Agenda item

On the basis that a majority of Members on the Committee had indicated they were minded to refuse the application, it was agreed to defer a final decision to a future Committee meeting in order to  enable a further report to be provided addressing the indicative reasons outlined as the basis for refusal, relating to affordable housing and viability, the height and design of the scheme  in relation the surrounding area and whether the development of the site had been optimised  in order to maximise the potential planning benefits.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of the existing building and the erection of building of up to five storeys to provide residential dwellings (Use Class C3); car and cycle parking; landscaping, amenity space and play area; and refuse storage and other associated works.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      The completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the Committee report and the Head of Planning is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement.

(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.

James Mascall, Senior 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 sought the development of a 3 to 5 storey building to provide a total of 42 new homes with the following mix; 15 x 1 bedrooms, 16 x 2 bedrooms and 11 x 3 bedrooms, 5 homes would also be wheelchair accessible. The proposal included 24 car parking spaces with vehicular access into the site to remain from the service road alongside Sudbury Court Drive and Watford Road. A communal amenity area to include a children’s play area would be situated towards the south western part of the site.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda that provided information in relation to three additional representations received since the Committee report had been published. The representations raised concerns in relation to the loss of the existing building, impact on neighbouring properties due to the development being overbearing and disturbance during construction works, impact on the nearby Sudbury Court Conservation Area, flooding, lack of on-site parking and impact on street trees, all of which it was reported had been addressed within the committee report. The Committee was advised that none of these were representations were from a new objector or a new address and as such the number of objections remained the same.

The Chair thanked James Mascall for introducing the report, as there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker Wilhelmina Mitchell Murray (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. The following key points were highlighted:

·                Concerns were raised in relation to the absence of affordable housing.

·                It was felt that Brent residents would not benefit from the scheme.

·                The scheme had been highly contested by local residents.

·                The height and massing were felt to be out of character in relation to the local area.

·                Queries were raised in relation to the accuracy of the parking survey undertaken as it was felt the results were not reflective of the true demand for parking in the area.

·                It was felt that if planning permission was approved, parking should be limited, with restrictions on future residents of the scheme being able to apply for permits in the event that a CPZ was required.

·                Clarity was sought in relation to the section of the report that stated the scheme was complaint with affordability despite not providing any affordable housing.

·                In summarising the points raised, Ms Mitchell – Murray urged the Committee to reject the application.

The Chair thanked Ms Mitchell-Murray for addressing the Committee and clarified that the point raised in relation to the scheme’s lack of affordable housing would be discussed in detail with officers later in the meeting.  As the next public representative registered to speak had not been able to join the meeting at this stage in proceedings the Chair advised he would vary the order of speakers to consider the representations from local ward councillors and other councillors who had requested to speak at this stage in the meeting.

The Chair then invited the next speaker, Councillor Bajwa (local ward councillor) to address the Committee with his objections (in person) supported by Councillor Collymore (as fellow local ward councillor). The following key points were highlighted:

·                Although the need for new homes was acknowledged, it was felt that the development was not in an appropriate location, this had been echoed by the 500 objections made by residents.

·                It was felt that the proposed development was too tall and out of character due to the use of different materials.

·                The scheme was felt not to be policy compliant with the London Plan which required 35% affordable units on new schemes, the scheme provided no affordable units.

·                It was felt that if planning permission was approved, the applicant should offer a financial contribution to support investments in local parks to support the provision of amenity space for existing local residents and future residents of the development.

·                Concerns were raised in relation to the additional traffic the development would create and wider implications as the primary road outside the development was the main route to Northwick Park Hospital. Additionally, it was felt that the increased number of vehicles to the area would exacerbate existing parking issues.

·                As Councillor Bajwa closed his comments he highlighted that the current use on the site was a valued public asset which would be a huge loss for the local community, on the basis of the collective concerns shared Councillor Bajwa urged the Committee to refuse the application.

The Chair thanked Councillor Bajwa for his representation and asked the Committee if they had any questions or points of clarification on the information heard. The Committee required clarity on Councillor Bajwa’s comments in relation to the proposed development’s impact on existing local amenity spaces. In response Councillor Bajwa supported by Councillor Collymore (who also highlighted her strong opposition to the basis of the application) advised that the amenity space included as part of the development was very small and not adequate for the number of residents, particularly children that would require amenity space. The Committee heard that the closest parks had no children’s play equipment or benches, therefore Councillor Bajwa felt strongly that a contribution should be made by the applicant to support improvements in local amenity space.

As there were no further Committee questions at this point the Chair then invited Councillor Kennelly (as a local councillor) speaking in objection to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. The following key points were shared:

·                Concerns were raised that approval of the application would set a precedent in the closure of hospitality businesses.

·                It was felt that the absence of affordable housing was unacceptable, and that the applicant was exploiting the current market conditions to avoid the inclusion of affordable units within the scheme.

·                The Community Infrastructure Levy contributions were negligible and had little benefit in the current market.

·                It was felt that the applicant had shown no intention in following the guidance outlined in Brent’s Local Plan and the Mayor’s London Plan in terms of meeting a reasonable proportion of the affordable housing need.

