Agenda item
22/3965 - 1,2,3 & 9 Watkin Road, Wembley, HA9 0NL
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to the referral of the application to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed in the Committee report; and the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL
Demolition of existing buildings and construction of two new buildings to provide commercial floorspace (Use Class: E) and student accommodation bedspaces (Use Class: Sui Generis), associated access and highways works, amenity space, cycle parking spaces, disabled car parking spaces and refuse/recycling stores.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:
(1) The referral of the application to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed in the Committee report and that 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.
(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
Nicola Blake, Principal 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 to construct two new blocks of purpose-built student accommodation. The Southern site would contain a building with a maximum of 27 storeys in heights, dropping to 18 and 6 storeys in parts and a basement to deliver 419 students accommodation units. The northern site would contain a building that extended to 21 storeys in height, providing 200 student accommodation units. The site was located within the Wembley Growth Area within Brent’s Local Plan.
The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda that provided information in relation to the applicant’s submission of a revised drawing pack detailing amendments to the cycle parking, additional objections received, minor alterations to the Committee report and the correction of an error made in relation to the financial contribution to Transport for London (TfL).
The Chair thanked Nicola Blake for introducing the report, as there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker Alvaro Santos Alonso (objector) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application. Mr Santos introduced himself to the Committee as a local resident who would be living in the neighbouring block of accommodation to the proposed development before raising the following key points:
· Local residents in purchasing their homes in the neighbouring block were advised at the time that there was an already consented scheme but for a smaller development containing residential units of accommodation. The current application for a larger development of student accommodation was therefore of concern.
· Existing concerns remained in relation to anti-social behaviour in the area emanating from the current blocks of student accommodation. It was felt the addition of a further scheme exclusively for students would exacerbate the existing issues.
· Concerns were raised in relation to the close distance between the proposed scheme and existing residential buildings. At only 10 metres between the buildings, the Committee heard there was no such precedent for this in Wembley Park.
· The previous consented scheme heights were felt to have offered a healthier interaction between buildings. However, the new building heights were considered too overbearing by residents.
· Mr Santos queried the level of engagement that had taken place during the consultation period, as many residents felt this had been inadequate.
· In summarising his concerns on behalf of himself and residents, Mr Santos urged the Committee to reject the application for the reasons given and the precedent this would set.
The Chair thanked Mr Santos for making his representation and requested clarity as to why it was felt that students would exacerbate existing concerns regarding anti -social behaviour. Mr Santos advised that this had been based on current experience of anti-social behaviour witnessed by many local residents linked to the existing student population in the area.
The Chair went on to invite the next speaker on the item, Nick Lawrence, Tribe (applicant) to address the Committee (in person) supported by his online team of Paul Joslin and Robert Joyce (architects – Stantec), Duncan Palmer (Director of Student Accommodation – Tribe) and Alun Evans (Planning Consultant, ROK Planning). Mr Lawrence highlighted the following key points:
· The proposed development would see the construction of two slender buildings, a 21 storey building on the northern side of Watkin Rd and a part 27, stepping down to a part 6, and then up to a part 18 storey building on the southern side that officers agreed provided a sensible transition.
· The development would add to the mix of land uses in the area to deliver 619 student rooms with 35% of the rooms being offered as affordable student rooms at rents set by the Mayor of London. The lower levels of the building would be used to create 1,490sqm of light industrial floorspace, which exceeded the existing provision on site and also the 65% plot ratio in the London Plan that would create an uplift of a minimum of 32 full-time jobs.
· The scheme would see significant public realm improvements around the site including improvements to both Watkin Road and Fulton Road with the creation of 16 new trees.
· As a car-free development, the scheme would ease pressure on the surrounding roads.
· The student housing will be governed by a student management plan to ensure that existing residents would not be disturbed by student housing.
· The scheme would release 247 dwellings currently occupied by students back into the private rented sector as well as contributing the equivalent of 247 homes towards Brent Council’s housing targets as well as creating employment opportunities both during construction and across the longer-term operational life of the building.
· Further benefits of the scheme included a net gain in biodiversity in a net Zero carbon development, an uplift in jobs in the industrial space on the lower levels; a contribution of £200,500 towards off-site affordable workspace and a comprehensive transport solution that included the provision of 516 total cycle parking spaces.
· In summarising his comments Mr Lawrence urged the Committee to consider the wide ranging benefits of the scheme and on this basis approve the application.
