Agenda item
22/3260 - 231 Watford Road, Harrow, HA1 3TU
Decision:
Granted planning permission subject to 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 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.
The Committee were reminded that the application to be considered had been deferred at the 9 August 2023 Planning Committee due to the Committee’s concerns in relation to affordable housing, scale of development, site optimisation and potential and potential planning benefits. David Glover, Development Management Manager advised that the application remained unchanged since it was last presented to the Committee, however the report now included additional comments from officers in response to the issues the Committee had cited as reasons for potential refusal and subsequent deferral. The Committee was reminded that following its previous deferral, Member’s would need to consider the application based on the report and representations they were presented with at the meeting in order to support any decision to refuse or approve the application.
James Mascall, 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 an additional point of objection regarding the tree report. Officers’ recommendation remained to approve the application subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report and the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement.
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 Ms 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 proposed development being out of character with the surroundings buildings.
· The site location was not within Brent’s Local Plan as a priority area for new housing.
· It was questioned how planners had responded to BH4 of the Local Plan that required greater weight to be given to the existing character of the area.
· The development was felt to be of limited benefit to Brent residents and the local community as it would not provide any affordable housing that would make any impact on current levels of demand for social housing within Brent.
· It was questioned why the development was not car free when it was felt the local area was served very well by local underground and overground train services.
· Concerns were raised that the approval of the development could set a precedent for decision making on future similar applications.
· In summarising her concerns Ms Mitchell- Murray urged the Committee to consider the position of Brent residents and recognise their strong objections to the application, by refusing planning permission.
The Chair thanked Ms Mitchell-Murray for making her representation, as there were no questions from the Committee at this stage, the Chair went on to invite the next speaker on the item, Keith Perrin, (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. Mr Perrin introduced himself and with the permission of the Chair advised that it would be Gaynor Lloyd speaking on his behalf to address the meeting on behalf of the Sudbury Court Residents Association with the following key points then highlighted:
· The 5 storey proposal was felt to be out of context against the existing 2 storey properties in the area and therefore a departure from policies BH4 and DMP1.
· It was felt that no weight had been given to the priorities stated in Local Plan Policy BH4 whereby greater weight would be placed upon the existing character of the area, access to public transport and a variety of social infrastructure, when determining the intensity of the development as appropriate.
· 33% of units were not compliant with BRE sunlight exposure assessments.
· 25% of units were not compliant with BRE illuminance testing.
· Any late stage review mechanism of affordable housing via the Section 106 agreement was felt to be futile given the change in economic conditions needed to support any increased viability. It was noted that the lack of viability was exacerbated by the high existing use value of the land due to the profitability of the existing business on site.
· The existing site was felt to be an important asset of social infrastructure, that supported meeting the needs of the culturally diverse population.
The Chair thanked Gaynor Lloyd and Keith Perrin for their representations and invited Committee Members to ask any further questions or points of clarity they had in relation to the information heard. The Committee queried how much impact the scale and massing of the scheme would have on neighbouring properties, given that there were some neighbouring 3 storey buildings and the 5 storey part of the proposed development would be in the centre of the site. In response Mr Perrin advised that there would be a significant impact on neighbouring properties as the surrounding buildings were only 2 storey and some were 2 storey with a dormer, however none were 3 storey properties. It was therefore felt that there would still be a significant impact caused by the excessive scale and massing of the scheme.
As there were no further questions, the Chair invited the next speaker on the item, Councillor Lorber (objector) as a local councillor to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. The following points were highlighted:
· Councillor Lorber highlighted concerns with the process of managing the deferral as he did not feel it was necessary to bring the original report in its entirety back to the Committee. His understanding of the Council’s policy was that in cases of deferral where the Committee had been minded to refuse the application pending further explanation of the cited reasons for deferral; it was only necessary for the Committee to be presented with a report that detailed the possible planning reasons for refusal and the evidence available to substantiate those reasons.
· Councillor Lorber proceeded to remind the Committee of the reasons which had originally been cited for potential refusal of the application and its and subsequent deferral as detailed within the Committee report in relation to the applicants failure to provide an appropriate level of affordable housing and the excessive scale of the proposed development in terms of massing and sight in relation to the suburban context of the site.
The Chair thanked Councillor Lorber for his comments and clarified that due process had been followed, with officers addressing the planning reasons originally cited for refusal within the report for the Committee to consider. Additionally, it was felt that it was important to include the whole report to provide context and information for Members who may have been absent at the previous meeting or were attending as an alternate Member.
The Chair moved the meeting on to invite the next speaker on the item, Councillor Bajwa (as local ward councillor) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application. The following points were highlighted:
· Councillor Bajwa had received many concerns from residents within his Ward who were in objection to the application, this was further evidenced by the 500 residents who signed a petition against the development.
· The scheme was felt to be out of character with the surrounding area.
· Although the site was not listed as a heritage site, it was in close proximity to the Sudbury Court Conservation Area.
· The scheme offered no affordable housing options, which was against London Plan targets to achieve 35% of affordable units.
· It was felt there would be very limited benefits to residents in the Northwick Park Ward.
· Concerns were raised in relation to the dangers that the construction traffic would cause in the building phase, this was of particular concern given that the area was not pedestrian friendly.
· It was felt that the existing car parking issues in the area would be further exacerbated by the development.
· It was felt that the applicant should offer further investment to support improvements to local amenity space.
· On the basis of the information shared, Councillor Bajwa urged the Committee to reject the application.
The Chair thanked Councillor Bajwa for his comments and asked if he felt there was any benefit resulting from the development. Councillor Bajwa advised that he felt the benefit was extremely limited, in his opinion, the scheme would not support residents in most need of housing and felt that any small benefits of the scheme would be outweighed by the harm it would cause.
As there were no further questions, the Chair invited the final speaker on the item, Davey Pareth (applicant) 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 the family had felt privileged to provide as a community asset to Brent, however with the economic challenges the business had faced post pandemic, the applicant had come to the decision that the site required a different use.
· It was felt that re-developing the site to provide much needed accommodation in Brent would be a positive way to use the site, providing opportunities for families, young people and the local economy.
· In light of the benefits the scheme would bring, Mr Pareth urged the Committee to approve the proposed application.
The Chair thanked Mr Pareth for addressing the Committee and invited the Committee to ask any questions or points of clarification they had. The Committee raised a query in relation to the viability of the scheme with the following response provided:
· In response to a query in relation to the variance between the viability figures identified by the Council’s viability consultants and the applicant’s, Kieran Rushe, agent for the application advised that although there were differences in the two figures calculated, they both demonstrated a deficit; resulting in no affordable housing available as part of the scheme.
· Following a query in relation to whether the reportedly expensive nature of the scheme was a factor in the lack of viability, the Committee was advised that the buildability costs were centralised costs, they were submitted as part of the financial viability assessment, with the consultants calculating the figures from the information received. The Committee was advised that if there were any further queries in relation to the viability of the scheme, officer may be better placed to offer a response.
As there were no further questions for Mr Pareth and his supporting team, the Chair invited the Committee to ask officers any remaining questions or points of clarity they had in relation to the application. The Committee raised queries in relation to viability, the wider benefits of the scheme and the Urban Greening Factor (UGF). The following responses were provided:
· Officers confirmed that although it was disappointing that the scheme could not offer any affordable housing, it had been thoroughly tested with viability consultants that assessed it would not be possible to provide affordable housing.
· Following a Committee query in relation to why the applicant would choose to go ahead with a scheme that was not expected to deliver a profit, the Committee was advised that it was not unusual for schemes to come in at a deficit against target profits and the economic landscape to subsequently change from the point of approval to completion; possibly offering an improved situation.
· Despite the absence of affordable housing at the planning stage, the Committee was reminded that via the Section 106 agreement a late stage mechanism would be in place to capture any possible uplift.
· In response to a Committee question regarding the likelihood of the scheme becoming viable at a later stage, the Committee was advised that the economic landscape would have to change significantly to allow the scheme to contribute towards affordable housing, a number of factors including interest rates, borrowing rates and construction costs would all be assessed within the review mechanism to ensure any increased viability opportunities were captured.
· Following a query in relation to the wider benefits of the scheme, the Committee heard that as well as the scheme providing 42 homes, with 1 in 4 being family sized homes, the application would include a financial contribution towards highway improvements and would also be subject to payment under the Community Infrastructure Levy.
· Following a question in relation to the UGF of the site, the Committee was advised that despite the removal of 13 trees to accommodate the development, a total of 29 new trees would be planted; resulting in a net gain of 16 trees. The scheme also included wide ranging amenity space including green roofing that would be secured via landscaping conditions. Improvements to the site achieved a UGF score of 0.46, which exceeded the requirements of policy BH4.
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 detailed in the Committee report; and the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report; and supplementary report.
(Voting on the above decision was as follows: For 5, Against 1 and Abstentions 1)
Supporting documents: