Agenda item
20/2844 Olympic Way and land between Fulton Road and South Way including Green Car Park, Wembley Retail Park, 1-11 Rutherford Way, 20-28 Fulton Road, Land south of Fulton Road opp Stadium Retail Park, land opp Wembley Hilton, land opp London Design Outlet
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to conditions and informatives as set out in the report.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Variation of conditions application (under Section 73 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990) to vary parameter plans 04-13 and the listing of these replacement plans under revised conditions 4, 5, 15, 16 and 25 of hybrid planning permission reference 18/2214 (dated 17 August 2018) which varied parameter plans 04-12 and conditions 4, 5, 15, 16 and 25 to hybrid planning permission reference 17/0328 (dated 26 May 2017) which varied parameter plans 04-13 and conditions 4, 5, 15, 16 and 25 to hybrid planning permission reference 15/5550 (dated 23 December 2016) which comprises the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide up to 420,000 sqm (gross external area) of mixed use floorspace. (See previous application record for full description of development). This application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the planning committee resolve to grant permission for the proposed amendments through a variation of conditions 4, 5, 15, 16 and 25 of Hybrid Planning Consent reference 18/2214 (dated 17th August 2018) pursuant to Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.
That the Head of Planning is granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the previous consent have been replicated and the Section 106 legal agreement associated with the previous consent would also be applicable.
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 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.
That this permission, would also be bound by the Section 106 legal agreement associated with the Hybrid Consent.
Ms Hilary Seaton (Principal Planning Officer) with slide presentation introduced the report, set out the key issues and answered Members’ questions. She highlighted that the application proposed amendments to the parameter plans in relation to Plots NE01, NE02, NE03, NE04 and NE05 and the Northern Park, all of which were located in the North Eastern Lands character area. No changes were proposed to any of the other plots covered by the previous planning permission (18/2214), nor any change proposed to the approved Development Specification, to the description of development, to the overall quantum of development or to any other planning condition, other than those listed above.
She continued that whilst the proposed changes to the consented development were material, they did not amount to a fundamental alteration to the previously granted outline planning permission, given the scale of the proposed changes. Ms Seaton summarised the key changes to the previously approved parameter plans as set out within the report. She referenced the supplementary report that discussed the representation by a local resident about school places within the area and the assurance provided by the Lead Member for Education, Business, Employment and Skills that any need for additional places would be met as part of the Wembley Park development.
Mr Yosef Mahmood (objector) raised concerns about the application on several issues including the following:
Ø Detrimental impact on residential amenities without tangible benefits to the community.
Ø The proposed substantial increase in the building height of NE02 by 60 metres and NE03 by 40 metres would result massive reductions in available light.
Ø No additional homes would be delivered.
Ø No additional public services, public open space or servicing arrangements.
Mr Brett Harbutt (applicant) addressed the Committee and answered Members’ questions, highlighting the benefits of the application to deliver the transformative regeneration and high-quality design appropriate to Wembley’s designation as an Opportunity and Growth Area, improvements to the streetscene and contribution towards Brent’s Climate Emergency programme.
He added that the revision would provide better pedestrian connections, an improved layout and design, enhancements to the northern park whilst accelerating the delivery of homes, both private and affordable, along with new community spaces.
Mr Harbutt outlined the a number of key improvements to the area including stronger pedestrian connections, stronger pedestrian connections, the realignment of the plots to strengthen the street-scene on Rutherford Way and thus allowing for inset parking and servicing bays, a generous footpath, new street trees and landscaping. He continued that the change in heights and massing was a positive response to the evolving local context, accorded with the planning policies for Wembley and would make the most productive use of this sustainable site. In response to Members’ questions, Mr Harbutt restated that Quintain would promote the Council’s climate emergency programme and outlined some of the measures that would be put in place to achieve that. He added Quintain had made significant changes including significant separation distance to mitigate impact and loss of light to Marathon House and that the BREEAM assessment showed a negligible impact.
During question time, members raised several issues including benefits of the changes to the consented scheme, height, impact on Marathon House and future occupiers of the proposed building, provision for key workers, servicing and parking. The Principal Planning Officers submitted the following responses for Members to note:
Ø Officers had highlighted the benefits of the changes to the consented scheme in the report and rehearsed them in the officers’ introduction.
Ø The height of the scheme would be lower than the UNITE student buildings and would break up the monolithic built form whilst creating a better quality of life.
Ø With adequate separation distance, the impact on Marathon House would be negligible and would not raise mental issues or compromise residential amenity.
Ø Although there were conditions for ecological benefits, the application was an outline only with reserved matters to come to Committee at a future date.
Ø In addition to the area’s high PTAL rating and a comprehensive drop in demand for parking, measures to include Car Clubs and Travel Plans would be put in place to promote the emerging policy.
Ø The scheme would provide more servicing and on-street bay parking than the extant scheme and that the applicant would allow a degree of flexibility for street parking.
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 unanimously to approve the application.
DECISION: Granted planning permission subject to conditions and informatives as set out in the report.
(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 8; Against 0)
Supporting documents: