Agenda item
20/2096 - 5 Blackbird Hill, London, NW9 8RR
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to the conditions, informatives and completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as set out within the report and supplementary agenda.
Minutes:
Construction of a single building up to 6 storeys to provide 45 residential units (Use Class C3), and flexible commercial/community use floor space (within Use Class E), car and cycle parking, associated landscaping, highways and infrastructure works, and provision of pedestrian and vehicular access.
RECOMMENDATION:
(1) That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations, as set out within the report:
(2) That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement and issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters as set out within the report.
(3) 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, 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.
(4) 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.
Denis Toomey, Principal Planning Officer introduced the report, set out key issues and answered members questions. In introducing the application members were advised that the scheme was seeking to re-develop the site by introducing a new mixed use development comprising of 45 residential housing units with flexible commercial/community use occupying the ground floor. The main portion of the new build would comprise six storeys which would drop to three at the rear. Communal amenity space along with a car park would be provided to the rear of the site along with a lay-by to the front of the site on Blackbird Hill for servicing purposes. A number of amendments had been made to the proposals during the course of the application to reduce the overall scale which included reducing the original amount of residential units from 57 to 45, the introduction of additional separation distances with boundaries, a reduction in car parking spaces from 36 to 29 along with a larger communal garden and removal of a communal terrace.
In reference to the supplementary report circulated in advance of the meeting, the Principal Planning Officer drew members’ attention to further correspondence from a local resident who had objected to the proposal raising concerns that those who had signed a petition also in objection to the scheme had not been notified of the Planning Committee. Confirmation was also provided that the applicant had now provided a Fire Safety report with members advised that as a result Condition 16 could be removed from the list included within the report. This had also resulted in minor changes to the proposed floor plans and modifications to the internal layouts of the proposed residential units, although these remained compliant with London Plan floor space standards. Members were advised that the modifications outlined in the supplementary report were considered to be minor and would not result in any increase in overall footprint or scale of the development. Subject to the inclusion of drawing numbers to Condition 2 and additional unit numbers to Condition 5 the recommendation remained to approve the application subject to the above amendments to conditions and completion of the Section 106 Agreement.
As no questions were raised, the Chair then invited Safae Boughaba (objector) to address the Committee (in person) who raised a number of concerns including:
· What local objectors felt to be the flawed nature of the report presented to the Committee given the objections raised in relation to the applications overall scale, impact on the surrounding area and residential amenity and non-compliance with a number of planning policies including Policy BH2 within Brent’s Draft Local Plan.
· Current use of the site by the developers as a car park and nuisance being created for local residents as a result.
· Over intensification and overcrowding created by the overall scale of the development given the nature and size of the site and adverse impact this would have on local amenity and the adjacent St Andrew’s Conservation Area.
· The impact in relation to loss of view and overshadowing on adjacent properties.
· The level of affordable housing being provided within the scheme, which was below the target set within both the current and emerging Local Plan and London Plan.
In response to questions from members, Safae Boughaba made the following points:
· Whilst supportive of development on the site she remained concerned at the level of policy non-compliance within the current application, the overall scale of the development in relation to the nature of the site and surrounding area and level of overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties and mix of housing proposed given the relationship of the design and site within an Intensification Corridor.
Gabriel Mahgerefteh (objector) was then invited to address the committee (in person) in relation to the application and raised a number of concerns including:
· The impact of the proposal in relation to overcrowding, overlooking and loss of light and privacy on neighbouring properties given its overall scale, height and lack of screening.
· The impact in terms of existing flooding and drainage problems in the area and in terms of access, parking and traffic given the existing levels of traffic on Blackbird Hill.
· The current way in which the site was being operated as a car park by the developer and impact on local residents, leading to concerns being expressed about compliance by the developer with any pre occupation conditions imposed.
In response to questions from members, Gabriel Mahgerefteh advised his preference in terms of an acceptable development on the site would be for a design of smaller scale up to a maximum 3 storeys in height and more in keeping with the character of the adjacent Conservation Area.
