Agenda item
22/2560 - Yates Court Garages, Yates Court, 228 Willesden Lane, London, NW2 5RH
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report
Minutes:
PROPOSAL
Demolition of existing 17 garages and development of land to provide four new dwellinghouses, parking, refuse and cycle storage 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.
Lena Summers, Planning Officer, South Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the current site comprised of two rows of single storey garages (17 in total) and adjacent hardstanding to the rear of Yates Court to the northern side of Willesden Lane. The site was not within a conservation area as designated in Brent’s Local Plan and did not impact on any Listed Building. The proposal would also see improved landscaping and enhanced amenity space to include a new children’s play area. The massing and height of the proposed development aligned with guidance and was not considered to have a negative impact on neighbouring gardens. It was confirmed that 19 objections had been received from neighbouring residents.
Officers drew the Committee’s attention to a typo in Section 2.44 of the report that stated a dwelling was a 5 bed, 7 person property, this was incorrect and should have stated a 4 bed, 7 person property.
As no further questions were raised by members at this point, the Chair invited Ms Elaine Moore (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. Ms Moore introduced herself as a local resident before proceeding to highlight the following key points:
· It was felt that the proposed dwellings were not in keeping with the context and character of the existing homes and local environment.
· Concerns were raised that a Constructions Logistics Plan had not been made available at the application stage, therefore residents were unsure about how they may be affected during the construction phase, this had caused heightened concerns for existing residents (particularly those with assisted living requirements) in terms of the potential impacts on health and safety.
· Ms Moore felt that the proposed location of the children’s play space was not suitable as it would limit natural surveillance as well as resulting in the loss of trees and light.
· Ms Moore felt that the parking surveys undertaken did not provide a true representation of the demand for parking spaces. She advised the Committee that the car park was frequently at capacity and suggested that the parking surveys should be repeated to provide a more accurate report of the demand for local parking.
· Concerns were also highlighted at what local residents felt to be inadequate nature of the consultation undertaken with the local community in relation to the proposed development as well as communication from the agent and local authority in responding to specific queries from existing residents. This had reportedly left residents with unanswered questions in relation to the boundary fence and whether existing leaseholders would see an increase in their service charge.
The Chair thanked Ms Moore for her contribution and invited Committee members to ask any questions or points of clarification they had in relation to the issues raised, with further details sought inn relation to the concerns highlighted about the proposed location and impact of the children’s play area. In response Ms Moore clarified that she felt that the proposed children’s play area would be a poor substitute for the large garden area that was currently in use, as well as the issues raised in terms of tree loss, lighting, and loss of natural surveillance. Ms Moore closed her comments by adding that she felt there was an excessive number of new developments being constructed in the area.
In response to the comments raised, the Chair felt it important to clarify that that the area in which the site was located fell within a designated Intensification Corridor,. The Chair reassured Ms Moore, however, that further queries in relation to the concerns she had raised would be addressed by officers in the latter part of the meeting. The Chair proceeded to invite the final speaker on the item, Ms Lucy Howes (agent) to address the Committee (online) supported by Sean Raffferty (architect, online) in relation to the application. The following key points were shared:
· The proposed development site was situated to the rear of Yates House and comprised of underutilised brownfield land, in a designated Intensification Corridor, this included garages and hardscaping.
· The surrounding area was residential in character, with both Kilburn and Willesden Green stations located within short walking distance to the east alongside shops and services. The site is highly sustainable, benefitting from a PTAL 4.
· The proposals sought to complement the character of the area through providing four high-quality homes – all for London Affordable Rent. The scheme also supported Brent’s fundamental objective of directing housing growth to Intensification Corridors, particularly larger family units.
· The applicant had engaged in extensive discussions with officers in evolving the proposals – with all houses designed to meet and exceed key housing design standards, being dual-aspect whilst meeting M4(2) compliance to ensure inclusivity for all. Private amenity space was also provided for all units in the form of patios, planting, and grass lawns. Enhancements to existing open space across the wider site were also proposed, providing community benefits.
· The site was not located within or adjacent to any ecological sites, with the proposals not resulting in any significant impact to on or off-site habitats.
· It was acknowledged that the proposals resulted in the loss of one low-grade tree. 14 new trees would, however, be planted alongside replacement shrubs and hedgerow in enhancing opportunities for biodiversity.
· The scheme had been carefully considered to be respectful of existing context and neighbours – using the Brent Design Guide SPD1 as its founding principles. The facades were designed specifically to reflect the surrounding context, whilst the profile and window placement had been informed by and complied with, the relevant principles within the SPD, regarding overlooking and privacy. The scale and massing of the dwellings had been carefully designed to respect neighbouring properties whilst ensuring no overbearing impacts. This included a set-back from neighbouring gardens with a mixture of flat and pitched roofs in visually complementing existing typologies.
· 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 guidance in terms of impacts on the daylight and sunlight levels received by the surrounding properties.