·                The hospitality venue was a valued community asset and a part of Brent’s local heritage. It was felt that traditional settings should be protected by local authorities from development.

·                In summarising, Councillor Kennelly urged the Committee to reject the application on the basis that the development offered no affordable housing and resulted in the loss of a community asset.

The Chair thanked Councillor Kennelly for sharing his concerns with the Committee and advised that in relation to the concerns raised regarding the viability of scheme in providing a contribution to affordable housing, there was a need to recognise the inclusion of a late-stage review mechanism in terms of any final assessment on the provision of affordable housing units.  Councillor Kennelly accepted the potential benefit of the late-stage review mechanism, however highlighted that there was no guarantee that his would provide a betterment to the current situation, therefore felt that it was appropriate to insist upon affordable housing at this point in the planning stages so that if the scheme was approved, it offered a genuine benefit to Brent residents.

As there were no further questions, the Chair invited Councillor Lorber (local councillor) speaking in objection to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. The following key points were highlighted:

·                It was queried why a site visit inclusive of local residents had not been undertaken by the Committee to gain a greater understanding of the concerns and objections raised and to highlight the impact of the proposed 5 storey building on the surrounding conservation area.

·                Concerns were raised in relation to the pre application process that the applicant undertook, ahead of the application being considered at the Planning Committee.

·                Queries were raised in relation to the area of the report that indicated that the site would have had specific planning protections if it was a still a public house. It was noted that in 2018 the use of the premises was changed to restaurant use, it was questioned whether the classification in change of use was a precursor to strengthen the application for redevelopment of the site in the future.

·                The report stated that the premises were not a community facility. It was felt that this statement was incorrect as the premises had originally been a Public House, since then it had been used as a pub/restaurant and had separate rooms available for functions, that were regularly used by local community groups.

·                The proposed development did not offer any affordable housing to assist with housing pressures facing Brent.

·                It was felt there would be harm as a result of the development, given its prominent location in the middle of a residential area of predominantly 2 storey housing dating from the 1930s and nearby designated Conservation area.

·                The proposed development was extremely unpopular with local residents, many of whom had objected to the application on the basis of the harm it would cause.

·                Based on the information shared Councillor Lorber urged the Committee to defer the application and arrange a further site visit so that the Committee could hear the concerns of residents to support them in making a fully informed decision.

The Chair thanked Councillor Lorber for making his representation and in response to the concerns highlighted regarding the pre application process, confirmed that it was recommended good practice that was widely used across other Councils. In response to the point raised regarding residents being able to express their concerns in objection to the application, it was clarified that throughout the consultation process residents were able to contribute their views and had done so via the 500 objections received, additionally residents were also able to register to speak and attend the Committee meeting.

The Chair advised the Committee that the final member of the public registered to speak in objection to the application, Mr Haydar, had not been able to join the meeting as an online participant and the statement in had submitted in advance of the meeting was therefore read out for the Committee, with the following points shared:

·                Mr Haydar felt that the proposed development would have a severe impact on the area, particularly in terms of exacerbating the existing traffic issues in the area.

·                Questions were raised in relation to the wider impact traffic congestions would have on Watford Road serving as the main access road to Northwick Park Hospital where emergency vehicles frequently needed to travel.

·                Concerns were raised in relation the impact on local service and utilities being able to accommodate the development and its future residents.

·                It was felt that there had been a high number of residential developments that had recently been constructed in Wembley, therefore it was questioned why it was felt appropriate to construct another multi storey residential development in an already congested area.

The Chair then moved on to invite the final speaker on the item Davey Pareth (site owner) to address the Committee (in person) supported by Kieran Rushe (agent) and Sydne Langbridge (architect). The following key points were highlighted:

·                The current venue was a family owned business that had operated locally for approximately 15 years.

·                The family had come to the decision to use the site as a development opportunity due to personal circumstances.

·                As the family lived locally and enjoyed living in Brent, they felt a sense of pride in being able to provide a sustainable development for residents and their families to enjoy in the future.

The Committee had a number of questions for Mr Pareth in relation to car parking, the current status of the business at the venue, amenity space, the financial contribution to support local amenity space and the wider benefits for existing local residents. The following responses were provided:

·                Following a Committee query in relation to whether consideration had been given to the development being car free, the Committee was advised that due to the low PTAL 2 rating of the site, the development could not be considered to be a car free development.

·                The Committee was advised that the current user of the venue was no longer viable as a business due to a combination of factors including post covid recovery, the current economic climate and personal family circumstances.

·                Following a Committee query in relation to the shortage of private amenity space, the Committee required clarity as to whether the applicant would be willing to mitigate this by making a financial contribution to local parks to support the benefits to Brent as part of the application. The agent advised that the applicant would be making a CIL payment as required, it was the decision of the Council how the payment would be used, however no additional financial contribution had been identified specifically for the improvement of local amenity space.

The Chair thanked Mr Pareth and his team for answering the Committee’s questions and invited the Committee to ask officers any questions or points of clarity they had in relation to the application. The Committee raised questions in relation to affordable housing and the potential impact of the scheme on flooding and drainage, car parking, road safety and the volume of traffic.

·                Following the concerns raised by objectors and the Committee in relation to the proposed development’s absence of affordable housing, the Committee were advised that officers recognised that the scheme fell short of  the London  Plan threshold approach which required a Financial Viability Appraisal to be submitted if the proposal doesn’t provide at least 35% of affordable housing.  As such the application had been subject to viability testing that required detailed supporting evidence to be submitted as part of the application. The Financial Viability Appraisal (FVA) submitted by the applicant concluded that a wholly private scheme would deliver a deficit, therefore it would not be viable to provide any affordable units. The FVA was also reviewed by the Council’s consultants who concluded that there would be a reduced deficit against the applicants’ calculations on delivering a wholly private scheme, however as there was still found to be a deficit officers concluded that the scheme could not reasonably deliver any affordable housing.  In line with policy, however, a late stage review mechanism would be secured within the Section 106 agreement to capture any off-site contributions towards affordable housing in the event that viability improved. The proposal was therefore considered to be policy compliant.

·                The Committee queried if it was possible to support the inclusion of affordable housing by amending the design of the development to provide a higher building with additional units to improve the viability of the scheme. Officers advised that it was felt the site had been optimised to provide a new home development as well as fitting in with the local character, therefore it was not felt to be appropriate to build higher than the proposed design. Additionally, the Committee was advised that it may not enhance viability options as construction and other associated costs could increase if the building was taller.

·                In response to a Committee query in relation to the impact the development could have on flooding and drainage in the local area, officers advised that in line with policy BSUI3 a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) had been submitted with the application.  The FRA confirmed the site was categorised within Flood Zone 1, meaning that there was a low risk of flooding from fluvial, tidal, sewer, infrastructure (reservoir) and ground water sources. The assessment noted there was some risk from surface water flooding, however this would be mitigated by improving the run off rate from the site using a range of sustainable drainage measures including a green roof, rain garden, permeable paving and the installation of an attenuation tank. The planned mitigations would see a 90% betterment in surface water run off rates.

·                The Committee questioned if consideration had been given to making the development car free, given the potential impact that overspill parking could have on existing local residents. Officers advised that the site was not well served by public transport as identified by its low PTAL rating therefore a car free development would not be possible. A parking survey was undertaken over two nights to assess the capacity to accommodate any surplus parking demand, results demonstrated that there was sufficient capacity on the service road to accommodate any overspill parking demand. Overall, it was felt that the 24 on site spaces provided and the service roads capacity to absorb any overspill would ensure that the proposed development would not unacceptably impact upon existing local residents or highway safety, particularly as there was a trend for decreasing car ownership across the borough.  If residents felt that there were issues with overspill parking in the future, they could make a request to the Council for the introduction of a Controlled Parking Zone.

·                The Committee queried the accuracy of the data used to inform the Travel Plan, specifically in relation to the PTAL rating being categorised differently by TfL to the Travel Plan and why census data from 2011 was used in relation to parking need instead of the most recent 2021 census data. This led the Committee to query the basis on which the Travel Plan had been developed. Officers advised that the report details had been provided in line with relevant policies and were felt to be an accurate representation of the situation. It was also noted that the minor discrepancy between the Travel Plan PTAL stating the site had a PTAL of 2 against TfL ‘s rating of 1b was negligible in terms of how the site would be served by public transport. PTAL 3 was noted as the threshold that would warrant significantly less parking need.

·                The Committee noted that the Travel Plan included targets to reduce car travel, this could include residents’ free membership for a period of time to a local Car Club.

·                Following a Committee question in relation to the impact of the development on road safety and increased traffic, officers advised that data received from TfL suggested that the John Lyon Roundabout was not a concerning area of risk with 9 collisions over the last 3 years, with 8 of these resulting in minor injuries. It was not felt that the development would significantly increase trip generation, analysis from the TRICS survey provided indicated that the development would generate an extra 5 arrivals and 19 departures during the AM peak hours 8-9am compared with existing use, and an additional 3 vehicle movements in the evening peaks hour 5-6pm. To support further safety enhancements for pedestrians, plans were in place to convert the existing informal pedestrian crossing across Watford Road, directly outside the site, into a Zebra Crossing and the inclusion of a speed table on the adopted service road to support walking and safety, secured through a financial contribution via a Section 106 agreement.

As there were no further questions from members and having established that all members had followed the discussions, the Chair asked members how they were minded to vote on the recommendations. The majority of Members on the Committee had indicated they were minded to refuse the application. However, officers considered that some of the cited reasons did not reflect departures from policy, whilst other reasons were unclearly set out. Members then voted to DEFER the consideration of the application to a future Committee meeting in order to enable a further report to be provided addressing the indicative reasons outlined as the basis for refusal, relating to affordable housing and viability, the height and design of the scheme in relation the surrounding area and whether the development of the site had been optimised as well as clarity on the balance of the schemes harm against its benefits.