Greg Blaquiere representing the applicant was then invited to address the Committee (in person) and highlighted several matters including:
· The nature of the site as a vacant brownfield site identified for mixed use development within an Intensification Corridor within the Local Plan.
· The security challenges faced in securing the site, which the introduction of the temporary car park operation had been designed to address.
· The way in which the proposed development would contribute positively to the local area by providing housing and community facilities to meet local need.
· The inclusion of 20% affordable housing, which was in excess of the maximum amount identified through the viability process and included a mix of affordability levels including London Affordable Rent, Shared Ownership and market housing.
· Whilst the scheme had been amended during the course of the application to include a reduction in residential units the level of affordable provision and tenure split had been maintained, despite an increase in financial deficit.
· All residents would have full access to the on-site amenity space, with the development tenure blind.
· The flexibility of the commercial /community use space on the ground floor.
· The environmental impact of the development had been considered (including air quality, daylight and sunlight and highways) and amendments and appropriate mitigations made where necessary to support a bio diversity improvement to the site.
· The recommendations from officers in support of the application being granted in accordance with the adopted and emerging policy framework.
Members raised queries in relation to issues around access, traffic and parking impact, design and housing mix. In response to the questions from members Greg Blaquiere supported by the applicants other representatives at the meeting made the following points:
· Whilst the level of flexible commercial/community use on the ground floor had been amended and reduced during the application process it was confirmed this would still meet the site allocation within the Draft Local Plan and provide an active frontage along Blackbird Hill, with level access.
· A parking stress test had been undertaken and in considering use of the site , it was deemed a car free development was not appropriate with the level of parking space provided (although reduced) meeting parking standards and designed to minimise impact of the development on the surrounding area.
· In response to concerns around single aspect units with less natural daylight, it was recognised that although 22 of the units would be single aspect, this had been minimised as much as possible. Design options were limited given the overall site size, with the plans designed to utilise the space available in the best way, striking a balance between maximising space and providing units with adequate lighting that would meet the necessary standards. None of the single aspect units would face directly north or south and it was felt would still benefit from good levels of outlook.
· Although recognised as not being material planning considerations further clarification was provided on operation of the current site as a car park including the security measures introduced to secure the site whilst vacant.
· Whilst noting that the level of family sized three bedroom units fell marginally short of the current target within the adopted Plan the level provided would be in accordance with the requirements within the emerging policy. It was also acknowledged that the number of family sized units within the Affordable Rented tenure had been reduced to one (compared to 10 within the private tenure). Whilst aware of the preference to have secured a higher number of units within the Affordable Rented tenure this reflected the overall reduction in number of residential units within the scheme (including the private market units) which had also been reflected within the viability appraisal of the scheme.
· The high level of traffic on the main road of the development was acknowledged with amendments made in order to make the road and site access as safe as possible. The road safety audit undertaken in support of the application had led to adjustments to the size of the lay by to the front of the site in order to accommodate delivery and servicing. In addition to this the developers would also be making a financial contribution to support wider highway improvements in the area.
In the ensuing discussion, members raised a number of further issues relating to traffic, road safety and site access, the level of affordable housing and housing mix, design scale and appearance, amenity space, trees and compliance with planning policy. Officers then clarified a number of key points including:
· Due to the absence of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) in the surrounding streets and noting the level of objections received regarding the impact of the development on parking in the surrounding area a car free development had not been considered appropriate, with confirmation provided that the level of parking on site was considered to be acceptable in order to avoid overspill parking onto the surrounding road network. The challenging nature of existing traffic and road safety issues in the area had been acknowledged with a road safety audit having been undertaken in relation to the new vehicular access to the site. As a result amendments had been made to the lay-by at the front of the site with consideration also given to the installation of a pedestrian crossing. The proposed development had been considered by Brent’s Highways & Infrastructure Team who, as an alternative to a pedestrian crossing, had identified proposals to alter the configuration of the roundabout at Blackbird Hill and Tudor Gardens in order to improve pedestrian crossing facilities as part of a wider strategic approach in the area. As a result a financial contribution had been secured from the scheme towards the wider highway improvement works proposed within the locality. Officers advised that the suggested introduction of a no right turn would also prove difficult to enforce with the overall trip generation identified through the transport appraisal for the site anticipated as low.
