Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report; and the Committee’s recommendation that the Transport Team explore the practicalities of increasing parking provision through the use of diagonal parking bays.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of all garages on site to provide five new homes with associated cycle and refuse storage, resurfacing of Newland Court to provide shared vehicular and pedestrian surface, provision of on-street car parking along Newland Court, new refuse storage facilities to serve existing residents at Newland Court and all associated landscaping works (revised scheme)

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 an 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.

Nicola Blake, Principal Planning Officer, North Area Planning Team, introduced the repot and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the proposed application sought the demolition of all the garages on site to provide five new family sized homes. The application site comprised of 34 garages across the northern side of the service road of Newland Court. The site was adjacent to Barnhill Conservation Area, a designated heritage asset. The section of Forty Avenue that fronted Newland Court was designated as an Intensification Corridor within Brent’s Local Plan and to the east of the application was the boundary of the Wembley Growth Area.

The Chair thanked Nicola Blake for introducing the report, as there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker Mr Marc Etukudo (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application.

The following key points were highlighted:

·                Concerns were raised that objections made in relation to specific queries had been ignored by officers.

·                It was felt that the proposed application had been based on misinformation and unreliable, out-dated reports in order to fast track the application.

·                It was felt that the Council’s Ecological Report was flawed and inaccurate as there were discrepancies in the report in relation to ecological surveys undertaken.

·                Concerns were raised that a follow up ecological report advising that the bat surveys were conducted at the wrong time of year and which had identified species of bats (protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and regulations Act 1984) found in the trees by the garages had not been considered by officers.

·                Concerns were raised that a number of trees in the Arboricultural Report had been categorised incorrectly.

·                It was felt that consideration and consultation with disabled residents had not been undertaken.

·                It was felt that the proposed development would exacerbate existing parking issues.

·                Concerns were raised in relation to the loss of green space for existing residents and the potential impacts this would have on health and wellbeing.

·                There were existing issues in relation to limited bin storage for residents, which it was felt would be further exacerbated by the proposed development. In addition to this it was felt unacceptable that some residents would have to walk further to a newly allocated bin store to dispose of their waste.

·                In summarising his concerns and the perceived negative impacts that the proposed development would have on both existing and future residents, Mr Etukudo urged the Committee to reject the application.

As there were no Committee questions at this stage, the Chair thanked Mr Etukudo for addressing the Committee and proceeded to invite the next speaker on the application Ms Judith Morrison (objector) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application. Ms Morrison introduced herself as a resident of neighbouring Grendon Gardens before sharing her concerns with the Committee.

The following key points were highlighted:

·                The Committee was reminded that Barn Hill Estate, including Grendon Gardens was recognised as a heritage asset.

·                In line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Brent was required to assess the significance of the proposed development on heritage assets to minimise any conflict, which it was felt had not happened.

·                Plans to remove seven trees T2, T5, G7, T9, T10, T11, T12, T20) situated in the gardens of Grendon Gardens ignored the boundary between Newland Court Estate (i.e. the retaining wall) and put Brent Council in direct conflict with Grendon Garden residents. If proposals were agreed, residents would be forced to take action to protect their trees.

·                In addition, it was highlighted that the G7 group of trees were located within the boundary of a property in Corringham Road and the resident had not agreed to the removal of these trees.

·                It was felt the report was inaccurate in its suggestion that there would be minor harm to the heritage asset because the trees would mostly hide the view of the new homes. This was felt to be inaccurate as the trees would not provide cover in the Winter, or any cover at all if they were removed.

·                Concerns were raised in relation to the root protection of existing trees that could be damaged by the development.

·                It was felt that if the proposal was approved it would cause substantial harm to the Conservation Area, and therefore go against Local Plan policy BHC1.

·                Ms Morrison disagreed with the statement made in the report that concluded that minor perceived harm from the development was mitigated by the public benefits, as it was felt that the harm was significant.

·                Concerns were raised in relation to limited amenity space.

·                On the basis of the concerns raised in relation to policy breaches and the harm to trees and the Conservation area, Ms Morrison also urged the Committee to reject the application.

The Chair thanked Ms Morrison for addressing the Committee and offered the Committee the opportunity to ask any questions or clarifying points they had in relation to information heard, the Committee raised queries in relation to the impact of the proposed development on existing views and tree removal, with the following responses provided:

·                In terms of concerns relating to the new development impacting on views of the Conservation Area as a heritage asset, the Committee queried why the views of any new development would be worse than the existing garages. In response the Committee was advised that the concerns were in relation to the fact that there would be significant cut back and or removal of trees, therefore it was felt the view would be starkly different and not in keeping with the context of the area as a heritage asset.

·                In response to a Committee query regarding the location of some of the trees due to be removed, it was clarified that some of the trees that were scheduled for removal fell with the boundary of existing residential gardens which given the concerns and objections highlighted it was felt made the development unviable.

The Chair thanked Ms Morrison for responding to the Committee questions and proceeded to invite the next speaker on the item Councillor Georgiou (objector) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application.

The following key points were highlighted:

·                Councillor Georgiou explained that he had been asked to represent the views of the residents of Newland Court after they had met with him to share their concerns about the proposed development.

·                It was felt there were a number of inaccuracies in the report that the Committee should consider in reaching their decision.

