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 set out in the Committee report and supplementary report.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing building and erection of a 23 storey building to provide 139 units (Use Class C3) and 801sqm of creative light industrial floor space (Use Class E(g)(iii)) together with associated wheelchair accessible vehicle parking, cycle parking, landscaping, play areas, public realm improvements and associated works (Departure from Policy E4 of the London Plan and BE2 of Brent’s Local Plan).

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 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.

Sean Newton, 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 the demolition of the existing building to construct a 23 storey building to provide 139 self-contained residential units and 801 square metres of creative light industrial floorspace, together with wheelchairs accessible parking, cycle parking landscaping, play areas and public realm improvements. The development would be car free with the exception of the blue badge /wheelchair accessible parking. The site fell within the Alperton growth Area and the Alperton Tall Building Zone. The site was not located within a Conservation Area.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda that provided some minor alterations to the Committee report in relation to the age group the onsite play space catered for and the floor to ceiling height of the commercial units.

It was also clarified that there had been an error made in the Committee report in relation the applicant’s financial contribution to a CPZ, the Committee was advised that the correct figure was £35k.

The Chair thanked Sean Newton for introducing the report, as there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker, Councillor Georgiou (as local ward councillor) to address the Committee (in person) in objection to the application. The following key points were highlighted:

·                Residents were concerned with what they felt was overdevelopment of the Alperton area.

·                Residents had reported that they had seen limited public benefits from the new schemes and had been negatively impacted by the increasing number of high density developments which they felt caused issues with increased traffic congestion, pressures parking and underfunded support for local infrastructure improvements.

·                Councillor Georgiou acknowledged the need for local housing, however felt that it had to be the right housing to benefit existing and future residents.

·                It was felt that the scheme failed to provide genuinely affordable housing, although there was an element of shared ownership units, it had previously been recognised that the shared ownership model was not genuinely affordable.

·                The site location was felt to be inappropriate due to its close proximity to the highly polluted North Circular Road and its distance from local amenities, including open green space. The lack of amenities would particularly be an issue for any residents with additional mobility requirements.

·                The site’s close proximity to both the River Brent and the Grand Union Canal as well as sitting within a Flood Zone was a cause for concern.

·                In summarising the concerns Councillor Georgiou urged the Committee to listen to residents and reject the application on the basis of the objections raised.

The Chair thanked Councillor Georgiou for making his representation on behalf of Alperton residents and proceeded to invite Jaghan Vihra (applicant) and Mia Scaggiante (planning consultant) both in person to address the Committee in relation to the application. Mr Vihra and Ms Scaggiante had agreed to share their allocated time to speak and were also joined by their architect, Mr Nick Francis (online). Mr Vihra shared the following key points:

·                It was his vision to improve the use of site to support regeneration in Brent to deliver benefits to the local community.

·                The re-development of Prospect House would complement the forthcoming Northfield Masterplan to provide more than 3000 new homes.

·                Despite the sites close proximity to the North Circular Road, Mr Vihra felt there were many positive local attributes to the site that included the Grand Union Canal, the nature reserve and the River Brent.

·                Extensive work had been undertaken to revise the original plans to ensure the development would be the best fit for the local area.

Ms Scaggiante then addressed the Committee to share the following points:

·                The applicants planning team had worked closely with officers to develop the proposals to create a mutually agreeable policy compliant application.

·                The design team had positively responded to the impacts of the North Circular to mitigate any negative impacts by orientating all windows, living spaces and external amenity spaces away from the road and towards the canal or to long-distance views.

·                The high quality landscaped buffer between the building and the road, together with other greening and biodiversity throughout the site resulted in an Urban Greening Factor of 0.73, beyond the 0.4 requirement and a Biodiversity Net Gain of 100%.

·                The scheme would provide sheltered amenity and play areas at the rear, facing the River Brent and high performance glazing and building fabric to mitigate noise.

·                Further benefits of the scheme included 139 new homes, with 35% of these recognised as affordable and 72% at London Affordable Rent, including 15 family sized homes.

·                Affordable creative workspace would be included with an estimated 10 new jobs, further jobs would be created through the construction phase.

·                 A permissive route (open to the public) would be created through the site, enabling future connections to the canal and Northfields.

·                The energy efficient building would complement the Northfields Masterplan and improve flood capacity and river enhancements.

·                In closing her comments Ms Scaggiante encouraged the Committee to consider how the scheme aimed to optimise the site area by transforming the site to a vibrant and active place to live and work and on this basis felt the application should be approved.

The Chair thanked Mr Vihra and Ms Scaggiante for addressing the Committee and offered members the opportunity to ask any clarifying questions they had. The Committee raised questions in relation to the Police response to the application and flooding. The following responses were provided:

·                Mr Vihra and Ms Scaggiante confirmed that the Police recommendation that the development should be secured by designed was accepted as an additional condition that would be enacted.

·                In response to the Committee request for clarification on the impact of the proposed development on flood risk, the Committee was advised that as the site fell with Flood Zone 3a, the applicant had followed due process and submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The Environment Agency supported the application subject to various conditions and mitigations being put in place that included the design of the building, residential units starting from the 3^rd floor upwards, and the building being set back from the River Brent.

As there were no further questions, the Chair proceeded to invite the Committee to ask officers any remaining questions or points of clarity they had. Members had further queries in relation to air quality, the noise impact assessment, amenity space, and flood risk. The following responses were provided:

·                The Committee was advised that the site was located within an Air Quality Management Area and given the sites close proximity to the North Circular Road, air quality had been addressed as a key issue. The Committee noted that the concentration of emissions would be at its highest at the ground floor level, therefore, to mitigate this residential units would be built from the 3^rd floor up and balconies and designated communal play space areas would not face the North Circular. The design measures in place were felt to adequately mitigate the risks of unduly exposing residents to pollutants. The scheme was considered to be air quality neutral and therefore acceptable.

·                Following a Committee query in relation to the impact of noise on residents, officers recognised that the most likely source of noise nuisance would be from vehicular traffic from the North Circular, however various mitigations would be in place to limit excessive noise including the stepped footprint of the building, double glazing and mechanical ventilation. It was also recognised that noise would reduce as you moved through the levels of the building. It was considered acceptable that through the mitigation measures proposed the development would not result in unacceptable noise levels to future occupiers.

·                In response to the Committee’s comments in relation to amenity space, specifically for older children for whom designated play space had not been included within the proposed development, the Committee was advised that the forthcoming redevelopment of the neighbouring Northfield Site would provide additional amenity space, the applicant would be making a financial contribution to support the construction of a permissive path that would provide a safe access route between the Prospect House site and the Northfields Site. Additionally, in line with policy BH13 the scheme provided amenity space through private balconies and communal areas.

·                The Committee required clarity in relation to the site’s flood risk, in response officers advised that given the sites close proximity to the River Brent and the Grand Union Canal, protection of and access to the River Brent as well as flood mitigations were key considerations of the proposed development. Mitigations included reducing the footprint of the building, raising floor levels, locating the residential elements of the building to the 3^rd floor and above and the creation of a Flood Warning & Evacuation Plan.

·                To further support flood mitigation and in line with London Plan policy SI13 and Local Plan Policy BSUI4 that required developments to utilise Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), the proposed scheme included a SUDS strategy to retain and re-use as much rainfall prior to discharge in to the public sewer, as well as the addition of blue and green roofing to slow discharge rates. The planned mitigations would provide a betterment to the current situation by reducing impermeable surfacing by 26%.

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 set out in the Committee report and supplementary report.

(Voting on the recommendation was unanimous)