· In response to concerns around vulnerable residents who may have a disability, officers confirmed that the scheme would include two blue badge spaces, which met the adopted London Plan requirement with access also available via the lay by at the front of the site. The scheme would include 4 units designed to wheel chair accessible home standards. Whilst this was slightly below the percentage requirement within the London Plan the remainder of the homes would be designed to meet the accessible and adaptable dwelling standards. The development had also been designed to provide step free access to the building through clearly visible and identifiable shared entrances, including to the rear of the amenity space. It was confirmed that two of the accessible units would be located within the shared/affordable ownership element of the scheme.
· Addressing concerns raised regarding the tenure split in terms of London Affordable Rent and Intermediate (shared ownership) residential units when compared with the overall number of units provided, officers advised that the proposed affordable housing contribution was considered to be the maximum reasonable amount the development could offer and this had been supported by the financial viability appraisal. Following challenge by members, it was confirmed this appraisal had been subject to robust review by consultants acting on behalf of the Council.
· Confirmation was provided that the residential units proposed within the scheme would meet the London Plan floor space requirements. The daylight and sunlight report had also highlighted that all units would provide satisfactory levels of light and the overall arrangement of each unit would allow for an acceptable outlook. Whilst the amount of external amenity space on site fell marginally short of the requirements within DMP19 the overall level of amenity space was felt to be satisfactory given the provision of individual private balconies and proximity to nearby open space.
· Officers confirmed that whilst the proposal would exceed 15m in height (5 storeys) as referred to within emerging policy BD2 the 6 storey feature would mainly occupy the front element of the site with the rear element dropping to 3 storeys. Officers advised that it was felt the new build would allow for an acceptable transition and relationship when taking account of the make-up of surrounding residential properties to the rear of the site. The maximum height facing Blackbird Hill had capacity to accommodate the new build at the proposed scale and was felt to be suitable given the nature of the existing buildings along that section of Blackbird Hill and the sites relationship within the proposed Intensification corridor where new housing was encouraged. On this basis, the benefits of the scheme were considered to outweigh the limited harm of the height exceeding the general height set out within draft policy BD2.
· Confirmation was provided that the scheme would not benefit from permitted development rights.
· Officers confirmed the proposed mix of housing tenure within the scheme and whilst noting the preference to have secured a higher proportion of family sized units members were advised that the tenure mix would comply with policy CP2 of the Core Strategy and BH6 of the Draft Local Plan.
· The development had been assessed as providing sufficient separation from all adjoining boundaries and neighbouring properties within the vicinity of the application site and would not result in significant levels of overlooking. Whilst noting a minor infringement in terms of the relationship with No.1 Old Church Lane, the proposals had been assessed as complying with DMP1 and the guidance within SPD1.
· Confirmation was provided that no tress would be removed on site and the proposal would result in new trees being provided and soft landscaping to enhance the urban greening and biodiversity of the site.
· Whilst noting the concerns raised during the meeting in relation to compliance with policy requirements relating to the height of the building, mix of affordable housing and amenity space, officers highlighted the need to assess these against the overall benefits of the scheme given the location of the site within the Draft Local Plan as a priority growth area for housing and Intensification corridor. Given the proposed number of new residential units and mixed use aspect of the proposed development, the proposal was therefore considered to be acceptable in principle as it would make efficient use of a brownfield site and be in accordance with the objectives of policy BH2 and site allocation within the draft Local Plan.
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 recommendations
DECISION: Granted planning permission subject to the conditions, informatives and completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as set out within the report and supplementary agenda.
(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 4 & Against 3)
Supporting documents:
- 05. 20/2096 - 5 Blackbird Hill, London, NW9 8RR, item 5. PDF 499 KB
- 05 Supp. Supplementary Update - 20/2096 5 Blackbird Hill, London, NW9 8RR, item 5. PDF 106 KB