Agenda item
21/3248 - Lidding Road Garages, Lidding Road, Harrow
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and updates detailed within the supplementary agenda.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL
The demolition of the existing garages and redevelopment to provide 3 self-contained flats and 5 dwelling houses; with associated car parking, cycle storage, refuse storage, amenity space and landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION~:
(1) That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose the conditions and informatives as set out within the report and supplementary agenda.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
Liam McFadden, Planning Officer, North Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the council led scheme had initially come to the Planning Committee on 15 December 2021 where the committee had agreed to defer a decision on the application in order to:
(1) seek further details and assurances from Thames Water in relation to the impact of the proposed development on drainage and the maintenance of the sewerage infrastructure and how these would be mitigated;
(2) seek further details on the location of the flooding incidents identified within the Floor Risk Assessment; and
(3) seek further details on the proposals to alleviate concerns regarding the access of construction traffic to the site via Gooseacre Lane as part of the Construction Method Statement and Logistics Plan to be secured via condition.
Committee members were informed that since initial consideration of the application the Council had adopted a new Local Plan, however this did not alter any assessment or recommendations made for the proposed scheme. In addressing the points of clarification, officers shared tracking diagrams to illustrate how construction vehicles would be able to access the site safely and with minimum disruption for existing local residents via Gooseacre Lane or Hillview Avenue and without the need for parking suspensions. The committee was also advised a full Construction Logistic Plan would be required by condition.
Officers advised that the concerns regarding the sewerage infrastructure and flood risk had been further explored by officers who had met with Thames Water to discuss the concerns raised in relation to the impact of the development. As a result, Thames Water had confirmed they considered there to be sufficient capacity in terms of drainage and infrastructure with the flow from the development expected to be small. They had also advised they had no concerns over the risk of foul water flooding as part of the development which they advised would not result in an increase in pollution of Wealdstone Brook. Whilst acknowledging the current issues in relation to the performance of the foul sewers in the area Thames Water advised that the capacity of the sewage system was sufficient to serve the proposed development with the main pollution issues having been caused by blockages created by inappropriate materials such as fats, oils and grease being put into the system. With regard to surface water flooding Thames Water had felt the increased flow rates identified in the drainage strategy would reduce the overall flood risk. Confirmation was also provided that in terms of access to the sewers a build over agreement had been proposed with further details having also been provided relating to an ongoing programme seeking to address the issues with water quality in the Wealdstone Brook working in conjunction with Harrow Council. In light of the comments received from Thames Water and the clarity provided from officers with regard to construction traffic, the officer’s recommendation remained that the planning permission be granted.
Members noted the details of the additional objection received as detailed within the supplementary agenda and as no questions were raised, the Chair then invited Mr John Poole (as an objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application.
Mr Poole began by drawing Committee member’s attention to the map of misconnecting pipework that had been produced by Thames Water and circulated to members ahead of the meeting. The map showed the misconnections in pipework that Mr Poole believed had significantly contributed to the foul surface water and sewage issues in the local area. Mr Poole then drew members attention to the map produced by the Environment Agency that illustrated that Brent Council were believed to be the riparian owners of large sections of the Wealdstone Brook, he then went on to share the following concerns with regard to the application:
· The Wealdstone Brook was highly polluted and posed a health risk to the local community, human excrement had been seen in the brook and in recent weeks the foul odour that emanated from the brook had been particularly strong and affected the quality of life of local residents. Mr Poole went on to note that he had been a resident for 50 years and had never seen the quality of the brook as poor as it had been recently.
· Referencing Brent Council’s Climate Emergency Strategy Mr Poole drew members attention to the Bio Diversity and Climate Emergency Documents produced by Brent Council, adding that local residents were keen to support the council in meeting the targets specified to achieve carbon neutrality, however he believed that if planning permission was granted for the proposed scheme in Lidding Road it would be in conflict with these objectives.
· In summarising his concerns Mr Poole urged the Committee to defer the application until a report had been received from Brent Council’s Sustainability Officer, the report of the London Flood Review had been published and Thames Water had rectified the faulty sewer connections and infrastructure.
The Chair thanked Mr Poole for his contribution and reminded Committee members that it had been established there were issues with sewage pollution in the area and that the Committee would therefore need to consider the impact of the proposed development in terms of the potential to exacerbate the ongoing issues and whether enough had been done to mitigate the concerns.
In response to questions from members in relation to his comments, Mr Poole responded with the following points:
· Mr Poole shared that he was not confident Thames Water would be forthcoming in completing the work necessary to rectify the issues of the misconnecting pipework given they had been aware of the problems for a long time and were yet to action repairs. Concerns were also expressed regarding ongoing drainage issues and the localised impact in terms of flooding in the local area
· In response to a question regarding Thames Water’s position that the sewerage issues being experienced were due to blockages caused by use of inappropriate materials being flushed in to the system, Mr Poole responded that he believed the predominant factor affecting the sewer infrastructure remained the misconnecting pipework.
As members had no further questions the Chair invited Kerry Csuka as the applicant’s agent to address the Committee (in person). Kerry Csuka introduced the application, drawing the Committee’s attention to the following key points:
· Since the scheme had been deferred at the Planning Committee in December 2021 the project team had explored the issues raised and responded to them accordingly.
· The team had consulted with Thames Water, who considered that the existing sewer had sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed flows from the new scheme.
· Thames Water had issued a letter stating that drainage problems in the area had not been caused by the capacity of the sewers but by sewer blockages due to misuse.
· In terms of sewer access, a build-over agreement was proposed to ensure that access would be maintained with the development in place, this approach had been accepted by Thames Water.
· Thames Water had responded to the Sewer Flooding History request made in the proposed site area with confirmation that no flooding events had been recorded in this area as a result of discharging public sewers.
· With regards to surface water flooding there would be an overall reduction in flood risk due to the reduced surface water flow rates identified in the Drainage Strategy.
· In response to the concerns previously raised regarding construction traffic, tracking diagrams had been provided that demonstrated that illustrated how construction vehicles were able to access the site from Gooseacre Lane, without the need for parking suspensions. This was also the case for Hillview Avenue. A planning condition was also proposed which required a full Construction Logistics Plan to be provided.
· The existing drainage and sewer situation would not be worsened by the proposed development, as a result of improved landscaping and modern material the development would actually see a reduced surface water discharge rate compared to the current situation.
· There would be many benefits to the scheme including 8 new homes provided at London Affordable Rent, 63% would be 3-bedroom family-sized homes, this significantly exceeded Brent’s 25% target.
· The Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) would be enhanced and opportunities for biodiversity were maximised, with 33 new trees being planted.
· The scheme provided both parking spaces for the new homes in line with policy plus additional spaces for existing residents.
· The proposed high-quality design had been commended by Brent’s Urban Design Officer who considered the scheme an exemplar infill scheme.
Committee members raised queries regarding the increased pressure on the sewage system, flooding and construction traffic. In response to the questions from members Kerry Csuka supported by the applicant’s additional representatives, Rhys Williams, Flood Risk Consultant and Marcus Nelson, Architect (attending online) clarified the following points:
· In response to concerns regarding the increased demand on the already compromised sewage system on Lidding Road, Rhys Williams, Flood Risk Consultant acknowledged the ongoing issues with misconnections in the pipework and advised that the proposed scheme would be built to best practice in line with building regulations ensuring that surface water and foul water pipes would be correctly connected to the sewer and drainage system, therefore the risk of cross contamination would be minimised.
· The Committee were advised that in order to mitigate flood risks the ground floor level would be built above the required calculated height to accommodate for any flood level (including an additional factor to reflect any climate change impact). An element of flood storage compensation had also been included in the design to ensure that residents who lived further up or down stream would not be adversely affected by flood waters.
· Surface water issues would see an improved discharge rate through the use of sustainable drainage systems (rather than the existing hardstanding materials) including the use of rain gardens and permeable surfaces that would act as a sponge to collect rainfall and slowly discharge the water at a steady rate. The incorporation of the sustainable drainage system design would also see an improvement in the bio diversity of the site.
· Kerry Csuka confirmed that as illustrated in the tracking diagrams, construction traffic would be able to access the site via Gooseacre Lane and Hillview Avenue with no identified need to apply parking restrictions at present.
As no further questions were raised, Councillor Kansagra, in his capacity as local ward councillor, was then invited to address the Committee (in person). In addressing the Committee Councillor Kansagra highlighted the following key points for consideration:
· The historical issues regarding the sewage pipes remained problematic despite Thames Water being aware of the concerns.
· The impact on residents of the misconnecting pipes was far reaching and in his opinion would only be exacerbated by building additional properties on the site.
· If the proposed scheme were approved, it would create an access issue if Thames Water needed to remedy the misconnecting pipework.
· In summarising his concern Councillor Kansagra suggested that the application should be deferred or rejected until the sewage problems had been remedied.
As a follow up question by the committee, Councillor Kansagra was asked whether he would have supported the application had it not been for the issues identified in relation to the sewer infrastructure, foul water pollution of the Wealdstone Brook and flooding.
Councillor Kansagra confirmed that if the issues highlighted were rectified he would be prepared to reconsider the merits of the application on planning grounds.
As members had no further questions for Councillor Kansagra, the Chair invited members to ask officers any questions or points of clarification they may have in relation to the application. In response to questions raised by the Committee the following responses were provided:
· Officers confirmed that access to the site for construction vehicles had been fully assessed and were considered to be acceptable with no need identified to introduce parking suspensions.
· Responding to further comments regarding access by construction traffic, clarification was provided that a full Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) would also be required by condition which would include access and egress arrangements.
· Clarification was provided that should any damage be caused to pavements as a result of construction activity it would be possible to reclaim the cost of any works required to rectify from the contractor based on a condition survey completed prior to works commencing.
· In response to a query regarding planting and the replacement of trees, officers confirmed that a number of low quality trees would be lost as part of the development but would be replaced (as conditioned) with species considered to be more acceptable by the Council’s Tree Officer which would also be of a type able to offer a higher level of water absorption to support natural drainage in the area. The committee was advised that further consideration would be given to the most effective types of water absorbing tree species that could be replanted to replace the trees lost through the new development.
· In relation to the concerns highlighted in terms of flooding and impact on the sewer infrastructure officers again highlighted the outcome of discussions with Thames Water regarding the ongoing programme they were developing seeking to address the water quality issues within Wealdstone Brook, working in conjunction with Harrow Council, although it was noted the specific schedule of works and timescales were still to be confirmed.
· In terms of assurance relating to the Flood Risk Assessment, the committee were advised of the mitigations provided through the Flood Resistant Measures proposed. These included flood resistant damp proofing and an assessment of the surface water flood routing into Wealdstone Brook which ensured that flood risk was not increased across the site or outside of the site boundary.
· In clarifying the position regarding the proposed use of “hit and miss brick work” in the voids under the houses, officers advised that this included the provision of void space under the development to allow surface water to flow off with a drainage maintenance plan to be included
· Overall officers considered that the development would result in an improvement in terms of surface water drainage when compared to the existing circumstances and that the scheme was acceptable in terms of flood risk and potential impact on the local sewage system.
· Responding to concerns that no written assurances had been obtained from Thames Water regarding the schedule or timescale for their proposed programme of works the committee were reminded that whilst not possible to secure this by way of legal agreement as part of the application process (given Thames Water were not the applicant) Thames Water retained a legal obligation in relation to maintenance of the sewer infrastructure system.
· Officers clarified that the main sewer manhole covers would remain accessible on the site, therefore access would still be possible in the event of work needing to be completed on the system.
· In response to a question regarding the potential use of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding as a further potential measure to support mitigating actions relating to flooding and water quality in the Wealdstone Brook members were advised this would not be possible as the committee had no remit over the allocation of these funds.
Gerry Ansell, as Head of Planning & Development Services, concluded the discussions by advising the Committee that, as detailed within the report, the Council’s Drainage Engineer had also assessed the capacity of the network and confirmed that capacity was sufficient to cope with the proposed development both in terms of surface water and foul water. Whilst recognising the concerns raised in relation to the sewer network and pollution in Wealdstone Brook the committee were advised these reflected wider issues with the development having been assessed as resulting in an improvement in terms of surface water drainage when compared to existing circumstances and being acceptable in terms of flood risk and potential impact on the local sewerage system. It would therefore be for the committee to reach a decision based on these assessments and the wider planning related considerations relating to the application.
As there were no further issues were raised and having established that all members had followed the discussions the Chair asked members to vote on the recommendations.
DECISION: Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out within the report and updates within the supplementary agenda.
(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 4, Against 1 and Abstain 3.)
In concluding consideration of the application the Chair advised that whilst recognising the concerns highlighted in relation to Thames Water and wider drainage, water pollution and sewerage infrastructure maintenance works, the committee had needed to consider the application, in fulfilling their strategic planning role, on the basis of the relevant planning considerations outlined.
Supporting documents:
- 05. 21.3248 Lidding Road Garages, item 5. PDF 360 KB
- 05. 21.3248 SUPP Lidding Garages, item 5. PDF 105 KB