Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as set out in the report and the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report with the inclusion of additional conditions to provide details of lighting along the access road and the provision of EVCP for the new homes.

PROPOSAL

Partial demolition of 30 and amalgamation with 30A and erection of 3 terraced houses on the garden space at the rear, creation of a side vehicular access and associated refuse, recycling and cycle parking facilities and hard and soft landscaping

RECOMMENDATION~:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)   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 issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as detailed in the report.

(3)   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.

Victoria McDonagh, Team Leader, North Area Planning Team introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the existing site consisted of a set of 2 semi detached houses and 1 detached house on the southern side of Stilecroft Gardens, located within the boundaries of the Sudbury Neighbourhood Plan. The site laid partly within land that was liable to surface water flooding. The designated open space and local green space of Vale Farm was located to the south of the site.

The application did not have a supplementary report, however the Committee’s attention was drawn to a late objection made by the Sudbury Town Residents Association (STRA) in relation to outbuildings, however this was deemed not applicable as the proposal was for dwelling homes as opposed to outhouses.

The Chair sought clarification on the section of the report that referred to current site having “deep gardens” and as such they were recognised as being more suitable locations for this type of development and if there was a specific measurement of what could be defined as a “deep garden”. In response the Committee were advised that there was no specific measurement or policy and that the term was a judgement made by officers.

As no further questions were raised by members at this point, the Chair invited Mr Hallam Moore (objector) to address the Committee (in person) on behalf of the Sudbury Town Residents Association (STRA) in relation to the application. The following key points were highlighted:

·       It was not felt that the site was appropriate for the proposed application as the site did not fall within a designated growth area and there was no affordable housing provided as part of the development.

·       It was highlighted that the National Planning policy restricted residential gardens being used for the type of development proposed and as such it was felt that this should be given greater consideration by the local authority in this case.

·       Gardens in the area were prone to water logging throughout Winter and during periods of heavy rain, the proposed development was across the natural watercourse for the area and would increase the risk of flooding on the proposed development and surrounding properties.

·       The STRA felt that the development did not meet the local planning policies BH2 or BH4 and on this basis along with the other concerns raised felt the application should be rejected.

The Chair thanked Mr Moore for his contribution to the meeting, as no questions were raised by the Committee the Chair proceeded to invite Mr Andy Hollins, Hollins Planning (agent) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application, with the following key points highlighted:

·       The National Planning Policy Framework, the London Plan and Brent’s Local Plan encouraged the development of small windfall sites as they could be built quickly and make a valuable contribution to the borough’s housing targets.

·       The site was unique in that the gardens were uncharacteristically deep, allowing for the 3 houses to be comfortably accommodated without appearing cramped or harm the living conditions of neighbours, therefore it was felt that the development would not set a precedent for the future development of any other garden land in the vicinity.

·       The proposed homes and been designed to be aesthetically in keeping with the area.

·       The rear of the site backed onto the locally listed Vale Farm Sports Ground. There was a small belt of trees that separated other gardens from the playing fields, it had been agreed with officers that a financial contribution was provided to extend and supplement this area with additional tree planting to include the planting of semi mature trees to provide a landscape buffer between the proposed homes and the sports ground.

·       A minimum gap of 24m would be retained between the front of the proposed houses and the rear of the houses on Stilecroft Gardens to ensure there would be no undue loss of privacy.

·        In terms of concerns raised by neighbours regarding anti social behaviour, the Committee were advised that the proposed access would benefit from natural surveillance. In addition to this the applicant was willing to provide a lighting scheme for the access which would be designed to ensure no light spill into neighbouring gardens.

·       In summarising the benefits of the proposed development Mr Hollins urged the Committee to approve the application for 3 much needed family sized homes in Brent that were policy compliant.

The Chair thanked Mr Hollins for his representation and invited Committee members to raise any queries or clarifying points they may have. Queries were raised with regard to flood risk, emergency vehicle access and Electric Vehicle Charging Points (EVCP) –

• In response to a Committee query on the inclusion of EVCP’s as part of the scheme, Mr Hollins advised that due to the small size of the scheme Electric Vehicle Charging Points were not required, however the applicant would be happy to secure this via condition.
• In relation to a concern raised by the Committee regarding the accessibility of emergency vehicles reaching the site, the Committee were assured that the access road was wide enough for a fire appliance to access the site, however exiting the site would be more challenging. To mitigate this the properties would be fitted with sprinkler systems therefore avoiding the need for fire appliances to enter the site, as all properties would be within 70m of Stilecroft Gardens.
• In response to a Committee concern regarding increased flood risk, Mr Hollins advised that following the applicants submission of a Flood Risk Assessment, Brent’s Flood Officer had confirmed that the site was at low risk of tidal, fluvial, surface water, sewer and reservoir flooding. Additionally the Committee were informed that SuDS improvements to the site that included the implementation of rainwater harvesting tanks and a crate system attenuation tank would reduce surface water run off on the site by 98% for a 1 in 100 year storm event, therefore providing a significant betterment on the current site.

The Chair thanked Mr Hollins for responding to the Committee’s questions. As there were no further questions for Mr Hollins, the Chair invited the Committee to ask officers any further questions they had in relation to the application. The Committee requested further clarity on flood risk, car parking, emergency vehicle access, refuse collection, construction management plan and the future use of the dwellings. The following key points were discussed:

• In relation to the flood risk concerns, the Committee sought assurances that all mitigations had been considered to limit any impact on neighbouring residents. Officers re-iterated the significant betterment the site would benefit from as a result of the SuDS measures that would be put in place, as detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment and Condition 9 of the report. Officers went on to highlight that the Flood Officers were satisfied with the Flood Risk Assessment and the mitigations that would be in place having confirmed that the proposal aligned with Policy BSU13 and BSU14 of Brent’s Local Plan. Consequently, officers were satisfied that suitable mitigation had been considered with regard to managing flood risk.
• Given the low PTAL 1 rating of the site, the Committee queried whether there could be demand for additional car parking. Officers advised that the site was served by a local bus route and that the overall car parking allowance for the development of 3x properties was 3x spaces based on standard set out in the London Plan. The Committee noted that Stilecroft Gardens was not defined as a heavily parked street.
• The Committee were advised that to support an access way to the rear of the new dwellings, additional margins of 300mm on each side would be required, this would result in the relocation of the two existing car parking bays to the west of the site. The changes to access and parking with a reinstated footway were secured through Condition 5 and Condition 11 as detailed within the report.
• In response to a Committee question regarding refuse collection for the new properties, it was confirmed that a bin store along the access road was accepted as being a suitable means of avoiding refuse vehicles needing to access the site. It was felt it was acceptable for residents to pull their bins up to the collection point on Stilecroft Gardens.
• The Committee discussed that although the small size of the development meant that it was not a policy requirement for the development to be accompanied by an energy assessment, but it was felt that as previously discussed with the agent a Condition should be sought to provide the Electric Charging Vehicle Points.
• The Committee were advised that a Construction Management Plan would be secured to limit disruption for residents, this would include vehicle access and timings.
• In response to Committee concerns regarding the future use of the proposed dwellings and the potential for any of them to be converted into HMO’s the Committee heard that an Article 4 direction is in place so that permitted development rights are removed for such conversions. Therefore, the conversion of the property into an HMO would require a separate Planning application.

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 with the additionally verbally agreed conditions.

Granted planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as set out in the report and the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report with the inclusion of additional conditions to provide details of lighting along the access road and the provision of EVCP for the new homes.

(Voting on the recommendations was as follows – 5 For, Against 2)