “expiry date” of this application (subject to any amendments/extensions to the expiry date agreed by both parties) the legal agreement has not been completed, the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to refuse planning permission.
Mr Denis Toomey (Planning Officer) introduced the report, set out the key issues as amplified within the report and answered Members’ questions. With reference to the supplementary report, Mr Toomey reported that a detailed analysis of the Urban Greening Factor (UGF) rating provided by the applicant showed that the development would achieve a UGF of 0.22 compared to an emerging London Plan target of 0.4. While the UGF is below the emerging target, the proposal would represent a very significant improvement over the existing site, and the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the shortfall against this target. He also confirmed that objections received against the application totalled 14.
Ms Madeleine Shea objected to the application mainly on grounds of parking and reduction in light to her property and answered Members’ questions. She considered that the provision of 15 car parking spaces would be inadequate as well as resulting in parking overspill in the Burns Road area.
Ms Alina Lopitas (Secretary, Burns Road and Cromwell Road Residents) objected to the proposed development for several reasons including the following;
The development would result in change of character of the area.
The development would aggravate the existing parking situation in the area.
Lack of infrastructure to support the impact of the development.
The development would give rise to construction traffic noise nuisance.
Mr Max Plotnek (agent) addressed the Committee, highlighting the following and answered Members’ questions:
· The application to redevelop an underutilised brownfield site would provide replacement retail floorspace, a community space for local residents to use for community events, and 132 new homes, just marginally over the capacity envisaged by the site allocation.
· The scale of the development was appropriate and the design quality optimised to deliver as much affordable housing whilst ensuring any possible impact was within acceptable limits.
· The taller elements of the scheme would be located as far away as possible from the nearest residential properties on Burns Road to minimise impacts.
· Whilst the affordable housing provision fell short against the target specified in the Local Plan, the Council’s independent viability consultants had confirmed that the offer was more than the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing that the scheme can viably provide, following a rigorous assessment the development appraisal.
· The applicant has agreed to a clawback mechanism within the section 106 so that any surplus generated through improvements to values or savings in build cost can be captured as an addition of affordable housing contribution following construction.
During question time, Members raised issues relating the privacy, overlooking, affordable housing, traffic, amenity and open space to which officers submitted the following:
· As the scheme would maintain an adequate separation distance in excess of the Council’s guidance, it would not result in loss of privacy or overlooking to neighbouring properties.
· The amount of affordable housing (on a nearly policy compliant tenure split) provided would be above requirements for a scheme that would be in financial deficit of £5.9m as confirmed by the Council’s independent financial viability assessment that robustly examined the applicant’s figures. In addition an appropriate post-completion review mechanism would be secured within the legal agreement to capture an additional contribution to affordable housing should the viability of the scheme improve.
· The level of parking spaces proposed is within the maximum parking standards and in order to address mitigation from overspill parking, a contribution of £70,000 towards the consultation and implementation of a controlled parking zone within the vicinity of the site would be secured through the Section 106 Agreement. The removal of parking permits for future residents would also be secured within the Section 106 Agreement.
· The minimal shortfall in amenity space provisions would be supplemented with public realm improvements and sporting recreational facilities nearby.
With no further issues raised and having established that all members had followed the discussions, the Chair thanked all speakers for their contributions and asked members to vote on the recommendation. Members voted by a majority decision to approve the application.
DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended in the main report.
(Voting on the decision was as follows: For 5; Against 3; Abstention 0).
Supporting documents: