Agenda item

Refused planning permission on the basis of overconcentration of such uses, contrary to Policy BE5 Paragraph D of Brent’s Local Plan.

PROPOSAL

Change of use from betting office to amusement centre (adult gaming centre) and alterations to shopfront at 5 Park Parade. Retention of (reduced size) betting office and alterations to the rear elevation comprising removal of louvre vent and installation of new door at 6 Park Parade.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as detailed in the report.

Damian Manhertz, Team Leader, South Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application sought a change of use from betting office to amusement centre (adult gaming centre) and alterations to shopfront at 5 Park Parade. Retention of (reduced size) betting office and alterations to the rear elevation comprising removal of louvre vent and installation of new door at 6 Park Parade. The existing site currently comprised of a vacant betting shop that sat within a three storey Victorian terrace with residential properties above. The site was located within secondary shopping frontage within Harlesden Town Centre, and the Harlesden Creative Cluster. The site was located in an Archaeological Priority Area, with a site of Archaeological Importance situated to the rear boundary. The site was within an air quality management area and the Harlesden and Willesden Junction Air Quality Focus Area. The site was not listed nor located within a conservation area.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary agenda that provided information in relation to how Policy BE5 had been applied in terms of ensuring there was not an overconcentration of betting shops/adult gaming centres within town centres with the Officers’ recommendation remaining to approve the application subject to the conditions and informatives as detailed in the report and an additional condition requiring formal Secured by Design accreditation prior to first occupation of the units.

The Chair thanked Damian Manhertz for introducing the report.  As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker Will Newton (objector) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application with the following key points highlighted:

·                Local residents were strongly opposed to the application.

·                Residents were making a conscious effort to take pride in the community and would welcome positive uses of the site; however, it was felt that the proposed use of an adult gaming centre and betting shop would have a negative community impact.

·                Concerns were raised that the proposed application was particularly exploitative of the most vulnerable members the community.

·                There were already adult gaming centres in close proximity, therefore it was questioned why another one was necessary.

·                Residents were concerned that the addition of a further adult gaming centre would exacerbate the existing anti-social behaviour (ASB) prevalent around Park Parade.

·                On the basis of the concerns raised, Mr Newton urged the Committee to reject the application.

The Vice Chair (in the Chair) thanked Mr Newton for addressing the Committee and asked Committee Members if they had any questions in relation to the information shared. The Committee queried how Mr Newton felt that the proposed application would impact upon ASB. In response Mr Newton advised that by the nature of the business use proposed, the area would see an increase in the negative ASB issues that were known to be prevalent in Harlesden. The police recognised that Harlesden was an ASB hot spot in the borough and had channelled more police resources to manage this. Concerns around ASB were echoed in the recommendations the police had made in the supplementary report; therefore, it was a high level concern for local residents.

The Chair then invited the next speaker, Anita Whittaker (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. Ms Whittaker introduced herself as a long standing Harlesden resident and community advocate. The following key points were highlighted:

·                Referring to her position as a community advocate and member of Harlesden Town Team, Ms Whittaker’s highlighted the progress made in Harlesden in recent years is seeking to enhance the area. It was felt that the proposed use of the currently vacant site would be in conflict with the recent gains made in the area.

·                It was felt that with two adult gaming centres in close proximity, the addition of a further adult gaming centre was unnecessary.

·                The proposed location of the application was close to several schools and a homeless support establishment; therefore, it was felt the nature of the scheme was completely inappropriate in relation to the surrounding area.

·                Given that Harlesden remained an area with a high concentration of deprivation, it was felt that the development would prey upon the most vulnerable members of society.

·                It was felt that the applicants’ proposal to split the premises into a betting shop and adult gaming centre was an attempt to circumvent regulations.

·                It was felt there was limited community benefit, and the potential harm of the proposed development would outweigh any of the schemes suggested benefits.

The Vice-Chair (in the Chair) thanked Ms Whittaker for her representation and asked Ms Whittaker for her views on the Planning Inspectorate’s comments that they were not convinced that the proposal would have a harmful effect on crime, disorder and ASB in the surrounding area. In response Ms Whittaker advised that she was of the view that if approved, the scheme would undoubtedly have a negative impact upon ASB in the area, a feeling that was shared with the Safer Neighbourhood Team who agreed that the proposal would have a negative impact.

As there were no further questions at this point, the Chair moved on to invite the next speaker Councillor Mili Patel to address the Committee (in person) in her capacity as one of the Ward Councillors for Harlesden & Kensal Green. The following key points were highlighted:

·                There was strong local objection from residents and Ward Councillors to the proposed application.

·                It was highlighted that the application had previously been rejected then appealed by the applicant (which was dismissed) as the Inspector agreed that the proposed development would result in an exceedance of 3% of the frontages in use as adult gaming centres or pay day loan shops; resulting in an over concentration of those type of uses within the frontage.

·                There was concern that the applicant was attempting to exploit the ambiguity of policy BE5 in relation to overconcentration; by their proposal to split the premises in two to provide a betting shop and adult gaming centre as two separate units. It was felt this was in conflict with the spirit of the Local Plan.

·                The Planning Inspector had agreed that the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties with regards to noise and disturbance.

·                Harlesden was recognised as having the 2^nd highest amount of betting shop floorspace out of 148 district centres in London, this resulted in the Harlesden neighbourhood supporting a policy of clusters to prevent overconcentration. It was felt that the proposed application would go against this policy.

·                It was felt that the scheme offered very little in benefits to residents and that the unit could be put to better use to provide family friendly commercial units that would offer more employment opportunities as well as a community benefit, without the associated harm that a betting shop/adult gaming centre would invite.

·                The Council’s principles in relation to gambling stated that it was necessary to promote protecting children and vulnerable adults from being exploited and harmed by gambling, given the applications location being in close proximity to schools and a homeless unit, it was felt to be highly inappropriate and against the Council’s principles to approve the application.

·                In concluding her comments, Councillor Mili Patel urged the Committee to maintain high aspirations for Harlesden and reject the application on the basis that there were no community benefits, the proposed application went against the Local Plan, the principles of the Harlesden Neighbourhood Plan and the recommendations of the Brent Poverty Commission.

The Vice-Chair (in the Chair) thanked Councillor Mili Patel for sharing her concerns with the Committee and invited the next speaker Councillor Chan to address the Committee (in person) also in his capacity as one of the Ward Councillors for Harlesden & Kensal Green The following key points were highlighted:

·                Harlesden resident and Ward Councillors were proud of the gains made in Harlesden and wanted to ensure the Ward remained on a positive trajectory.

·                It was echoed that the Brent Poverty Commission recognised that ¼ of Harlesden lived below the poverty line, in particular light of this, it was felt that another betting shop/adult gaming centre in Harlesden was not a good use of a commercial unit for the community as it exploited the most vulnerable members of society.

·                Park Parade was recognised by the police as an ASB hot spot, having had a number of closure orders in relation to drug dealing. It was strongly felt that the addition of the proposed application would only exacerbate existing issues and put significant strain on the local police neighbourhood team.

·                The comments submitted by Inspector from  the Harlesden local neighbourhood police team highlighting the Metropolitan Police’s concerns and objections in relation to the application which had been detailed in the accompanying supplementary agenda report.

·                On the basis of the concerns shared in relation to the impact on residents, the exploitation of vulnerable residents and the lack of benefits to the area, Councillor Chan urged the Committee to reject the application to allow a more appropriate use of the unit that would benefit the community.

Following Councillor Mili Patel and Councillor Chan addressing the Committee, the Vice-Chair (in the Chair) invited Committee Members to ask any questions or points of clarity they had in relation to the information heard. The Committee raised questions regarding how the proposed application, if approved would impact ASB and the local community. The following responses were provided by Councillors Mili Patel and Chan:

·                In response to a query regarding the anticipated negative impacts that the proposed application could have on the community, the Committee was advised that when the previous betting shop on site became vacant, the local police neighbourhood team noted a marked decline in ASB in the immediate vicinity, this allowed them to spread their policing resources more widely to manage other issues. The police were concerned when they were informed of the latest planning application as they knew there was a high probability that they would have to increase their resources again, to the detriment of the wider borough policing.

·                Following a Committee query in relation to the area of Park Parade as an ASB hot spot, the Committee heard that the police had cited evidence in relation to their concerns on this as detailed within the supplementary report.

·                Councillor Chan had recently attended a Local Safer Neighbourhood Panel where the Inspector shared the locations of ASB hot spots in the area; Park Parade featured as one of the locations of ASB, this was further evidenced by the high number of closure orders on Park Parade.

·                It was a concern for Councillors and the police that already limited police resources would potentially be stretched further if the application was approved.

As there were no further speakers or questions raised, the Vice-Chair (in the Char) thanked all those who had participated for addressing the Committee, ahead of offering Committee Members the opportunity to ask officers any remaining questions or points of clarity they had in relation to the proposed application. The Committee raised questions in relation to overconcentration, the application’s policy compliance, community safety and ASB with the following responses were provided:

·                Following a Committee query in relation to whether the proposed applications policy was in breach of Local Plan Policy BE5 relating to the minimum number of units between each use, Members were advised that paragraph d of the policy was open to interpretation as detailed in the supplementary report. Officers acknowledged that both betting shops and adult gaming centres involved gambling, but in interpreting the policy the classification of uses within planning terms were seen to be different with the application therefore being regarded as policy compliant.

·                The Committee queried if efforts had been made to try and let the unit for other uses. In response Members were advised that the role of the planning officers was to assess whether the application before them was suitable, they were not in the position to suggest that the applicant used the site in any particular way.

·                It was clarified that the unit would be split down the middle to provide both the adult gaming centre and betting shop.

·                Following a Committee query in relation to the proposed establishment’s opening hours, it was clarified that further conditions could not be placed on future opening hours with any change in operating times having to be applied for separately.

·                It was clarified that the applicant was the same owner as the other two local adult gaming centres.

·                In response to a Committee query in relation to the benefits the scheme would provide, officers recognised that there were limited benefits, however it was noted that it was seen as a positive that the unit would be occupied rather than vacant. It was understood that betting shops and adult gaming centres were often seen as a negative use of commercial space, however national planning legislation recognised them as legitimate uses in their own right. Using the framework of the Development Plan and the information from the Planning Inspectorate, it was felt that the application was policy compliant and on this basis had received officer recommendation for approval.

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

That planning permission be refused on the basis of overconcentration of such uses, contrary to Policy BE5 Paragraph D of Brent’s Local Plan.

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: For 4 and Against 3)

At this stage in proceedings, Councillor Kelcher returned to chair the remainder of the meeting.