Agenda item

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

PROPOSAL

Demolition of garages and erection of two dwelling houses with car parking, cycle storage, amenity space and associated landscaping.

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.

(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.

Victoria McDonagh, Team Leader, North Area Planning Team introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the application, the Committee were advised the application sought the demolition of garages and the erection of a two dwelling houses with car parking, cycle storage, amenity space and associated landscaping, members were advised that the site had been identified within the New Council Homes Programme to build on land already owned by the Council. The site was in an area of development to the west of Broadview, Fryent Way and currently comprised of an existing garage site that contained two blocks of garages that served properties along Broadview. To the east, the site shared a boundary with residential properties ranging from two to three storeys tall, with the Jubilee Line running to the west of the site. The majority of the site was within recognised Site of Importance to Nature Conservation (SINC) Grade 1, and the railway line was designated as a wildlife corridor and SINC Grade 1. Fryent Country Park, which was located to the south of the application site and recognised as a designated Open Space and Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). It was also a local nature reserve. The site did not fall within a conservation area, nor did it contain any listed buildings, although Fryent Country Park was designated as a locally listed park.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda that provided information regarding additional objections received with particular regard to the homes being provided at affordable rent and to seek clarity on whether the tree T1 was growing within the application site. Concerns was also raised that any replacement tree would not be of a sufficient size and quality to replace the tree(s) lost as part of the development.

As no Committee questions were raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker, Alastair Mellon (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application, the second speaker, Alnoor Najak also indicated that Mr Mellon would be speaking on his behalf. As such Mr Mellon was allocated 6 minutes covering both his and Mr Najak’s allocated times to address the Committee. Mr Mellon proceeded to draw the Committee’s attention to the following key points:

• Mr Mellon introduced himself to the Committee as a representative of the objectors to the application. In doing so he shared the objector’s frustrations that it was felt the communication throughout the consultation period had been unsatisfactory due to requests for further meetings with officers being denied, difficulties obtaining updated reports and website accessibility issues that hindered further up to date information being readily available.
• A major concern for objectors was in relation to seeking clarity on whether trees T1 and T2 fell within the boundary site or not. Mr Mellon drew member’s attention to the Architectural Report that stated the trees were outside of the boundary line, whereas the Waterman Report stated that one tree was on the boundary line. It was felt that until absolute clarity had been confirmed as to whether the trees fell within the site boundary or not a decision should not be made.
• It was felt that the EB7 report that addressed the daylight/sunlight impacts were completed on the basis that both T1 and T2 were going to be removed. However following amendments to the report that now stated that T2 was going to be retained, the EB7 report was out of date and would need to be repeated to explore the true impact, as the retention of the tree was likely to affect the results of the assessment.
• Mr Mellon reported that consultees had not been made aware and kept up to date with the amendments to retaining tree T2.
• Mr Mellon queried whether root protection in the area of T2 had been considered as this was not clear from the report, it was suggested that it should be conditioned if T2 did fall within the site boundary.
• Local residents had raised concerns that the car park on the proposed site was vulnerable to flooding, reporting that this was further impacted by a stream running approximately 7-8 metres to the rear of the site however the flood risk assessment stated that the area was not liable to flooding. This statement was contested by objectors, therefore it was felt the matter should be further explored as a material planning issue. Sketches were shown to members to inform greater insight in to the distance of the site to the stream.

In response to the concerns raised by Mr Mellon and Mr Najak, Committee members sought some points of clarity on the flooding issues raised and what objectors felt would be acceptable on the proposed site. In response the Committee were advised that there had been significant flooding issues, confirmed by Mr Najak who recalled an event whereby visitors to his home were not able park due to the flooding of the car park. In terms of what would be an acceptable scheme, Mr Mellon felt that refurbishing of the garages would be more suitable rather than trying to develop homes on the site, whilst acknowledging the need for family homes, it was felt that this particular site was not suitable.

As the Committee had no further questions for Mr Kakar, the Chair invited the next speaker on the application, Councillor J Patel (Ward Councillor) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. Councillor J Patel proceeded to share his concerns as follows:

• Following concerns raised by residents, Councillor J Patel confirmed that he had undertaken a site visit and seen first-hand the issues raised by residents, including the ambiguity of where trees T1 and T2 fell in terms of the boundary line. It was also noted that it would not be feasible to plant a replacement tree of similar size and maturity in place of any trees that were lost to accommodate the development.
• Concerns were raised that given the small space the homes would be built upon there would not be adequate room for refuse and fire vehicles to access the homes, as a result the new homes refuse bins would be located near Broadview Road, Councillor J Patel queried whether this may increase the likelihood of rubbish being dumped on the road.
• Councillor J Patel raised the lack of parity with regard to the Council’s approach to tree removal as he noted that residents in his ward had been refused permission to make a dropped kerb as it could damage nearby tree roots, however whole mature trees were being considered for removal as part of the proposed scheme.
• In summarising his concerns Councillor J Patel re-iterated the issues raised as areas of concern adding that he felt there would be a detrimental ecological impact to the local environment as a result of the development. In addition to this he did not support the building of new homes in close proximity to the Kingsbury curve section of track as the noise created from the train line was already causing problems for local residents. Overall, he felt that the application represented poor planning and should be refused.

As there were no further queries raised the Chair thanked Councillor J Patel for his contribution and moved on to invite Lucy Howes (agent, Maddox Associates) to address the Committee (online) supported by Sam Rafferty (architect, FBM Architects) (online) in relation to the application, drawing the Committee’s attention to the following key points.

• The current site comprised of brownfield land containing eight underutilised garages as illustrated on the submitted drawings in the Committee’s agenda pack.
• Fryent Country Park was located to the south of the site with Kingsbury Underground Station located a short walk to the north east of the site. The surrounding area was residential in character and comprised a mix of two to three storey houses.
• The proposed development sought to complement the character of the area through the provision of 2 new high-quality, 4 bedroom, affordable family homes whilst significantly enhancing the existing appearance of the site.
• The site was situated within close proximity to Kingsbury Town Centre further supporting the principle of redevelopment in line with Brent’s Local Plan, London Plan, and the NPPF.
• In terms of design, the applicant had engaged in extensive discussions with Officers in evolving the proposed scheme. As a result the homes were designed to meet and exceed key housing design standards, being dual-aspect whilst meeting M4(2) compliance to ensure inclusivity for all.
• The houses also included high-quality, private amenity space for the enjoyment of future occupiers.
• The scheme had been carefully considered to be respectful of the existing context, using the Brent Design Guide SPD1 as its founding principles. The facades had been specifically designed to complement the surrounding homes, whilst the profile and window placement design had been informed by and complied with relevant principles within the SPD, with regard to overlooking and privacy.
• It was felt that the design of the homes would enhance the setting of Fryent Country Park.
• The applicant had submitted a Daylight and Sunlight assessment in support of the application which confirmed that the proposals were fully compliant with the BRE guidelines in terms of impacts on the daylight and sunlight levels received by the surrounding properties.
• The proposal would provide two off-street car parking spaces, in line with planning policy requirements
• One unprotected tree would be removed to facilitate the proposals. Three new trees were proposed on site, with a further additional tree proposed off-site, resulting in an overall uplift. A landscape buffer was also included along the frontage and rear gardens to further enhance opportunities for biodiversity
• In closing remarks it was felt that the proposal was considered to align with the Development Plan as a whole, particularly in terms of achieving the overarching objective of delivering new, affordable, family homes at sustainable locations in the borough.

The Chair thanked Ms Howes for her representation and invited Committee members to raise any queries or clarifying points they may have. Queries were raised with regard to the boundary line of the development, tree removal, flooding, refuse and noise.  Responses were provided as follows –

• It was confirmed that the boundary illustrated in the plans with a red line was bound by fences on the actual site.
• Clarification was provided that T1 that sat on the site boundary would be removed. There would be three additional trees planted on site and one further tree would be planted off site.
• Committee members were advised that although a refuse vehicle could not directly access the proposed homes, additional bins would be located near 14 Broadview Road, residents of the new development would need to bring their refuse there in order for their refuse to be collected.
• It was confirmed that a flood risk strategy was in place that included permeable paving that minimised surface run off water and an attenuation tank would be fitted to collect excess water.
• Committee members were reassured that internal modifications to the windows design would be secured by planning condition to minimise excess noise created from the close proximity to the train line.

As members had no further questions for the agent, 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 whether trees T1 and T2 fell within the boundary line, refuse and fire vehicle access, flooding and the ecological impact of the proposed development. In response to the issues raised by the Committee the following responses were provided:

• In response to a Committee query seeking clarity on the issue of the boundary lines and tree location in relation to the removal of the tree T1, the Committee were advised that written approval had been received from the park team following their site visit to confirm that they agreed that T1 was on the boundary and were satisfied with the plan to remove T1 and the replacement planting, with the caveat that the grounds would require a survey as accurate boundary lines were often difficult to establish. On the basis of the confirmation from the parks officer it was deemed acceptable to proceed with the application.
• Officers confirmed that due to the narrow width of the road to the proposed dwellings it was not possible for a refuse vehicle or fire vehicle to directly access the properties. However this had been mitigated by the provision of shared bin storage alongside the access drive, approximately 30m from the turning circle on Broadview, it was recognised that this was slightly beyond the usual 20m distance, however the distance was in line with the existing houses at 9-14 Broadview.
• It was acknowledged that the maximum 45 m access distance for fire appliances would be exceeded, however British Standards allowed for a 90 m access distance for two-storey dwellings, provided that a sprinkler system was installed. Based upon the proposal to install the new homes with a sprinkler system it was considered that adequate measures were in place to meet Building Regulation Guidance and London Fire Brigade Guidance and as such was compliant with policy D12A of London Plan 2021.
• Officers confirmed that the proposed new homes would have 2 parking spaces in line with the London Plan, due to the small scale of the scheme there was no requirement to have Electric Vehicle Charging points or allocated disabled parking bays included as part of the scheme,
• Following a Committee query regarding concerns objectors raised in relation to flooding, officers advised that the site did not lie within a flood risk area, however in line with BSUI4 (On Site Water Management and Surface Water Attenuation) whereby it was stated that minor schemes should make provision of an appropriate SuDS scheme to achieve greenfield run off rates and ensure that surface water run off was managed as close to its source as possible, a drainage strategy would be in place and would provide a betterment to the current sites drainage. The Drainage Strategy included the use of permeable surfacing across the terrace within the development and underground storage tanks to reduce the risk of flooding and control the discharge of water runoff on site, small rain gardens, green/brown roofing and the use of water butts would see a reduction of 0.7l/s.
• In response to a Committee query regarding the impact of the proposed scheme on bio diversity of the site particularly within the context of part of the proposal being on the boundary of a Grade 1 Site of Importance to Nature Conservation Fryent Country Park and also next to the SINC Grade 1 railway line and a wildlife corridor, officers advised that consideration had been given to the ecological value of these sites and mitigations would be in place following recommendations from the Ecological Impact Assessment. Measures to protect the ecology in and around the site included a Construction Environmental Management Plan to be in place in advance of the proposed construction and to avoid light spill in to the neighbouring SINCS’s a light strategy would be followed to mitigate the potential impact to the wildlife corridor and SINCs close to the site.

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 the conditions and informatives set out in the Committee report and supplementary report.

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