Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to stage 2 referral to the GLA, the conditions and informatives as set out in the committee report and supplementary report, together with completion of the Section 106 Agreement .

PROPOSAL

Demolition of the existing buildings and structures, the erection of a ‘co-location’ scheme ranging in height from 2 to 19 storeys, incorporating industrial floorspace with residential accommodation (Use Class C3), together with associated landscaping, access arrangements, car and cycle parking, servicing and refuse and recycling facilities

RECOMMENDATION~:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)   The application’s referral to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed in the report.

(2)   That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement as detailed in the report.

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

(4)   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.

(5)   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.

(6)    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, North Area, Development Planning Team introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that a similar application on this site had previously been approved in June 2020, however this application had come to Planning Committee as it represented an amended version of the approved proposal. The amendments listed in the report included changes to the bulk, scale and massing, as well as increased industrial floorspace and number of residential units. The revised application sought permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and structures on site, and the construction of a building ranging in height from 2 to 19 storeys, incorporating 173 new homes, all of which would be affordable housing (58 x 1bed, 85x 2bed and 30x 3bed), together with 2,228sqm of light industrial floor space (B1(b) and B1(c)) with associated access, parking, cycle storage and bin storage, and residential amenity space. The application site currently comprised of a single storey car showroom situated to the north east side of Bridgewater Road, opposite the intersection with Manor Farm Road, a basement car park to the rear of the showroom which was formerly the Boyriven Textiles building and part of a single storey workshop building to the rear of an adjacent hand car wash. The site was situated within a Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS) which was designated within Brent’s Local Plan for “intensification and some co-location” that allowed for both industrial capacity and new homes. It was also within the boundaries of the Alperton Growth Area as defined in the Local Plan.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda that provided additional information regarding the air quality status of the proposal and accompanying assessments. In order to ensure an acceptable standard of air quality for residents was achieved within the development, it was proposed that mitigation measures would be secured by an additional condition –

Condition 29: Prior to first occupation or use of the development, further details of air quality mitigation measures required to ensure acceptable air quality levels in the residents’ lounge, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

 Additionally the supplementary report included some minor amendments to plan numbers.

As no Committee questions were raised at this point, the Chair invited Justin Kenworthy, Director of Planning at Barton Willmore, now Stantec (agent) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application, drawing the Committee’s attention to the following key points:

·           The revised proposal remained in line with the previously consented scheme to construct a high quality mixed - use development of up to 19 storeys that co-located new industrial floorspace with residential accommodation. The revised scheme also included a number of significant positive enhancements.

·         The revised scheme offered 100% affordable housing. The tenure was comprised of 54 London Affordable Rent units and 119 shared ownership units.

·         Increased industrial floorspace from 1,878sqm to 2,288sqm (and associated job opportunities);

·         An increase in amenity space and play areas that had been reconfigured to minimise over-shadowing;

·         Increased tree planting and greening, achieving a higher Urban Greening Factor 0.4;

·         A greater number of 3-bed affordable rented units;

·         An improved pedestrian environment, with more visible residential entrances;

·         A more sustainable form of development which complied with up-to-date Fire Regulations

·         An increased in s106 contributions.

·         The development would see the creation of 120 -150 new construction jobs

·         Significant contributions would be made to support the delivery of additional infrastructure improvements, including £50K towards improvements to One Tree Hill, an estimated £194k towards Brent Works for job brokerage services, £80,000 towards implementation of Controlled Parking Zone in the vicinity,

·         £5k towards the planting and maintenance of street trees along Bridgewater Road (note this would only be required if the development results in the existing street trees at the front of the site being removed).

·         £35k towards public transport services improvements and step free access to Alperton Station.

·         The Committee were informed that the high quality development would be managed by Peabody in the long term and would provide much needed affordable housing to the borough.

Committee members raised queries regarding the development’s lounge feature and proposed financial contributions. Mr Kenworthy clarified the following points in response to the queries raised:

• The concept of the lounge was introduced to provide a shared space for all residents regardless of tenure to utilise as a place to socialise and/or co –work in.
• In response to a Committee query regarding the apparent shortfall in the financial contribution that TFL had requested from the developers to support step free access at Alperton Station, it was clarified that TFL had stated in their initial Stage 1 response that they sought a contribution from the developers  of £218,845, however since then transport consultants have had further discussions with TFL who have agreed that they are happy with the reduced contribution of £35,000 as the finances needed to support enhancements to Alperton Station would be cumulatively collected from other developments in the local area, including significant sums from private led schemes.

As no further questions were raised, Councillor Anton Georgiou in his capacity as local ward councillor, was then invited to address the Committee (in person). In addressing the Committee Councillor Georgiou highlighted the following key points for consideration:

·          Local residents had shared their frustrations with regard to the number of high density developments approved in the Alperton area, some residents had felt so strongly about this that they had shared they were considering moving out of the area.

·         The urgent need for additional housing was acknowledged, with particular need to recognise the most vulnerable residents awaiting appropriate housing, however it was brought to the Committee’s attention that although the report stated the scheme offered 100% affordable housing, it was felt that in reality the properties would not be affordable for the majority of families seeking housing on Brent’s housing waiting list.

·         The Committee heard that there were complicated factors regarding Shared Ownership that included issues with the staircasing model of gradually increasing ownership of the property and the lack of long term guarantee of affordability due to rising rents and increased service charges as highlighted by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

·         The development did not meet Brent’s target of new developments providing 25% family sized units.

·         Despite large amount of CIL funding generated from other large developments in Alperton, residents had not seen an effective impact from the delivery of CIL projects.

·         Concern was shared regarding the additional pressures that the development would put on the Piccadilly Line services at Alperton Station, it was noted that local residents were already disadvantaged with the infrequent service on this branch of the Piccadilly Line.

·         The lack of parking on the proposed development would increase pressure on existing local residents who were already challenged with locating parking spaces.

·         On the basis of the concerns highlighted, Councillor Georgiou urged the Committee to reject the application.

As members had no further questions for Councillor Georgiou, the Chair invited members to ask officers any questions or points of clarification they may have in relation to the application. The Committee raised queries in relation to shortfalls in industrial floorspace and family sized homes, overlooking concerns for potential future developments, affordable housing and housing mix, daylight/sunlight, transport considerations and flood risk. In response to the issues raised by the Committee the following responses were provided:

·         The Committee were advised that the proposed provision of 2,228sqm of light industrial floorspace would exceed the amount from the previously consented scheme, although it was recognised it would fall marginally below the London Plan Policy requirements by a minor 47sqm. It was noted that it was harder to achieve maximum industrial floorspace in mixed industrial and residential schemes due to accommodating the additional residential requirements. Officers felt that notwithstanding the marginal shortfall, the scheme was considered to provide significant contributions to the local economy and employment opportunities, that in addition to the 100% affordable housing provided outweighed the marginal shortfall in industrial floorspace.

·         In response to a Committee query as to why the site had been chosen for the proposed scheme, the Committee were provided with the context that Alperton had been identified as a Growth Area and Site Allocation as part of Local Plan Policy BSWGA1. Additionally, Policy BP7 sought for a minimum of 6,800 additional homes to be provided within the Alperton Growth Area through residential led mixed use developments.

·         The site also formed part of the Alperton Housing Zone, as designated by the Mayor of London in November 2015 as having the capacity to deliver substantial new housing, therefore additional GLA funding had been received to support housing growth in the area.

·         In relation to a Committee query regarding why the 9m separation distance had not been observed with regard to the 5m separation distance from the site to the southeastern boundary. The Committee heard that the reduced separation distance of 5m was between the site and a UKPN substation. The substation remained an active operational asset in the electricity network therefore on that basis and the fact it was only 20m in width it was highly unlikely to be demolished and redeveloped as residential development in the future, therefore there would be no future issues regarding overlooking and privacy, as a result it was felt that the 5m separation gap in this context was acceptable.

·         Officers acknowledged the shortfall in family sized homes as part of the proposed development, falling just short of the requirement to provide 1 in 4 of the homes as family sized. To meet the requirement of Policy BH6, 43 family sized homes would be required, the scheme fell marginally short by providing 30 family sized homes. It was noted that the revised scheme provided an uplift on 9 family sized homes from the previously approved scheme and on balance it was felt that the planning benefits of the scheme outweighed the harm of falling marginally short of the requirements of Policy BH6.

·         In response to a Committee concern that the height of the proposed development would interfere with the TV and Radio reception to neighbouring properties, the Committee were advised that a survey of predicted impacts from the development on neighbouring properties had been submitted and demonstrated that terrestrial signals within 150m to the northwest of the site could be affected, however it was noted that there were measures that could be taken to mitigate this. Satellite receivers would not be affected and it was deemed unlikely that FM radio would be affected. A post development survey and any mitigation measures required would be secured through the s106 agreement.

·         Officers provided further clarity regarding concerns regarding the impact of the development on Alperton Station. The Committee were advised that TFL had already identified improvements to be made on the Piccadilly Line in their plan of works that included increased capacity of trains and improved signalling to support a higher frequency of trains. It was recognised that Alperton was a busy station, however the impact of the development forecast that the station would only see an increase of 1.9 passengers as a result of the development.

·         Officers re-iterated that the funding TFL had asked for was to support step free access at the station, there were no concerns raised from TFL that the development would significantly impact the pressures on the Piccadilly Line service at Alperton Station. It was also confirmed that despite the reduced developer contribution towards step free access at Alperton Station, the figure of a contribution of £217,000 for bus capacity enhancements remained.

·         Officers confirmed that the Daylight & Sunlight report submitted concluded that 53% of rooms met or exceeded the minimum recommended levels for Average Daylight Factor (ADF) 82% would exceed the BRE recommendations for No Sky Line and 75% of Living Rooms would meet or exceed targets for sunlight. The Committee recognised that the revised scheme fell marginally short of the measures against the previously consented scheme. Officers felt that this was balanced out by the planning benefits associated with the uplift in the number of affordable homes provided, particularly as most of the rooms that fell short of the ADF would only marginally fail.

·         The Committee noted the challenges in providing the required levels of Daylight & Sunlight in every room, given the density of the proposed development.

·         Officers confirmed that the development would be mainly car free with the exception of 10 disabled parking spaces, 9 for residential use and 1 allocated for commercial use. All spaces had passive provision to enable Electric Charging points.

·         The Committee were advised that to support the potential issues of overspill parking a financial contribution of £86,000 from the developer would support the provision of a CPZ with parking permits to manage the limited off street parking available to future residents, secured by a s106 agreement.  Additionally the applicant had confirmed they would fund incoming residents access to a Car Club for 3 years, also secured by s106 agreement.

·         Officers confirmed that the proposed scheme offered a betterment to the existing flood risk and drainage of the site, through the proposed use of measures to mitigate flood risk including the use of blue roofs to collect surface water from the roofs and podium level, this would provide at least 135m3 of attenuation that would be discharged at a steady rate. Additionally water butts and the use of permeable paving and soft landscaping would support the flow and volume of water run off.

·         The Committee were advised that the scheme would see a net gain in trees and biodiversity with the additional planting of native shrubs and the planting of 9 replacement trees in addition to the retention of the two street trees along the road frontage.

As there were no further issues 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 stage 2 referral to the GLA, the conditions and informatives as set out in the committee report and supplementary report, together with completion of the Section 106 Agreement .

(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 6 & Against 1