Agenda item
20/3914 - 330 Ealing Road, Wembley, HA0 4LL
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of the existing buildings and structures, the erection of a building
ranging in height up to 28 storeys, incorporating residential units and industrial,
community and commercial uses, together with associated landscaping, access
arrangements, car and cycle parking, servicing and refuse and recycling.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to referral to the Mayor of London (stage II referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as set out in the report.
That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement as set out in the report.
That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as set out in the report.
That the Head of Planning is 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 delegated authority to refuse planning permission.
That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions and obligations, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
June Taylor, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report, set out the key issues and answered members’ questions. The Principal Planning Officer advised that a total of 461 residential units would be provided in three blocks. The blocks would be linked at ground and first floor by a single storey building with industrial floorspace in addition to a unit for community use, a café and cycle and bin storage. Vehicle access and residential parking would also be provided within the site.
Chirag Gir, objector, then raised several concerns including:
· The development would be out-of-scale and out of character with existing developments within the vicinity.
· The development would burden neighbouring properties and local infrastructure due to its size and scale.
· The development would adversely affect highway safety, and the convenience of road users, as there were no plans to mitigate the increased number of cars.
In response to questions from members, Chirag Gir made the following points:
· The development should ensure that adequate parking be provided for new residents, as existing residents feared that new residents would park on residential side streets. Concerns were also raised about the cost of Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) to residents.
· The height of the blocks was deemed excessive and would change the character of the local area. Concern was also raised over the impact on essential services in what was seen as an already densely area.
Paul Lorber, objector, raised several concerns including:
· The height of the blocks was deemed excessive and beyond the 17-storey limit set out in the previously adopted Alperton Masterplan SPD 2011. Developments in the local area were mostly low-rise and so the proposed development would be out of character.
· Traffic around Bridgewater Road and Ealing Road was congested during peak hours and it was feared that the proposed development would make this worse.
· The car-free nature of the development would lead to new residents, delivery drivers and visitors parking on existing side streets. It was feared that this would force existing residents to use their front gardens are driveways.
Councillor Georgiou, objector and ward member, then addressed the Committee on several matters including:
· The objections of several local residents, which were related to: parking, design, scale and appearance, traffic congestion, local amenity space, associated infrastructure needs, the relationship with neighbouring sites including Alperton Community School, fire safety and the density of the development.
Kate Hale, the applicant, Emiliano Acciarito, the architect and Eve Ladden Timbers, the agent, then addressed the Committee on several matters including:
· The collaborative nature of the application, which involved engaging with Planning Officers, the Design Review Panel, the local community and neighbourhood groups.
· The development would consist of several workshops and studios situated around a shared open space. This would provide an opportunity to integrate employment use into the scheme and enhance the character of the site. It would also offer the opportunity to host seasonal markets which would be open to the wider public.
· The design and materiality of the development was inspired by the distinctive industrial heritage of the area including Alperton Station and the area along the Grand Union Canal.
· The development minimised embodied carbon and utilised a ground source heat pump system. New landscaping and resident gardens would enhance the biodiversity of the site.
· The scheme included 40% additional housing, of which 70% would be secured as London Affordable Rent. 52% of these units would be family sized.
· The proposals would generate a substantial CIL contribution for the Council and commit a further £950,000, of which £583,000 was for step-free access at Alperton Station.
In response to questions from members, Kate Hale, Emiliano Acciarito and Eve Ladden Timbers made the following points:
· Telford Homes had been trading for over 20 years and had developed many homes in and around London – many of which were affordable homes. The company did not have any outstanding cladding issues and fire safety was a key consideration for new developments.
· Telford Homes employed the London Communications Agency to lead on its public engagement. While the pandemic had made engagement difficult, two public engagement events had been undertaken and regular updates had been communicated with residents and ward members.
· The development would provide 40.2% affordable housing by habitable room. The tenure split would be 73% London Affordable Rent and 17% shared ownership units. There would be both three and four-bed London Affordable Rent units provided.
· In accordance with polices which emphasised the importance of wind microclimate created by new developments involving tall buildings, a Wind Microclimate Assessment was submitted. A number of locations were identified where conditions would be windier than suitable for the intended use. Mitigation measures were proposed in these locations, including landscaping proposals throughout the site and along street frontages and porous screens on balconies affected.
In the ensuing discussion, members raised several issues including parking, design, scale and appearance, traffic congestion and affordable housing and housing mix. Officers then clarified a number of key points including:
· Alperton did not currently have a comprehensive CPZ. Officers were securing contributions for a CPZ from a number proposed developments within the area, and were confident that the level of contribution would be sufficient.
· The proposal would not harm the setting of Alperton Station. Whilst the Greater London Authority (GLA) considered that less than substantial harm would occur, officers consider that if that view was taken the harm would be considerably outweighed by the benefits of the development.
· The Alperton Masterplan SPD 2011 was no longer an adopted document having been revoked by Cabinet on 14 October 2019. The application had been considered in line with current policies including the London Plan 2021 and Brent's Draft Local Plan 2021 which sought higher housing targets. The height of the building was considered appropriate in the context of other recently consented schemes nearby
· Public transport to the site was considered good, with Alperton station and seven bus services within the locality. New services with bigger capacities were expected to be introduced on the Piccadilly line which serviced Alperton station. Transport for London (TfL) had been consulted with throughout the application and had not raise any objections in regard to public transport provision.
· Each unit would have adequate internal space, complying with or exceeding minimum standards. The three blocks would be positioned to provide adequate levels of privacy for residents. Each unit would have access to a balcony or terrace complying with minimum standards which would be supplemented by a communal podium garden accessible for all residents and roof gardens accessible to residents of that block. Whilst there would be no on-site provision for older children, the site would be within walking distance of One Tree Hill Park and a financial contribution towards enhanced amenity space provision would be secured.
· Various infrastructure needs to support Alperton’s growth had been identified as part of Brent’s new Local Plan Policy BH1. Officers had secured a number of these after consultation with the applicant, including community floorspace, employment and training opportunities, contribution towards carbon offset, contribution towards play provision at One Tree Hill Park, contribution towards a CPZ, contribution towards step-free access and public realm improvements at Alperton station, tree planting and highway improvement works.
· Two points of vehicular access to the site are proposed, which would provide a one-way route for vehicular access and access to a shared service yard for the commercial units against the railway line. The one-way route was deemed acceptable in highways terms as it removed the need for traffic to exit onto the heavily trafficked Bridgewater Road. Redundant areas of vehicle crossover would be restored to footways at the developer’s expense, and a traffic island may be required on Bridgewater Road to prevent vehicles from turning right into the site.
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.
Councillor Johnson advised that he would not vote on the recommendation as he had joined the discussion late.
DECISION: Granted planning permission subject to Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London, s106 agreement and conditions and informatives as set out in the main and supplementary reports.
(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 5, Against 1)
Supporting documents:
- 3. 20/3914 - 330 Ealing Road, Wembley, HA0 4LL, item 3. PDF 483 KB
- 3a. 20/3914 - 330 Ealing Road, Wembley, HA0 4LL, item 3. PDF 107 KB