·                Given the number of letters of objection sent to officers, it was questioned why the Committee report stated that the majority of residents expressed support for the proposed development. This was felt to be misleading with the proposed application strongly opposed by local residents.

·                It was felt the proposed development would have a huge impact on the estates’ trees, biodiversity and existing parking issues.

·                The site neighboured the Barnhill Conservation Area, therefore it was felt that this should be strongly taken in to consideration by the committee in reaching any decision, given the considerable destruction to mature trees proposed to accommodate the development.

·                A 2023 ecological report had identified at least three protected bat species living in the trees by the garages. Destruction of this important habitat would mean that the Council was in breach of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1982 and Regulations Act 1984.

·                It was felt that the report did not adequately address parking issues, as it did not appear to take into account the existing limited parking on the estate.

·                Concerns were also highlighted in relation to the overall financial viability of the application.

·                On the basis of the concerns raised Councillor Georgiou urged the Committee to reject the application due to the legitimate planning concerns raised by local residents and the potentially significant impact on residents’ quality of life.

The Chair thanked Councillor Georgiou for addressing the Committee and with no questions raised by the Committee in response to his representations then proceeded to invite the final speaker on the item, Mr Ollie Cooper (agent) to address the Committee (in person).

The following key points were highlighted:

·                The application site was in a designated priority location for residential homes.

·                The proposal complemented the character of the area through providing five high-quality family sized homes, all for London Affordable Rent. The scheme also supported Brent’s objective of directing housing growth to Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) areas of three to six; Newland Court was PTAL 4.

·                The applicant had engaged in extensive discussions with officers in evolving the proposals, with all houses designed to meet and exceed key housing design standards, having outlook on either three or four sides, whilst meeting the necessary accessibility standards.

·                Each house had its open private amenity space, this included patios and planting. Enhancements to existing open space across the wider site were also proposed, providing community benefits.

·                It was acknowledged that the tree officer had some objections related to future pressure for potential pruning. The trees to the north were protected by their Conservation Area designation, and therefore consent would need to be given by the Council for any future pruning works. Previous pruning works of the trees had also affected their health, therefore they would require future management in any event. In addition, the scheme included six more trees than were currently on the site.

·                The scheme had been carefully designed to protect the amenity of neighbours.

·                The application was fully compliant with professional guidance on daylight and sunlight.

·                The scheme was supported by the Council’s highways officer in respect of proposed car parking. 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 and most importantly would support the Council’s overarching objective of delivering new, affordable, family homes at sustainable locations.

·                On the basis of the benefits the scheme would offer, the Committee was urged to approve the application.

At this stage in proceedings, the Committee agreed to apply the guillotine procedure under Standing Order 62(c) and extend the meeting in order to enable the remaining business on the agenda to be completed.

The Chair thanked Mr Cooper for addressing the Committee and as there were no questions from the Committee then invited questions to officers and points of clarity to be sought in relation to the information heard. The Committee raised queries in relation to car parking, tree boundary lines, refuse bins, the conservation area and wildlife, with the following responses provided:

·                Following Committee concerns that the existing issues of limited parking in Newland Court would be exacerbated if approval was given to the new development, the Committee was advised that overnight car parking surveys had been undertaken to assess the parking need and availability of on street parking. The results of this demonstrated that 28 cars were parked in Newlands Court overnight. It was acknowledged that there was a shortage of available on street parking in the area, therefore it was recommended that the five new homes were made subject to a car free agreement, removing the right of future residents to on street parking permits in any existing or future Controlled Parking Zone. A car parking management plan would also be in place to manage the issue of parking in the access road as it was not an adopted highway, therefore parking restrictions were not enforceable under highway regulations.

·                Following a discussion to support increased car parking capacity it was agreed that a condition could be added to explore the feasibility of the provision of echelon (angled) parking on the southern side of the access road.

·                The Committee required clarity as to whether the trees that were proposed for removal could be removed if they were located within the boundary of existing residential gardens who owned the land as opposed to the Council. It was clarified that on the updated Arboricultural report it was demonstrated that the trees sat within the boundary of Newland Court, therefore Council owned land. It was also clarified that boundary issues were not a material planning consideration for the Committee.

·                The Committee queried if there was evidence of bats roosting.  In response officers advised that following a Preliminary Roosting Assessment and an Evening Emergence Survey, there was no evidence of bats roosting.

·                Following a question in relation to the management of refuse bins, the Committee was advised that the proposals included the provision of bin stores directly accessible from the street with gates opening inwards from the highway, as required under the 1980 Highways Act. The refuse plan was not felt to be detrimental to existing residents.

·                The Committee required further clarity regarding the site’s relationship with the adjoining Barn Hill Conservation Area, defined as a designated heritage asset. Officers advised that in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF) the impact of the proposed development on the significance of the conservation area as a designated heritage asset had been considered in the application. Due to the close proximity of the site to the Barn Hill Conservation Area and Fryent Park, a heritage statement had been submitted to assess and identify if there was any harm with the Council’s heritage officer having concluded that any minor perceived harm was mitigated by the public benefits that resulted from the scheme’s delivery of five affordable homes.

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 and an additional condition requiring the submission and approval of details demonstrating the evaluation of the feasibility of the provision of echelon (angled) parking on the southern side of the access road to increase parking capacity and the implementation of those spaces and any associated work, if feasible.

(Voting on the decision was as follows: For 6, Against 1 and Abstentions 1)