Agenda item

20/3156 1-26A, Coachworks & Storage areas, Abbey Manufacturing Estate, all units Edwards Yard, Mount Pleasant, Wembley, HA0

Decision:

Granted consent subject to the referral of the application to the Mayor of London for his Stage 2 response, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 obligation, the change to the relevant Section 106 Heads of Terms, the imposition of the planning conditions set out within the committee report as well as the additional planning condition for obscure glazed and non-opening window to the first floor of Block G as discussed in the supplementary report.

Minutes:

PROPOSAL:

Demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of a mixed use development of buildings ranging between 3 and 16 storeys in height, comprising residential units, flexible commercial floorspace, affordable workspaces and community use floorspace, associated car parking, landscaping and ancillary facilities (phased development)

 

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the application’s referral to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out within the reports.

 

That the Head of Planning is granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above and to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out within the reports.

 

That the Head of Planning is 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 is granted delegated authority to refuse planning permission.

 

That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

Mr Toby Huntingford (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report, set out the key issues and answered Members’ questions.  He referenced the Committee’s decision for refusal of the previous application, a material consideration in the assessment of the current application and, set out the headline similarities and differences between the refused and proposed applications. In reference to the supplementary report, Mr Huntingford drew Members’ attention to two additional objections that officers had addressed within the main report, the applicant’s revised proposal to address the shortfall in play space and additional planning condition for obscure glazed and non-opening window to the first floor of Block G.

 

Ms Balvant Mistry (objector) raised several issues of concern including the following and answered Members’ questions:

·                Overdevelopment of the area with several buildings with excessive height.

·                The cumulative impact of the overdevelopment would result in additional noise, disturbance, loss privacy, and loss of light to existing and future residents.

·                The development would worsen the traffic and parking situation in the area that would give rise to increased pollution particularly to the local Alperton Community School.

·                Lack of adequate infrastructure to support and address the impact of the proposed development.

 

Ms Anita Patel (objector) echoed similar issues of concern and answered Members’ questions.  Ms Patel highlighted the transport impact of the proposals that she felt could not be sufficiently addressed by the proposed CPZ.

 

Councillor Anton Georgiou (ward member) addressed the Committee and raised several issues including the following:

·                Inadequate infrastructure including health services, leisure facilities and road network to support and address the intensity of development in the Alperton area.

·                Additional parking and traffic that would give rise to parking displacement in neighbouring streets.

·                The affordable housing would be outside of the financial range of local residents.

 

Ms Rebekah Jubb (agent) addressed the Committee and answered members’ questions.  She referenced the applicant’s briefing document that summarised the key changes from the previous application and the benefits of the scheme that included the following; affordable housing with family size units, increased amenity space, employment and affordable workspace, new community floor space and dedicated outside space.  Ms Jubb also drew Members’ attention to the provision towards a CPZ of £150,000, improvements to Alperton Tube Station of £166,000, local buses network of £177,250, CIL payments of £10.83m and a provision of on-site car club.  In conclusion, Ms Jubb reiterated that the scheme fully satisfied all of the Council’s requirements and would deliver important and much needed development.

 

In response to Members’ questions, Ms Jubb stated the following:

·                The design aspects of the proposal was consistent with the site and was tenure blind for ease by the RSL.

·                In addition to the contributions towards CPZ, priority would be given to residents only and that the Parking management Plan would be put in place.

·                The number of 1-bed flats was the result of viability and demand issues.

·                In addition to conditions imposed by Canals and Rivers Trust, adequate biodiversity and ecological measures including soft landscaping and urban greening would be put in place.

 

In the ensuing discussions, members raised several issues including infrastructure, privacy, affordable housing and unit mix.  Officers clarified the Infrastructure Development Plan for the site, highlighting the provision of new multi-use community and health centres, 1 hectare of public open space, canal upgrade, to mention a few. Members heard that with substantial separation distances in excess of requirement there would be no material privacy impact.  Members noted that PNB Paribas had carried out a robust viability and sensitivity testing and advised that the scheme delivered the maximum affordable housing and in addition to late stage reviews on uplifts.  

 

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 majority decision to approve the application.

 

DECISION: Granted consent subject to the referral of the application to the Mayor of London for his Stage 2 response, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 obligation, the change to the relevant Section 106 Heads of Terms, the imposition of the planning conditions set out within the committee report as well as the additional planning condition for obscure glazed and non-opening window to the first floor of Block G as discussed in the supplementary report.

(Voting on the decision was as follows: For 7; Against 1)

Supporting documents: