Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

PROPOSAL

Erection of a new commercial building to provide flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class E), together with soft and hard landscaping, cycle and car parking and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION~:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)   That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as detailed in the report.

(2)   That the Head of Planning is delegated 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.

Lena Summers, Planning Officer, South Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application site was located to the rear of the NW Works within Quadrant Business Centre, which comprised of 58,000 sqm of commercial floor space and 12 residential units. The site was currently being used as a car park and was not situated within a Conservation Area. Member’s attention was drawn to an amendment to one of the conditions to allow the applicant to start the foundations work before the materials were submitted.

As there were no questions for the officers at this stage, the Chair invited Mr Peter Rhodes OBE (objector) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application. Mr Rhodes introduced himself and informed the Committee that he was representing 9 of the flat owners/residents of Quantic House, the residential building located within NW Works. It was noted that the 2 flats not represented were owned by the applicant. The following key points were shared:

·       Residents felt there had been a lack of consideration and consultation with Quantic House residents, particularly in light of them sharing the same vehicular and pedestrian gated access off Salusbury Road.

·       Quantic House had experienced serious security issues that residents feared would be exacerbated if the new development was approved.  The issues involved unauthorised distribution of the gate codes by non-residential personnel, this had resulted in multiple thefts and attempts to break in to resident’s cars on the Quantic House car park.

·       Residents were concerned that the additional distribution of the gate codes required during the construction phase of the development and to the future commercial tenants would undoubtedly exacerbate the security risk to the residents of Quantic House and their property.

·       Waste issues were highlighted as a problem for residents as commercial tenants were using the Quantic House residential rubbish storage, causing an overflow to the private waste disposal area. The erection of a new development in NW Works and the presence of additional tenants would worsen the issue.

·       Residents were unhappy with the loss of 18 car parking spaces for the business centre due to concerns that this would increase unauthorised parking in the Quantic House Private car park.

·       In summarising residents’ concerns, the Committee heard that residents felt that the applicant would not satisfy Policy D3, subsection 4 of the London Plan and would breach BT2 of Brent’s Local Plan. On the basis of the issues raised, the Committee were asked to reject the application due to the detrimental impact the development would have on the existing residents of Quantic House.

The Chair thanked Mr Rhodes OBE for his representation, as the Committee had no questions, the final speaker Mr Lewis Westhoff, ICENI Projects, (agent) was invited to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. The following key points were shared with the Committee:

·       The Committee heard that since the applicant acquired the site in 2019 approximately £2.5 million had been invested in improving the area, the scheme formed part of the applicants Queens Park property portfolio and would complement the existing buildings on site.

·       It was noted that the scheme aimed to provide sustainable commercial workspace with sustainable materials being utilised where possible, this included the use of timber frames, reclaimed bricks and roof tiles, PV panels and the use of openable windows for increased natural ventilation.

·       In addition to the use of sustainable materials the scheme would promote sustainable travel by providing cycle parking and electric vehicle charging.

·       The scheme would create approximately 35 new jobs and have no adverse impact on the neighbouring properties or existing tenants of Quantic House.

·       The scheme was fully policy compliant with council design guidance and BRE daylight/sunlight requirements.

·       The Committee were assured that there was currently surplus parking  available, therefore the loss of 18 parking spaces would not adversely affect commercial users or residents as there would still be sufficient spaces.

·       On the basis that the scheme would provide high quality, sustainable commercial space without negatively impacting the local area, it was requested that the Planning Committee approve the application.

The Chair thanked Mr Westhoff for addressing the Committee and asked members if they had any questions or points of clarification they would like to raise. Mr Westhoff provided the following responses to the questions raised:

• It was confirmed that the site was listed as 135 Salusbury Road as this was where the access point was located historically the site had been referred to as Quadrant Business Centre.
• Although the current site was hardstanding and there would be no net loss of bio diversity, the applicants recognised the limited opportunities to enhance greening as there was limited capacity due to the space needed to create a vehicular turning head within the development and roof space was also limited due to the PV panels on the roof. Positively the plans featured a centralised seating area where there would be some existing trees and planters added where possible.
• In response to a query regarding light pollution in to rear facing gardens, the Committee were advised that lighting in the commercial units used would be on timers therefore after office hours there would be no issues of light spill.

As there were no further questions for the agent, the Chair invited Committee members to ask any questions or points of clarification they may have to the officers. Members had queries related to greening and the concerns raised by neighbouring residents in relation to safety. The following responses were provided by officers:

• Following a member question regarding how the scheme could enhance the appearance of greening, the Committee were advised that the trees in Winchester Garden, to the North of the site would be retained and added visible greening to the scheme. Members were shown a CGI and photos to give visual context of the greening.
• Cllr Kabir made a suggestion to consider the colour of the building and its materials to overcome the lack of green planting proposed.
• The case officer noted that no planting was proposed due to the constraints of the site and the Chair highlighted that he considered the design of the building was acceptable.
• In addition to this members noted that during their site visit there was consideration of green walls and additional planting and the area of proposed planters on site is shown in the CGI.

·       In response to the concerns raised by residents in terms of unauthorised access to the gated residential area, officers confirmed that they had noted their concerns and the times and conditions around entry of construction workers to the site would be managed via a construction management plan. General access remained a private matter for consideration of the estate management.

The Chair thanked officers for their responses 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 set out in the report

(Voting on the recommendation was unanimous.)