Agenda item

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

PROPOSAL

Demolition of one bungalow and various infill developments to deliver 21 residential units (Use Class C3) consisting of five separate developments of two terraces and three flatted blocks, with associated car parking, cycle storage, and enhancements to the Estate’s amenity space.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

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

(2)      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.

(3)      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.

Neil Quinn, Principal Planning Officer, South Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the existing site comprised of a large residential estate, providing a mix of 2 and 3 storey flatted blocks, bungalows and maisonettes. The estate was not in a conservation area nor was it listed or in close proximity to a listed building. The proposed application sought the demolition of one bungalow to provide a net increase of 20 homes.

The Chair thanked Neil Quinn for introducing the report, as there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker Ms Deborah Eppel (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application.

The following key points were highlighted:

·                Concerns were raised that the application failed to comply with national and local planning guidelines, including policy SPD1 and a breach of the 18m minimum separation distance, whereby some new properties would only be 14m away. It was felt this would create overlooking and was in conflict with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which states that a person had the right to respect for their private and family lives.

·                The application breached BRE targets in the case of 50 Milverton Road and 12 flats in Clement Close.

·                The Committee report stated that the rooms impacted were 10 sqm kitchens and therefore were too small to be considered habitable. This was felt to be inaccurate as many of the 10 sqm kitchens doubled up as dining rooms.

·                The scheme was not policy compliant in terms of affordable housing provision.

·                Concerns were raised that the calculations used in the application were inaccurate, notably: the Urban Greening Factor (UGF) calculation, which was believed to be lower than calculated and as such did not meet the minimum required threshold and constituted a further breach in policy.

·                The size of the play area was based on the projected occupancy of the new dwellings, however as many children already living on the estate were not included in the profiling the proposed area was more than 55% below the requirements set in London Plan Policy S4.

·                The parking calculation had made no provision for the staff and visitors of 1 Clement Close.

·                Further concerns were raised in relation to poor public transport accessibility, high flood risk, and the removal of 14 mature trees at a time of a recognised climate emergency.

·                On the basis of what were felt to be a number of inaccuracies in the Committee report and policy breaches throughout the application, Ms Eppel urged the Committee to reject the application.

·                 

The Chair thanked Ms Eppel for addressing the Committee, as there were no questions from the Committee at this stage, the Chair went on to invite the next speaker on the item, Ms Belinda Siggers, (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. Ms Siggers introduced herself as a long term resident of Clement Close who would be speaking on behalf of fellow residents in Clement Close, particularly those living with disabilities and vulnerabilities.

The following key points were highlighted:

·                It was felt that the application failed to acknowledge and recognise the additional needs of the Clement Close community, particularly the 12 disabled residents at 1 Clement Close, and the presence of discriminatory elements within the proposal.

·                The proposed 2 metre pavement on the Eastern side posed a serious safety hazard for residents who relied on sighted guides and wheelchairs.

·                Concerns were raised in relation to the potential impact on the mental health of residents as a result of the loss of green spaces.

·                In terms of environmental impact, there was concerns that the loss of canopy coverage in Clement Close would undoubtedly lead to a deterioration of air quality. This was felt to go against Policy SI1 of the London Plan on "Improving Air Quality" and the government's "Clean Air Strategy 2019.

·                Residents were supportive of the Council’s efforts to address housing deficiencies, however this particular application was not felt to have been appropriately considered particularly with regard to the unique needs of existing disabled and vulnerable residents.

·                On the basis of the concerns shared, Ms Siggers also urged the Committee to reject the application.

The Chair thanked Ms Siggers for addressing the Committee, as there were no questions from the Committee at this stage, the Chair invited the next speaker on the item, Mr Ollie Cooper (agent) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application.

The following points were highlighted:

·                The application was part of Brent’s New Council Homes Programme, which sought to address the level of housing demand and the number of residents living within temporary accommodation in the Borough by building new homes within Council owned sites, that met the needs of Brent’s residents.

·                The proposal would complement the character of the area through the provision of 21 high-quality homes – all for London Affordable Rent. 7 of these homes (33%) were family sized, which exceeded the policy requirement.

·                The Applicant had engaged in extensive discussions with officers in evolving the proposals, with all dwellings designed to meet and exceed key housing design standards, being dual-aspect whilst meeting M4(2) compliance in the majority of instances to ensure inclusivity for all. Private amenity space was also provided for all units with a mix of balconies, patios and planting, with any shortfall of provision considered as negligible by officers.

·                The proposals resulted in the modest loss (approximately 7%) of the Estate’s open space, albeit substantial enhancements were proposed to the retained open space, these included two large areas of landscaped play space for use for existing and future residents. 

·                There would be a net increase in the number of trees on site.

·                The proposals delivered a policy compliant Urban Greening Factor score of 0.407.

·                The scheme had been carefully designed to respect the amenity of neighbours. For example, the windows had been designed so that the new homes could not see into the gardens or windows of the neighbouring properties. The size of the proposed buildings replicated what was currently on site and had been supported by the Planning and Urban Design Officers.

·                The applicant had submitted a Daylight and Sunlight assessment in support of the application, which confirmed that the proposals were compliant with the professional guidance in terms of impacts on the daylight and sunlight levels received by the surrounding properties.

·                The Highways Officer had confirmed that the provision of 88 parking spaces across the development was acceptable, considering census data and survey evidence.

·                Cycle parking was provided for all the units in line with London Plan standards, promoting sustainable travel.

·                The proposal was considered to align with the Development Plan as a whole – particularly according with the overarching objective of delivering new and affordable family homes within existing residential locations.

·                On the basis of the benefits of the scheme Mr Cooper urged the Committee to approve the application in line with the officer recommendation.

The Chair thanked Mr Cooper for addressing the Committee and asked officers if they had any questions or points of clarification in relation to the information heard. The Committee raised queries in relation to accessibility and tree removal, with the following responses provided:

·                Following a Committee query in relation to what steps had been taken to make the new units accessible and if there were any potential impacts on accessibility for existing residents, the Committee was advised that the development would meet the majority of M42 Accessibility Building Regulations.

·                In terms of policy M43 wheelchair accessible units the proposal was overproviding, with the provision of 21 units, equating to 14%.

·                Pedestrian access would be improved across the site, with the addition of 2m wide footpaths to increase accessibility for pedestrian and wheelchair users.

·                During the construction phase a construction management plan would be in place to minimise disruption for existing residents.

·                It was confirmed that 20 trees would be re-planted to provide enhanced screening and replace the 14 trees lost to accommodate the development, a landscaping condition would be in place detailing the maturity of the replacement trees.

As there were no further questions for Mr Cooper 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 trees, Urban Greening Factor, play space, cycle parking, car parking and flood risk, with the following responses provided:

·                Following a Committee query in relation to the quality of the trees lost to accommodate the development, the Committee was advised that trees classified as category A or B were considered significant and should be retained where possible.  An Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) had been submitted and identified that a number of mature trees on the site would be impacted by the proposed development.  In total one Category B, 12 Category C and one Category U trees were to be removed to facilitate the development.  The council's tree officer had been consulted on the proposals and had reviewed the submitted AIA, following this the arboricultural officer had requested to be involved closely in protection works for Tree T1 which was a category B tree.

·                Whilst it was acknowledged that the proposal resulted in some impacts such as the loss of trees and open space across the site, officers considered that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal was considered to accord broadly with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions, as the benefits of the scheme were considered to outweigh any less than substantial harm to the trees within the gardens of neighbouring properties.

·                Officers confirmed they were satisfied that the UGF score was accurate.

·                Following a Committee query in relation to whether the maximum amount of play space had been provided, to account for existing and future occupants, the Committee was advised that although there was an overall shortfall of 28sqm of external amenity space for the proposed units across the scheme, this was balanced by the total existing estates 5,570 sqm of communal usable amenity space; the Committee also noted that some properties had their own private amenity space. As such the shortfall was considered to be negligible (an average of 1.3 sqm per flat) given the sizeable existing communal amenity space as a whole. Therefore, the scheme was considered to be acceptable, meeting the broad objectives of policy BH13 policy and Brent’s Residential Amenity and Place Quality SPD.

·                In terms of bin storage, it was clarified that Blocks A and C were independent homes and had their own bin stores, Blocks D and E were not affected and Block F would have a separate bin storage unit, large enough to accommodate existing and future occupants use.

·                Following a Committee query in relation to car parking provision, the Committee was advised that following car parking surveys, and census data received the proposed provision of 88 car parking spaces was considered to accommodate future demand, with surplus available for visitors. The proposals would therefore accord with Policy T6 of the London Plan and Policy BT2 of the Local Plan.

·                In relation to a Committee query regarding the flood risk assessment, officers advised that a Drainage Strategy had been prepared that set out details of the greenfield run off calculations, as part of this rainfall was proposed to be attenuated through the introduction of a green roof reducing the existing brownfield runoff rate, thereby alleviating flood risk. In addition, it was proposed to raise the ground floor finished floor levels to 300mm above existing ground level to provide further mitigation.

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 unanimous)