Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and subject to the applications referral to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as per the Committee report, including a further amendment as requested by the Committee that social rented housing is prioritised at the Early Stage review.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing building at 3 Olympic Way and erection of 3 buildings of basement, ground and 9, 22 and 25 storeys (excluding rooftop plant) to provide 172 residential units (Use Class C3), new hotel accommodation comprising 260 rooms (Use Class C1) and retail food stores (Use Class E). 6-storey extension to existing hotel at 5 Olympic Way to provide 95 additional hotel rooms (Use Class C1) and amenities, extension of ground floor to create new colonnade and public realm improvements to Olympic Way. Other works associated with development include new access from North End Road, disabled car parking, cycle parking, private and communal amenity spaces, public realm works and other associated works.

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 laid out 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.

(4)   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.

(5)   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.

Gary Murphy, Planning Officer, North Area Planning Team introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the application, the Committee were advised that in relation to 5 Olympic Way, the existing 10 storey section of Novotel Hotel, which was directly adjacent to no.3, to the extent of the existing ‘balcony’ section at the front, would have an upward extension added of 6 floors, to make this section 16 floors high. The current inset ‘balcony’ section which was centrally located at the front would be infilled by having two floors added, to make its roofline equal to the current roofline on the section to be extended upwards. The upwards extension and infill section would add 95 new hotel rooms, 9 of which would be accessible rooms. In relation to 3 Olympic Way, a new hotel (use class C1) building would be constructed, joined to 5 Olympic Way, at a height of 23 storeys to provide 260 hotel rooms. The development would include a swimming pool, gym, and accessible parking at the basement level. A 3-bedroom, self-contained residential unit would be provided at the top floor of the new hotel building. The final part of the application proposed the construction of two new residential buildings, Central Residence, a 26-storey block to the rear of 3 Olympic Way would provide 141 residential apartments and the North End Road Residence, proposed to the east would comprise of a ten-storey block containing 30 residential apartments.

It was confirmed that the proposed development site was situated within the Wembley Growth Area and Wembley Opportunity Areas as designated in the 2021 London Plan, neither building was listed in or near to a conservation area or other form of designated heritage asset.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary report that provided information regarding an amendment to Condition 12 following the applicant’s submission of an Obscured Glazing Strategy that confirmed which secondary windows on each floor within the Central Residence and the North End Road Residence would be treated with obscure glazing. Members were also asked to note in the supplementary report that it was proposed to add a condition on the advice of Environmental Health officers, the condition requires the submission of a verification report to demonstrate that any necessary remediation has been carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme.

As no Committee questions were raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker, Miss Jayne Aherne (objector) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application. Miss Aherne introduced herself as a local resident who lived in Shams Court, a neighbouring property to the proposed development. Miss Aherne proceeded to highlight the following key points:

• Concerns were raised that the balconies of the residential blocks of the proposed scheme would create significant overlooking on to the rooftop terrace of Shams Court. It was felt that this would remain an issue despite the revised condition to provide obscure glass. Additionally, it was felt that this would go against Brent’s SPD1 policy in relation to the loss of privacy within an outdoor space.
• It was felt that if the proposed development was approved it would cause Shams Court (at 4 storeys in height) to be engulfed by tall buildings in the perimeter around it.
• Miss Aherne highlighted that the proposed development would be only 3.6 metres away from Shams Court and queried why this was considered to be acceptable when it would result in reduced natural daylight to habitable rooms in 6 properties.
• Concern was shared in relation to the loss of a parking space referred to in the Committee report as S3. Miss Aherne explained that S3 was her allocated parking space and contrary to the Committee report she had not been contacted as the affected leaseholder in relation to this.
• Miss Aherne summarised her concerns before urging the Committee to refuse planning permission on the basis of the information shared.

The Chair thanked Miss Aherne for sharing her concerns with the Committee before asking the Committee if they had any questions or points of clarity to raise with Miss Aherne in relation to the information heard. The Committee sought one point of clarification in relation to how Miss Aherne’s property would be affected by the altered levels of natural daylight/sunlight as a result of the proposed development. In response, Miss Aherne advised that there would be a significant impact to her living environment as her kitchen window would be affected, the light received through this window provided light to the kitchen and living room, therefore there would be a noticeable difference to the levels of light received throughout the property.

As no further questions were raised by the Committee, the Chair proceeded to invite the next speaker Mr Alun Evans (agent) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. The following key points were highlighted:

• The proposed development would support an increase in Brent’s cultural economy as the proposed development would provide a total of 355 additional hotel rooms to meet the need for additional visitor accommodation in Wembley, along with additional high quality retail space.
• 172 new homes would be built, this included 30 affordable homes (19.4% by habitable room) to support Brent in meeting local housing needs. The proposed housing mix included 8.7% family sized dwellings overall, with 27% of the affordable units as family sized dwellings.
• The proposed development was felt to comprise of exceptional design quality in keeping with the existing Novotel building and the character of Olympic Way.
• The proposed development would sit within the established heights within the tall building cluster in Wembley.
• The proposal included obscure glazing to habitable rooms on the side elevations of the buildings to mitigate any potential overlooking impacts, including to the rooftop amenity of the existing building at Shams Court.
• A comprehensive daylight/sunlight assessment had concluded that the development would have an acceptable impact overall, given the high density urban context of the Wembley Town Centre. Additionally, the “No Sky Line” test demonstrated a high level of compliance with BRE guidelines to all neighbouring properties.
• The proposal included the provision of a second stairwell within all blocks of the development, this ensured full compliance with adopted and draft fire safety standards.
• Separate consent had been granted for the replacement of all existing combustible cladding from existing buildings.
• The car free development was in accordance with policy, with the exception of 11 disabled car parking spaces, this exceeded the minimum policy requirement.
• One existing car parking space (S3) would need to be re-located due to the construction of the development, the applicant had engaged with the leaseholder in relation to this.
• In closing his comments, Mr Evans summarised the public benefits of the scheme that included contributions of £500k towards the provision of affordable workspace in the borough, a Carbon offset payment, highway improvement works and further financial contributions towards Healthy Streets, local bus services, off site play facilities at Chalkhill open space and a Training and Employment Plan to provide employment and skills for local residents.

The Chair thanked Mr Evans 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 questions regarding the number of affordable units of accommodation, public consultation, a construction management plan, loss of light and overlooking to existing residents and amenity space. The following responses were provided:

• In response to a Committee query in relation to what the Committee felt was a low number of affordable housing units, Mr Evans confirmed that the viability reports had been scrutinised by the GLA officers, Brent Officers and independently. All parties agreed that 30 homes at affordable rent was the maximum viable amount that could be offered at the current stage in the application. The Committee noted that Section 106 of the legal agreement included a two stage review to ensure that the maximum affordable housing provision could be reviewed at two further opportunities.
• Mr Evans clarified that the consultation process had been duly followed, however due to the Covid restrictions in place during this time there were less opportunities to provide physical engagement consultation events, however there was website based consultation.
• In response to Committee concerns in relation to how the residents in existing properties would be affected by the engulfment of the proposed development, the Committee were advised that although the development would create some changes in the physical environment, there had been multiple assessments undertaken to test the impact of the daylight/sunlight to existing residents, these assessments concluded that there would be no significant harm and any changes were considered acceptable.
• Following a Committee query in relation to the shortfall of amenity space, the Committee were advised that given the limited dimensions of the site it was not possible to provide policy compliant level of amenity space, however given that there was excellent local amenity space it was not felt to be a cause for concern.
• It was clarified that the units that had partially obscured glazing would still have access to windows that were not obscured.
• Mr Evans confirmed that if planning permission was granted, a Construction Management Plan would be developed to support minimum disruption to local residents.
• Following concerns raised by Miss Aherne (objector) earlier in the meeting in relation to parking space S3, the Committee requested assurance from the agent that notice had been correctly served. Mr Evans advised the Committee that it was the duty of the applicant to serve notice on those with a leasehold interest, in this case this was applicable to Network Homes. The Committee were advised that notice had been served to Network Homes at the beginning of the application process, not specifically to Miss Aherne as a resident. Officers confirmed that they had received a written declaration from the applicant confirming that notice was served and as such officers were satisfied that the notice had been served correctly.

As members had no further questions at this point, the Chair thanked Mr Evans for his contribution to the meeting and proceeded to invite the Committee to ask officers any questions or points of clarification they had in relation to the application. The Committee raised questions in relation to parking permits, daylight/sunlight assessment, Urban Greening Factor, carbon emissions, affordable housing and amenity space. Responses were provided as follows:

• In response to a Committee query regarding parking rights of new residents, officers confirmed that as a “car free” development, residents would be unable to obtain on street parking permits.
• The Committee queried why the breaches in daylight/sunlight noted in the Committee report were considered acceptable by officers. In response officers informed the Committee that the National Planning Policy Framework advised that daylight/sunlight assessments were to be applied flexibly in more dense locations, such as the proposed development site. Officers acknowledged that there were some shortfalls in daylight/sunlight measurements to nearby residential units and units across the development however given the density of the site and the need to effectively maximise the use of the site, it was considered that the wider benefits of the scheme outweighed the harm identified.
• Officers confirmed that the high density of the site also contributed to the limited Urban Greening Factor (UGF) of 0.26 against the target of 0.4, however the Committee noted that despite the limited UGF there would be a significant net gain of 429% in biodiversity value.
• Following a Committee query in relation to the proposed development’s carbon emissions target, officers confirmed that at the time of the energy assessment being undertaken the results were assessed under the  2013 Building Regulations, as the most up to date legislation at the time. The assessment demonstrated a 65% overall reduction in carbon emissions, this significantly exceeded the overall energy performance targets in policy SI2.
• The Committee noted that the limited size of the proposed site had resulted in further shortfalls in amenity and workspace and recognised that officers had worked with the applicant to mitigate the impact of the shortfalls where possible. This included a financial contribution from the applicant secured via the s106 agreement for the applicant to make a contribution towards an offsite play facility at Chalk Hill open space and to address the requirements of BE3, to protect the loss of employment generating floorspace, a further financial contribution would be made to provide affordable workspace off site.
• Officers clarified that following the Wind Microclimate Assessment in accordance with London Plan Policies D3, D8 and D9, the assessment concluded that the seven highest floor balconies did not meet the required comfort and safety levels for regular use, therefore appropriate side screening and barriers would be installed and such details to be secured via condition.
• Following Committee concerns that the affordable housing offer from the applicant was too low at 17.4%, officers confirmed that following viability testing it was concluded that the offer of 30 affordable dwellings was more than the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing that the development could provide at this point. It was highlighted to the Committee that as the affordable housing offer fell short of the 35% target of both the London Plan and Brent Policy there would be two further opportunities to capture any uplift in affordable housing via the Early and Late Stage review mechanism to be secured via the s106 agreement. The Committee requested a further amendment to conditions that social rented housing was prioritised at the Early Stage review.

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 as set out in the Committee report and subject to the applications referral to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as per the Committee report, including a further amendment as requested by the Committee that social rented housing is prioritised at the Early Stage review.

(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 4, Against 1, Abstentions 3)