Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report.

PROPOSAL

 

Demolition of Former Kilburn Square Clinic, 13-15 Brondesbury Road, substation, footbridge and garages and redevelopment of site to provide extra care flats (Use Class C3b) and general needs flats (Use Class C3)) in 4 buildings alongside access routes, car parking, motorcycle parking, cycle parking, refuse and recycling storage, amenity space, landscaping, playspace, boundary treatments, alterations to the entrance to Varley House, refurbishment of the existing podium parking area and other associated works.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

 

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

 

(2)      The Head of Planning being 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.

 

Curtis Thompson, Planning Officer, South Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application would see the re-development of the site to provide 139 units within four blocks ranging between 5 and 8 storeys in height. The development would also see a range of associated works including access routes, car and motorcycle parking, cycle parking, refuse storage areas, amenity spaces, landscaping and boundary treatments.

 

It was clarified that where report paragraph 130 had referred to the volume of communal amenity space, the figure provided was actually in relation to the provision of play space, not the total amenity space.

 

The Chair thanked Curtis Thompson for introducing the report.  As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speakers Margaret Von Stoll (objector) and Zahia Allawa (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application, as Ms Von Stoll and Ms Allawa had indicated that they were sharing the allocated time slot, the Chair agreed for them to address the Committee consecutively with Ms Von Stoll speaking for 2 minutes and Ms Allawa speaking for 1 minute. Ms Von Stoll introduced herself as a member of the Kilburn Village Residents Association (KVRA) before she proceeded to highlight the following key points:

 

·                There had been significant dialogue between the KVRA and the applicant’s team in an attempt to compromise on a scheme acceptable to existing local residents.  Despite these attempts, however, it was felt that the scheme presented to the Committee represented overdevelopment and lacked community support.

·                It was felt that a smaller scheme that comprised of Blocks A and B would be acceptable as it would still support the provision of new homes in Brent without the need to remove trees and green space.

·                Concerns were raised that the construction of blocks C and E would see the removal of amenity space, which would put further pressure on existing and future residents in accessing adequate amenity space, which was vital to emotional and physical health and wellbeing.

·                It was felt that the consultation and pre-engagement process had been inadequate.

·                In summarising the points raised and in light of the lack of community support, Ms Von Stoll urged the Committee to reject the application.

 

Ms Allawa then addressed the Committee, with the following key points highlighted:

 

·                Concerns were expressed that Block E would significantly affect the daylight to residents in Sandwood Court, where Ms Allawa and her family resided.

·                Ms Allawa shared concerns that the lack of natural daylight impacted by the proposed Block E would have a detrimental effect on the health, wellbeing and living conditions of Sandwood Court residents.

·                Residents were unhappy with the proposed scheme in its current format.

·                On the basis of the concerns shared, Ms Allawa supported the calls made for the Committee to reject the application.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Von Stoll and Ms Allawa for addressing the Committee and invited the Committee to ask any questions they had in relation to the representations made.  In response, the Committee sought further clarity on how many residents were being represented by the speakers and the concerns raised in relation to the loss of light with the following response provided:

 

·                It was clarified that the speakers were representing the views of the local residents opposed to the scheme, this included the KVRA and the residents of surrounding streets that had expressed their objections via a number of petitions submitted.

·                Ms Allawa confirmed, as a resident of Sandwood Court herself, that the building had existing issues with limited natural light, therefore it was felt that this would be exacerbated by the construction of Block E which would create additional overshadowing.

 

The Chair then invited the next speaker, Keith Anderson (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. Mr Anderson introduced himself as the Chair of the KVRA, before he proceeded to highlight the following key points:

 

·                It was felt that the shortfall in daylight to existing residents as a result of the construction of Block E was unacceptable, this was echoed by 14 of the 24 Sandwood households who had signed a petition submitted to the Council against the development.

·                The scheme was felt to be in breach of Brent’s Climate Strategy by removing green and mature trees.

·                The loss of green space would be particularly detrimental, as Kilburn was recognised to have the greatest green space deprivation in Brent.

·                The scheme did not meet Urban Greening Factor (UGF) minimum standards.

·                It was felt there were a number of policies that had either been breached or lacked adequate evidence to demonstrate compliance, including overshadowing, on-street parking, community services notably GPs, clashes of architectural styles and harm to the Kilburn Conservation Area.

·                Concerns were raised in relation to the existing high population density in Kilburn and limited amenity space, both of which would be intensified by the proposed scheme.

·                Block C was highlighted as a major concern, given the number of additional households which would significantly impact the density problem as well as transforming the open aspect currently enjoyed by neighbours opposite in Victoria Road.

·                It was felt that more consideration should be given to the lack of community support the scheme had received.

·                Blocks C and E were collectively the biggest concerns, a scheme that comprised of only Blocks A and B was felt to be more acceptable.

·                The “Green Lung” concept was a key community asset; supporting residents health and wellbeing.

·         In summarising the concerns raised, Mr Anderson also urged the Committee to reject the application.

 

Following Mr Anderson’s comments, the Committee required clarity in relation to the concerns raised regarding the conservation area and what objectors felt would be an acceptable scheme. The following responses were provided:

 

·                The Committee was advised that the harm was felt to be in the inconsistency between the architectural styles and character as well setting of the Conservation Area. 

·                A smaller scheme with only Blocks A and B was felt to be less harmful to the existing estate and therefore more acceptable to existing residents.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Anderson for addressing the Committee and proceeded to invite the next speaker on the item, Councillor Georgiou (objector) as a local councillor to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application.

 

The following points were highlighted:

 

·                Councillor Georgiou supported local views that the scheme proposed did not meet the needs of residents.

·                It was felt that in respect of the high level of housing demand in Brent, particularly for genuinely affordable housing, the proposed scheme would do little to provide enough of the type of housing that was needed in Brent.

·                The New Accommodation for Independent Living (NAIL) units were unlikely to impact on a reduction on the housing waiting list.

·                It was felt the London Affordable Rent (LAR) units were not in reality affordable for many residents and were costed significantly higher than social rent levels.

·                Should partial sale also be required to ensure viability of the scheme, concerns were raised that this could lead to tenure types that were entirely unaffordable and therefore put the stated aims of providing 100% affordable housing in jeopardy.

·                If the scheme were approved, it was felt a planning condition should be added to ensure that 100% affordability was achieved with a split of 70% social rent and 30% other.

·                It was felt the current condition in place that proposed 50% affordability was unacceptable.

·                Should it be required, it was recommended that any future tenure switches be referred back to the planning committee as these would radically change the scheme being delivered, with the argument that the benefits of the scheme outweighing the harm would no longer apply.

·                On the basis of the concerns raised, Councillor Georgiou urged the Committee to reject the application as it stood and proposed that the applicant engaged comprehensively with the community to offer a more palatable compromise scheme that delivered 100% affordable housing or a smaller scheme that would deliver a different tenure mix with less harm to existing Kilburn Square residents.

 

Following Councillor Georgiou’s comments, the Chair required clarity as to whether it was his preference that the scheme offered greater affordability or was re-designed to offer a smaller scheme. In response Councillor Georgiou advised that a smaller scheme that was more acceptable to existing residents with genuinely affordable homes would be ideal, however it was re-iterated that if the scheme being presented to the Committee was guaranteed at 100% affordable, it would be difficult for anyone to challenge the extensive benefits that would provide.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Georgiou for addressing the Committee and proceeded to invite Councillor Molloy (Ward Councillor) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application.

 

The following key points were highlighted:

 

·                Councillor Molloy advised that he was speaking on behalf of both himself and Councillor Conneely as local Kilburn ward councillors.

·                In acknowledgement of the housing need in Brent and the socio-economic status of many residents across the borough, the LAR units were felt to be a welcome addition to the regeneration in Kilburn and the provision of more homes in Brent.

·                Further positives of the scheme included the family sized homes and the NAIL units, which were a preferable alternative to residential care for vulnerable residents.

·                It was acknowledged that there had been some resistance to the proposed scheme, mainly from owner- occupiers in the surrounding streets. However, it was felt the main basis of these objections in terms of overcrowding and population density should not be given further weight, particularly in light of the housing demand in Brent and London’s density as a whole compared with other big cities.

·                The attempts made to reduce the overall scale of the scheme since the plans were first submitted.

·                Kilburn councillors wanted to support a scheme that would meet the needs of the community and therefore urged the Committee, subject to viability, to condition the maximum amount of affordable housing that was possible.

 

Following Councillor Molloy’s comments, the Chair asked the Committee if they had any questions in relation to the information heard, the Committee proceeded to query if Councillor Molloy felt the existing green space was underutilised and his response to the residents who may lose natural light to their homes if the scheme was approved.  The following responses were shared with the Committee:

 

·                Councillor Molloy advised that the green space was not actively in use by the community and had been condemned by the Kilburn Square Co-Operative. Therefore, it was not felt to be a loss to existing residents as it was unfit for purpose.

·                Following the concerns raised in relation to residents potentially losing natural light, Councillor Molloy highlighted the extensive benefits of the scheme and felt that the benefits of the scheme would outweigh any minimal harm.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Molloy for addressing the Committee and answering their questions and proceeded to invite the final speaker on the item Stefanie Dodson (agent) to address the Committee (in person) supported by a team of in person and online specialist colleagues on hand to answer any specific questions the Committee had.

 

The following key points were highlighted:

 

·                The proposal for the Kilburn Square Estate was the result of extensive resident and public engagement since 2020. The engagement programme ensured that as many stakeholders as possible were aware of, understood and provided input into the proposals throughout. This has included meetings with the Kilburn Square Estate Tenant Management Organisation, the creation of a Residents Panel, newsletters, regular estate drop-in sessions, door-knocking, exhibitions, virtual meetings, a website and the creation of a fly-through. Briefings also took place with local ward Councillors.

·                All 99 general needs homes would be London Affordable Rent and all 40 extra care homes would be capped at Local Housing Allowance. Therefore, providing 100% affordable housing.

·                The policy significantly exceeded policy requirements with the provision of 27% family-sized housing. All units met or exceeded the relevant space standards and all units in the extra care block met the HAPPI design regulations.

·                The scheme would see the use of high quality materials that responded to the existing estate architecture.

·                The proposal had been designed to protect the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties.

·                A specialist daylight and sunlight report had been submitted in support of the application, with the results considered acceptable.

·                86 car parking spaces would be retained on site catering for existing residents 22% of which would be accessible spaces. The new homes would be car-free and future occupiers would not be eligible for parking permits within the CPZ.

·                All the proposed general needs housing units would have access to their own private amenity space in the form of balconies or ground floor terraces which would meet the London Plan’s minimum standard.

·                The proposal included 4,608 sqm of communal amenity space which included play space provision. The new play space would provide a considerable uplift in terms of quality and accessibility.

·                The proposal included a detailed landscaping strategy for the site which was supported by the Council’s Tree Officer. The landscape strategy would see a net increase of trees, with a total of 56 new trees being planted.

·                A Fire Statement had been submitted which addressed all of the points raised by the Health and Safety Executive and accorded with London Plan policy.

·                The proposed infill development to provide 139 new homes was supported by planning policy.

·                In closing her comments Ms Dodson urged the Committee to support the officer’s recommendation for approval and application for much needed affordable homes in Brent.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Dodson for addressing the Committee and invited the Committee to ask any questions or points of clarification they had in relation to the information heard. The Committee raised queries in relation to overlooking and daylight/sunlight, specifically in relation to Sandwood Court with the following responses provided from Ms Dodson and Ian Thody (Daylight/Sunlight Consultant, who was present as an online participant).

 

·                The Committee was assured that Block E would be built to the North of Sandwood Court and as such there would be no overshadowing present.

·                As there were no affected windows in Sandwood Court within 90 degrees of due south of the proposed development a daylight/sunlight assessment was not deemed necessary as there would be no significant impact on Sandwood Court.

 

The Chair thanked Ms Dodson and her team for addressing the Committee and responding to the query raised. As there were no further questions for the agent the Chair invited the Committee to ask officers any further question or points of clarity they had in relation to the application. The Committee raised queries in relation to affordable housing, daylight/sunlight assessments, car parking, urban greening factor and consultation with the following responses provided:

 

·                Following a Committee query in relation to why the application stated the scheme would provide 100% affordable housing when the condition only required 50%, the Committee was advised that London Plan policy which was also reflected in local planning policies required 50% affordable housing if a scheme was on publicly owned land.  As such, 50% was the amount that could be required in a planning decision.  Brent Council as the applicant were committed to delivering a 100% affordable scheme, the condition of 50% was not a reflection of the Council’s intent, however, was simply the standard wording used in an application for a development on public land.

·                If the Committee felt the degree of harm from the development required a greater level of benefit, it was at the Committee’s discretion to require a condition of 100% affordable housing in order to outweigh any perceived harm.

·                It was highlighted that the Council (as the applicant) were committed to this being a 100% affordable scheme and were unlikely to renege on that commitment, therefore the Committee did not feel it was necessary to request 100% affordable housing by condition.

·                In response to the concerns raised in relation to the daylight/sunlight impacts, with particular reference to Sandwood Court, the Committee was advised that there were no daylight impacts. There would be some impact in terms of sunlight, however it was felt that within the context of the urban environment any minimal shortfalls were acceptable.

·                It was clarified that the underground car park would be utilised once work to make the space safe and functional had been undertaken, this would be managed by the Building Regulations team.

·                18 Electric Vehicle charging points would be provided, along with disabled wide bays in line with policy.

·                The scheme would achieve an urban greening factor (UGF) of 0.34, which was recognised as a shortfall of the minimum required score of 0.4. This was balanced with the proposal also providing new communal amenity areas for blocks A and B, whilst improving the communal amenity space across the site. Given the high density and the wider benefits of the scheme, the shortfall in UGF was felt to be justified.

·                The Committee was advised that thorough consultation had been undertaken as detailed in the Committee report and in line with policy.

 

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 conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report.

 

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: For 7 and Against 1)