· In line with the site’s PTAL, the proposals were car free in supporting sustainability objectives of the NPFF, Brent Local Plan and London Plan.
· Of the existing 17 garages, eight were currently unused with the remainder not used for car parking. The proposals would reduce the hardstanding parking from 30 to 21 spaces. Day and night-time parking surveys had been undertaken in support of this application, which identified that on average, 10-15 cars were present in the day with a demand for 14-15 cars at night. On this basis, the retention of 21 spaces was considered sufficient to satisfy demand from both the existing flats and the new houses – with overspill also sufficiently mitigated and unlikely to be generated as a result of the proposals.
· The proposal was considered to align with the Development Plan as a whole – particularly according with the overarching objective of delivering new, affordable, family homes at sustainable locations.
The Chair thanked Ms Howes for addressing the Committee and asked the Committee if they had any questions or points of clarification following the information heard. In response the Committee raised queries in relation to car parking EV charging points, rent levels, outdoor amenity space., trees and consultation with existing residents. The following responses were provided:
· It was confirmed that parking around the existing site was underutilised, and parking surveys had demonstrated that there was sufficient capacity to meet any additional demand for parking caused by the development.
· In response to a Committee query regarding the rent levels, the Committee were advised that the rent would be set at London Affordable Rent (LAR).
· The Committee queried what had been considered in terms of providing a betterment to amenity space for existing residents and the quality of amenity space for residents of the new dwellings. In response Sean Rafferty, Architect for the scheme advised that each new dwelling would have a shrubbery border to party walls and private amenity space. Although compact, the homes had good sized gardens that exceeded minimum requirements. Large private windows would provide good levels of light and there were opportunities to use green roofing. It was confirmed that no green space would be lost in providing the new children’s play space. The new dedicated play area towards the north of site had been designed to be mindful of issues of overlooking and excessive noise. The Committee were advised that the play area would be shielded by 14 new trees as part of mitigation measures to re-provide the 1 tree that would be lost as part of the scheme.
· In response to a Committee question in relation to potential issues of subsidence as a result of any further trees that could be lost to accommodate the development, the Committee were reassured that there were no concerns regarding potential subsidence, despite the close proximity of the new homes to the trees and confirmed that only 1 low grade category C tree was being lost as part of the development.
· The Committee queried if additional Electric Vehicle Charging (EVC) points (additional to the 4 provided as part of the proposed scheme) had been considered to offer a further benefit to existing residents. In response the Committee were advised that the provision of EVC charging points had been considered in line with the policy requirements of the proposed new dwellings, this had been considered acceptable by officers. It was clarified that the 21 parking spaces would be sufficient to manage the parking needs of the existing residents and the residents of the 4 new units, additionally there was no allocated parking, therefore the spaces and EVC would be available for use by new and existing residents.
· In response to a Committee query in relation to the consultation with local residents, the Committee were advised of the consultation undertaken, which had included a leaflet drop detailing how questions and feedback could be submitted via a dedicated website and email address. There had also been a newsletter sent out to residents to keep them informed of the plans.
As there were no further questions for the agent, the Chair invited the Committee to ask officers any further questions or points of clarification they required. Members raised queries in relation to PV panels, flooding and drainage, the current use of the garages and the concerns raised in relation to the boundary wall and fence height. The following responses were provided:
· The Committee acknowledged the small scale of the proposed scheme, however in respect of Brent’s climate targets the Committee queried why PV panels were not included as part of the scheme. In recognition of the Committee concerns officers advised that there were no policy requirements to provide PV panels due to the size of the scheme, additionally the nature of the site and design of the roofs did not support the use of PV panels. The Committee noted that as new builds the homes would be well insulated to support sustainability.
· In response to a Committee query in relation to whether the private surface sewer that served Yates Court would have the capacity to cope with the additional discharge of water from the new homes, officers advised that due to the limited scale of the scheme the development was unlikely to have a significant impact on sewer capacity. The Committee were assured that if planning permission was approved the Building Regulations team would require permissions to connect the new homes to the sewer network, it would be at this point that any issues around sewer capacity would be addressed if necessary.
· The Committee noted in response to a query in relation to the current use of the garages on site that were to be demolished, that 8 were vacant and the others had mixed uses that included some being used for storage. The Committee heard that the Council were the freeholders of the garages.
· The Committee were advised that the revised refuse location for both existing residents of Yates Court and the new homes would be in one single location. It was noted that following objections received, the refuse area plans had been altered to increase capacity.
· Officers advised that comments received from objectors regarding the boundary wall and fencing in relation to the amenity space and House 4 of the proposed scheme had been responded to and would be secured via condition to ensure privacy was protected for both residents of the new home and residents using the shared amenity space.
· Confirmation was provided that reference to the date for the Arboricultural Impact Assessment referred to in section 9.2 of the report should have been July 2022 and not 2023 as stated.
The Chair thanked officers for responding to the Committee’s questions As there were no further questions 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 with all 8 members voting in favour of the above decision)
Supporting documents: