Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and updates detailed within the supplementary agenda.

PROPOSAL

The proposal seeks planning permission to re-develop the site by introducing four x four bedroom terraced dwelling houses. The new dwellings would be two storeys in height with the roof levels also supporting habitable space. Dormer additions would be included to both the front and rear roof elevations of each dwelling. The southern parts of the site would be sub divided to provide rear gardens to each dwelling. Each unit would have one car parking space, cycle storage and refuse storage. New tree planting was proposed along the southern boundary onto Gooseacre Lane/Hillview Avenue and access to the new development would be from the existing road supporting Brookfield Court which would be widened to 5.5m with a 1.35m wide footpath as part of the proposed scheme.

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.

(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.

Denis Toomey, Principle Planning Officer, North Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that a previous application for the site had been refused due to the character of the proposed dwellings, inappropriate levels of hardstanding and insufficient provision replacement planting, which the committee felt failed to mitigate the impact associated with the loss of the existing green cover to the south of the application site.  The revised application sought to overcome the previous reasons for refusal by responding to the concerns raised and as a result the proposal had now been re-orientated with the main front elevation directed to the north with the rear elevation and associated garden spaces positioned towards the south of the site. Additional replacement planting had also been included next to the southern boundary.  Members also noted the update provided within the supplementary agenda relating to provision for refuse collection and subsequent amendment proposed to Condition 16 in relation to cover the temporary holding area for bins on collection day.

As no questions were raised by members, the Chair then invited Mr John Poole (as an objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. Mr Poole shared his concerns as follows:

·                The development would result in loss of green space and have an adverse impact on available local amenity space for children and families in Brookfield Court.

·                Mr Poole believed it was unreasonable to suggest that local children and families affected by the loss of green space could access Woodcock Park as an alternative as the reason that many children used the current green space was because they were easily seen by their parents from Brookfield Court, this would not be possible if they were travelling to Woodcock Park.

·                Due to the extremely close proximity to the previous application considered (Lidding Road) the same concern regarding drainage issues existed for the Brookfield Court application, particularly as Hillview Road regularly flooded when it rained.

·                In light of the concerns raised Mr Poole urged the Planning Committee to reject the application.

As Committee members had no questions for Mr Poole the Chair invited the next speaker Mr John Cutler (agent) to address the Committee (in person) who highlighted the following points:

·               The proposed scheme was an infill development on residential land, which was supported by Local Plan Policy BH4, and London Plan Policy D3.

·               The Brent Local Plan recognised that 54% of the new homes needed in the borough were 3 bed plus properties, yet policy BH6 required only 25% of new homes to be 3 bed or more. In the context provided, the proposed four new homes would all be 4 bedroom properties.

·               The site currently provided limited value as vacant grassland, it was felt that the loss of the green space to support the development was mitigated by the fact that there were other private and public areas of amenity space within close proximity to Brookfield Court, namely Woodcock Park which was positioned only 200m to the west of the site and could be used by the local community as an alternative to the green space in Brookfield Court.

·               The revised design, with the housing facing to the north would provide a positive contribution to Brookfield Court whilst protecting neighbouring amenity.

·               Established building lines had been respected, and the height mirrored that of the built form directly north and north west. The architectural approach had been to provide a modern interpretation of traditional design features.

·               The scheme included significant tree planting, particularly along the southern and western boundaries, plus provision of wildflower planting. Bird and bat boxes were also included. It was pointed out the Council’s Tree Officer had not raised any objections.

·               The scheme would achieve a 0.47 Urban Greening Factor score, against a target of 0.40.

·               The proposal would also enhance the usability of Brookfield Court, widening the access road carriageway to 5.5 metres. A new footpath would enhance safety.

·               Existing parking arrangements within Brookfield Court would not be adversely affected with the Council’s Highway Officer also not having raised any objections.

·               All units were accessible and adaptable.

·               The scheme would reach the Passivhaus standard, reducing carbon emissions by up to 90%.

·               The Council had already indicated the proposal was acceptable in principle. It would provide four new family homes, for which there was a significant need in the borough.

Committee members raised queries regarding the scheme’s Urban Greening Factor and carbon emissions. In response to the questions Mr Cutler supported by the applicants other representatives (online) provided the following responses:

·                As further clarification on the schemes Urban Greening Factor (UGF) score John Cutler advised that the UGF was a London Plan test which sought to ensure that new developments maximised bio diversity and green landscaping measures.  Members were advised that the UGF could be increased by the addition of permeable paving, additional tree planting and green space with the score for the proposed application exceeding the required target.

·                It was confirmed that the 90% reduction in carbon emissions was with regard to the current building regulations.

As there were no further questions for the agent, the Chair invited members to ask officers any questions they may have regarding the scheme. In response to the questions raised by the Committee the following responses were provided:

·                Officers advised that flood risk concerns had been assessed with the Flood Risk Assessment having been reviewed by the Council’s Principal Flood and Drainage Engineer who had been satisfied with the contents of the report.

·                The proposal would result in management of surface water by incorporating suitable mitigation measures which included the provision of rainwater harvesting butts, soft landscaping to the north of the site to support the management of surface water run-off. The mitigations would ensure a betterment to the current position regarding surface water in the area.

·                Officers acknowledged the importance of retaining green space in line with policy DMP1 and recognised that the development would see a loss of green space, however balanced against the provision of offering 4 family sized homes it was felt that the loss of green space was outweighed by the benefits of the scheme as a whole.

·                In response to concerns highlighted in relation to flooding and Thames Waters record of these being logged, officers advised that during their consultation with Thames Water no concerns regarding flooding or foul water discharge had been identified given the scale of the development which officers had been required to use as the basis for their assessment of the application and recommendations.

·                It was confirmed that the applicant owned the proposed application site and although the site was on a private road the applicant had right of the way to access the site, deeds had been provided and confirmed by the Council’s Legal Services Team.

·                Officers advised that current local residents would not be disadvantaged in terms of parking during the construction of the development or once completed.  Residents were able to park on the pathway to the north of the site with the widening of the road also likely to improve parking proivision. The tracking diagrams provided in the report identified how residents could access the site.

·                Officers confirmed that a condition had been included to ensure appropriate external street lighting was installed.

·                Officers confirmed that due to the status of the proposed area of land being identified as contaminated, conditions were included that recommended an investigation of land contamination to be carried out prior to the commencement of any building works together with details of remediation and verification of the works carried out.

·                Officers advised that in considering the ecological impact of the scheme the design team had maintained green space on the southern portion of the site.  Whilst 16 trees would be removed the proposal included the planting of 25 new trees and higher levels of soft landscaping.  Officers confirmed that as part of the landscaping conditions the tree planting schedule would specify the species and maturity of the trees, that would be included as part of the planting scheme.

·                In line with Policy G5 of the London Plan and Policy BGI1 of the Draft Local Plan developments were required to contribute to Urban Greening with the Urban Greening Factor score for the proposed development exceeding the required target.

·                Whilst recognising the concerns raised in relation to the loss of existing green space as a play area officers advised it was not possible to designate an area as part of this application for this specific purpose given the boundary of the application site.

As there were no further questions from members 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 detailed within the supplementary agenda.

(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 6, Against 1, Abstain 1)