Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as laid out in the Committee report and the conditions and informatives as laid out in the Committee report.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing building and construction of a two-storey block of flats to provide 4 residential units (Use Class C3), with associated landscaping and boundary treatments, refuse and cycle storage.

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 laid out in the Committee 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 authority 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.

Victoria, Planning Officer, North Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application proposed the demolition of the existing 3-bedroom detached dwellinghouse, with attached garage on its western side and proposes the erection of a two-storey block of flats to provide 4 residential units, with associated landscaping and boundary treatments, refuse and cycle storage. The existing house was located on the south side of District Road in Sudbury Town in a predominantly residential area, the building was not listed and was not within a Conservation Area. The site fell in the Sudbury Town Neighbourhood Forum boundaries and the railway line to the south of the site was a designated wildlife corridor.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda that provided information regarding the applicant’s submission of their calculated Urban Greening Factor (UGF) that set out that the proposed scheme achieved a factor 0.4199 and as such exceeded the 0.4 requirement set out within Policy BH4 of Brent’s Local Plan, however as there had been no UGF Masterplan submitted to show the location of the various landscape aspects, it was recommended that further details of the UGF were secured by condition (*as set out within condition 13) to maximise the UGF for the site in line with policy BH4 of Brent's Local Plan 2019-2041.

As no Committee questions were raised at this point, the Chair invited Mr Lakhan Patel (objector) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application drawing the Committee’s attention to the following key points:

• Mr Patel advised that he was aware that many local residents were unhappy with the proposed development and had registered their objections with Brent Council.
• Concerns were shared that the property had historically been used as an HMO.
• It was felt that allowing the demolition of a family sized property would be unfair to larger families looking for a family sized home,
• Given that the property had been vacant for a lengthy period of time, Mr Patel queried whether the Council had encouraged the landlord to reinstate the vacant property over recent years, in line with the in the London Plan 2021 that stated properties should not be left vacant and unused.
• It was felt that if planning permission was granted it would set an unwelcome precedent of flats and tall building in the areas, which it was felt was uncharacteristic in the existing environment,
• In summarising his points, Mr Patel urged the Committee to consider the impact of the loss of a family sized property and to reject planning permission.

In response to hearing the concerns raised by Mr Patel, the Committee required clarity in relation to the nature of the main objections that Mr Patel stated other residents had shared. In response Mr Patel advised that the objections had been shared with officers and included the angle of the front elevation, the development being “car free” with no Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) zone in the area, which was felt would exacerbate existing car parking issues and the precedent set in the area becoming over developed.

As the Committee raised no further questions, the Chair thanked Mr Patel for his representation and proceeded to invite Councillor Lorber (Ward Councillor) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application. Councillor Lorber advised that he was speaking on behalf of local residents who shared their concerns with him in relation to the proposed development, the following key points were highlighted:

• Local residents were concerned at what they felt was a high number of approved planning applications within the Sudbury area.
• Given the shortages in large family sized properties, it was felt to be illogical to support the demolition of a family sized property, to then reconstruct it with smaller residential units.
• Concerns were raised in relation to the layout and stacking of the units as the plans appeared to show upper floor units living space stacked over bedrooms in the unit below.
• It was felt that the proposed development would add to existing parking issues, particularly in the absence of a CPZ.
• In summarising the concerns of local residents Councillor Lorber urged the Committee to consider the issues raised by residents and to defer the application until plans were in place to introduce a CPZ to ensure that the proposed development did not exacerbate parking issues for existing local residents.

In response to the points raised regarding a CPZ and the loss of a family sized dwelling, the Chair advised the Committee that a CPZ consultation had been carried out in 2021 and rejected by residents at the time, however residents were able to register their interest in introducing a CPZ via the Brent Council website at any time if parking issues were a concern. The Committee went on to note that although the proposed development would see the loss of a large family sized dwelling, one of the units of the proposed development would re-provide a 3 bedroom dwelling in addition to the 2 bed room and 1 bedroom units. As the Committee had no further questions for Councillor Lorber, the Chair thanked Councillor Lorber for his contribution to the meeting and invited the final speaker on the item Mr Hector Melendez (agent) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application. The following key points were shared:

• The Committee were advised that two previous planning applications had been refused on the basis of design, materiality, legibility and visual appearance that was felt to be detrimental to the immediate vicinity and neighbouring properties, with this in mind the applicant had worked with planning officers to ensure that previous issues were remedied and the proposal that was before the Committee today was an improved application that would successfully optimise the brownfield site as it stood.
• Key changes made as result of feedback received from prior applications included a reduction in residential units and a reduction in bulk, scale and massing of the building to provide an enhanced appearance in keeping with the character of the area.
• The proposed development was policy compliant and exceeded the Urban Greening Factor London Plan requirements.
• The proposed development would not generate any harmful impact on neighbouring residents in respect of daylight/sunlight levels or overlooking.
• On the basis of the benefits of the proposed development, Mr Melendez urged the Committee to approve planning permission.

The Chair thanked Mr Melendez for making his representation to the Committee and offered members the opportunity to ask any questions or points of clarification in relation to the information heard. The Committee raised queries in relation to the impact of the size of the proposed development and the owner of the site. Mr Melendez provided the following responses:

·       In response to a Committee query in relation to the impact of the size of the proposed development, Mr Melendez advised that although the construction would be slightly larger than the existing building, all 4 units would remain within the existing building footprint. It was clarified that there would be no detrimental impact on the outdoor amenity space, which as part of the development would be divided into separate outdoor amenity space for residents.

·       It was confirmed that the owner of the site was detailed on the application as declared by the applicant.

As the Committee had no further questions for the agent, the Chair invited Members to ask officers any remaining questions they had in relation to the application. Members raised queries in relation to the number of bedrooms in the existing property, the stacking of the units, car parking and permitted development rights. The following responses were provided:

• Officers confirmed that the existing property was shown to have 3 bedrooms, but that there were a number of rooms on the ground floor so in theory, it could be used as a 4- or 5-bedroom property. In line with local plan policy BH10 there would be no net loss of homes on site, in addition to this the scheme was compliant with policy BH6 to provide 1 in 4 family sized homes.
• Officers advised that due to the site’s positive PTAL 4 rating it was considered to be within a priority area for additional housing in line with policy BH4 of Brent’s Local Plan that recognised the use of small sites in supporting the delivery of a net addition of self-contained dwellings through the efficient use of appropriate sites.
• In response to concerns raised in relation to the stacking of units whereby units on the upper floor flats had living areas above the lower floor flat bedroom space, the Committee were advised that where this was the case Building Regulations would ensure that appropriate mitigations were in place to minimise noise nuisance for the residents.
• Details were confirmed that a CPZ consultation had taken place from October-November 2021 with 289 local residents businesses and Ward Councillors. Of the 109 responses received 32% were in favour of a CPZ with 68% against a CPZ. There was no further action taken as the consultation did not reach the 50% threshold of consultees in support of a CPZ to enable any plans to be taken forward, however this could be revisited in the future.
• Confirmation was provided that in any future CPZ consultation, responses from residents of the proposed development would not be taken in to account as the development was “car free”. Responses were only taken into account from affected residents.
• It was clarified that although the site was in the Wembley Event Day zone, residents of the proposed development would not be eligible for parking permits on Wembley Event days due to the developments “car free” status, with the exception of blue badge holders.
• Following a Committee query regarding the potential for the loft space of the property to be converted in to additional dwellings in the future, officers advised that this would require planning permission.  It was also clarified that there is a borough wide Article 4 direction in place that removed permitted development rights for changes of use to a House in Multiple Occupation, therefore any changes to the use would require a separate application for planning permission.

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.

DECISION: Granted planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as laid out in the Committee report and the conditions and informatives as laid out in the Committee report.

(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 7 & Against 1)