The Chair thanked Mr Lawrence for making his representation to the Committee and invited Committee Members to ask any further questions or points of clarity they had in relation to the information heard. The Committee queried the demand for student accommodation, the use of commercial space, concerns in relation to anti-social behaviour (ASB), the close proximity of the proposed development to the existing accommodation and how this would impact upon overlooking and the quality of accommodation. The following responses were provided:
· The Committee was advised that Wembley’s prime location was desirable for student accommodation. With a recognised shortfall of student accommodation across London many universities were in need of additional allocated units and as such the applicant was confident that the development would be fully utilised.
· Following a Committee query in relation to how the commercial space in the proposed scheme would be utilised, the Committee was informed that the commercial space provided was an additional benefit to the scheme as there was no policy that specifically required this. Mr Lawrence advised that care would be taken in the commercial floor space as it would be let and managed by Tribe as the applicants. Although there were no confirmed plans as yet for the anticipated use of the commercial space, other units managed by Tribe had included fashion hubs, workshop studios and photography studios.
· In response to concerns raised regarding increased ASB behaviour from an increased student population, Mr Lawrence assured the Committee that there was a 24-hour concierge and management team in place, along with a carefully considered student management plan to manage any ASB and also support the wellbeing of students with a view to integrating them into the community.
· Following concerns in relation to possible overlooking from the proposed scheme, Mr Lawrence advise that the scheme had a 14m separation distance from the neighbouring properties minimising any concerns regarding overlooking and the majority of the windows were north and south facing, any windows on the west elevation would be obscured glazed.
· In response to a Committee query in relation to the quality of the accommodation, specifically in relation to whether any risk of rooms overheating could be mitigated by using a different quality of material, the Committee was advised that the rooms required passive ventilation which could be achieved by opening a window, there was no mechanical cooling required. The design of the building also prevented overheating, therefore this issue was not considered to be a concern.
As there were no further questions for Mr Lawrence and his team, the Chair thanked them for answering the Committee’s questions and offered Committee Members the opportunity to ask officers any remaining questions they had in relation to the application. The Committee had queries in relation to the need for student accommodation against the recognised urgent need for residential homes in Brent, the daylight/sunlight assessments and overshadowing, student affordable units, the design of the building to maximise student safety and the proximity of the development to the existing residential blocks. The following responses were provided:
· Following a Committee request for clarification in relation to the policy basis for student accommodation, particularly when weighed against the need for residential homes in Brent, the Committee was advised that the London Plan identified the need for 3500 bed spaces for students across London annually. Policy H15 promoted the use of purpose-built student accommodation in well-connected areas for mixed use development regeneration schemes. As the site also fell within the Wembley Growth Area, it was felt the relocation was appropriate and in line with policy to meet the needs of an increasing student population across London.
· Student accommodation also contributed towards overall housing targets, with student accommodation counting towards 2.5 equivalent of a conventional house, therefore the scheme’s provision of 619 student units equated to 247.6 new homes.
· The accommodation would be secured by condition for occupation by full time students for 39 weeks a year (term time) outside of term time the units would be available for short term lets, for example to assist with tourism in the Summer, supporting the wider culture and economy in Brent.
· The Committee queried the impact the proposed development would have on the daylight/sunlight and overlooking of neighbouring residential buildings. Officers acknowledged that there were some minor shortfalls to some neighbouring buildings, however given the high density urban context, it was felt the limited harm was outweighed by the schemes wider benefits. It was also noted that the overall effect to daylight and sunlight was considered to be consistent with the previously consented scheme.
· Officers clarified that the scheme was tenure blind, therefore students letting an affordable student unit would enjoy the same high quality accommodation as other students.
· Following a Committee query in relation to the consideration given to the design of the building to ensure access for students was safe during the day and night, offices confirmed that a student management plan would be conditioned to look at how communal spaces would be managed and monitored to ensure safety.
· The Committee queried how close the proposed scheme was to the existing neighbouring building, particularly as objectors raised concerns that they felt the proposed scheme would be too close. Offices advised that the building measured a distance of 14m from window to window. Although SPD1 guidance recommended 18 metres between direct facing habitable room windows, it was felt that given the context of the high density urban nature of the development and the use of obscured windows where necessary the distance was acceptable and would not cause harm.
As there were no further questions from members and having established that all members had followed the discissions, the Chair asked members to vote on the recommendations.
DECISION: Granted planning permission subject to the referral of the application to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed in the Committee report; and the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report.
(Voting on the item was unanimous)
Supporting documents:
- 5. 22-3965 Watkin Road Committee Report, item 5. PDF 956 KB
- 5.a 22-3965 WatkIn Road Supp, item 5. PDF 175 KB