Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee and supplementary report alongside the application’s referral to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations detailed in the Committee report.

PROPOSAL

Erection of 2 purpose-built student accommodation buildings up to 20 and 22 storeys with basement level (Sui Generis) connected at ground floor level by a podium together with ancillary communal facilities, internal and external communal amenity space, cycle parking, mechanical plant, hard and soft landscaping, new public realm, play space and other associated works. This application was accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      The application’s referral to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations detailed in the Committee report.

(2)      The Head of Planning being 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.

(5)      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.

Victoria McDonagh, Team Leader, North Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the proposal sought to develop a currently vacant parcel of land situated to the rear of 390-408 High Road to construct two purpose built student accommodation buildings up to 20 and 22 storeys to provide a total of 639 student bedrooms comprising of; 414 x cluster units, 161 x standard studio units and 64 x wheelchair accessible studio units; provision of 498 cycle parking spaces were proposed along with on-site servicing facilities. The northern portion of the application site formed part of a wider Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and wildlife corridor, the site was not in a conservation area and did not contain any listed buildings.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary report that provided clarification in relation to daylight/sunlight figures.

The Chair thanked Victoria McDonagh for introducing the report, as there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker Councillor Afzal (Ward Councillor) to address the Committee (online) in relation to the application.

The following key points were highlighted:

·                It was questioned how further student accommodation in Brent could be justified in light of the housing crisis and Borough Plan priorities to build new homes.

·                Concerns were raised in relation to the scale of the proposed development and the issues this could create in terms of overlooking and impacts on daylight/sunlight.

·                It was felt that if the application was approved, any financial contributions made by the developer to support affordable housing and bio diversity should be utilised within the Wembley area.

·                Queries were raised in relation to whether the proposed scheme offered any tangible benefit to Brent residents.

·                It was questioned whether the units that were empty over the Summer period could be utilised to provide temporary accommodation.

The Chair thanked Councillor Afzal 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, Mr Steve Harrington (agent) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application. Mr Harrington proceeded to address the Committee with the following key points highlighted:

·                The proposed scheme had been developed in pre-application meetings with the Council’s officers, the Quality Review Panel and the GLA.

·                It was felt that the scheme demonstrated high quality design and architecture, bedspaces were well proportioned alongside a range of communal amenity spaces for students to work and socialise.

·                The scheme would make a financial contribution (£3.96m) for the borough to invest in social rented homes in the borough, in addition to wider CIL and S106 funding.

·                A community hub space was proposed at ground floor, which would be available for local community use.

·                New linear park space would be provided through the site to offer an alternative quiet space adjacent to the High Road, with places for seating and a courtyard to provide opportunities for play for children of all ages.

·                Developers were committed to working with local stakeholders and to get involved with local projects to support the community.

·                The proposed scheme would support pathways in to work, skills and employment for local people.

·                On the basis of the additional student accommodation that was required across London, Mr Harrington urged the Committee to approve the application.

The Chair thanked Mr Harrington for addressing the Committee and offered the Committee the opportunity to ask any questions they had in relation to the application. The Committee raised queries in relation to TV signal interruptions, affordable student accommodation, considerations given to alternative uses of the site, use of the units outside of term time, the benefits of the scheme for Brent residents and E-bike charging.

The following responses were provided:

·                In response to concerns raised that the height of the proposed buildings could cause disruption to TV signals, the Committee was advised that a survey of predicted impacts on TV and radio reception to neighbouring properties would be undertaken, with any identified mitigation measures secured through the s106 agreement.

·                Following Committee concerns that no affordable student accommodation had been offered as part of the scheme, Mr Harrington advised that the viability of offering affordable student accommodation would have impacted the deliverability of the scheme, therefore it was felt that the financial contribution made to affordable housing in the borough was an appropriate mitigation.

·                In response to a Committee query as to whether consideration had been given to utilising the site as residential accommodation rather than student accommodation, the Committee was advised that different viability and design options had been thoroughly considered before the decision was taken to use the site for student accommodation with the decision taken based on it being the viably deliverable option. It was noted that the building had been designed flexibly to offer a potential change of use in the future, if required.

·                It was confirmed that the developers were open to the idea of opening up units for use outside of term time, however this would need to be explored once the buildings were in use to fully assess how this could work.

·                Following a Committee question as to how the proposed scheme would benefit Brent residents, Mr Harrington advised that the provision of student accommodation in Brent would alleviate the private rented market by releasing existing housing stock. The Committee felt that this would have limited positive impact on Brent residents, querying the genuine demand for students to live specifically in Brent.

·                It was confirmed that the developers were open to increasing financial contributions to support local parks, in addition to their contribution to offsite tree planting.

·                The Committee was advised that there would be E-bike charging points available in the communal cycle storage areas, so that students did not need to take bikes to their rooms to charge as this could pose a potential fire hazard; it was added that the student buildings were managed, with no students permitted to bring an E-bike to their room.

The Chair thanked Mr Harrington for responding to the Committee’s questions, as there were no further questions at this stage, the Chair offered the Committee the opportunity to ask officers any remaining questions or points of clarity they had in relation to application. The Committee raised queries in relation to the assessment of student housing needs in Brent, affordable housing contributions, tree loss, refuse collection, bio diversity, carbon offset funding and the scheme’s impact on daylight/sunlight.

The following responses were provided:

·                Following a Committee query in relation to the assessment of student housing needs in Brent, the Committee was advised that there was high demand for student accommodation across London, London Plan Policy H15 and Brent’s Policy BH7 supported the delivery of purpose built student in well-connected locations to meet local and strategic needs. It was felt that the proposed scheme met the policy requirements due to the application site’s accessible location, high PTAL and access to local facilities and services.

·                The Committee noted that the London Plan identified a strategic need for 3500 purpose built bed spaces across London per annum, a Student Demand Assessment had been undertaken and the GLA was supportive and recognised that the proposed students accommodation would contribute towards meeting the overall London need and London Plan.

·                The Committee understood that this type of housing would relieve some of the demand for conventional housing and contribute towards Brent’s housing supply (at a ratio of 2.5:1 bedrooms to one conventional housing unit) as well as London Plan housing targets, however felt that Brent was at risk of overconcentration of student accommodation and although the development would contribute at a policy level towards housing targets, it did not meet the needs of Brent residents who were in need of housing.

·                Following a Committee query seeking further clarity in relation to why the proposed scheme failed to offer any affordable student accommodation, the Committee was advised that as no affordable units were offered as part of the scheme the applicant had mitigated this by proposing a £3.9m Payment in Lieu (PiL) which would be secured through the s106 agreement and utilised for the delivery of C3 affordable housing in the borough. This was supported by a Financial Viability Assessment that was independently assessed and concluded that on the basis of the deficit of the proposed scheme the proposed PiL of £3.9m was considered the maximum viable amount. The Committee noted that early and late stage review mechanisms were also in place to capture any improvements in viability, in which case the PiL could increase.

·                The Committee noted the processes that been undertaken to come to the PiL contribution of £3.9m to support offsite affordable housing, however felt that the contribution was not high enough to offer significant value to meeting the needs of Brent residents in securing affordable housing and did not mitigate the fact that there was not affordable units in the scheme.

·                In response to a Committee query in relation to how trees would be impacted by the proposed development, the Committee was advised that no high value (Category A) trees would be removed to accommodate the development, there would be a need to remove 7 Category B trees,.39 Category C trees and 13 Category U trees, none of which were protected by Tree Preservation Orders or Conservation Area designation. The loss of some existing trees would be mitigated by the new tree planting schedule to provide 41 new replacement trees, offering a range of tree types, sizes and canopy structures, with further tree planting proposed at podium level. The proposed tree planting schedule was compliant with London Plan Policy G7 and therefore felt to be acceptable.

·                The applicant had also agreed to make a financial contribution secured through the s106 agreement to enable the planting of street trees in the vicinity of the site to offset the trees lost on site.

·                Following a Committee query in relation to the refuse collection arrangements, the Committee was advised that due to limited capacity there would be a shortfall in the number of Eurobins provided, however to mitigate this, increased refuse collections would be in place to suit the needs of the development, this would be secured by s106 agreement and a Waste Management Plan.

·                It was confirmed that as a result of the proposed schemes landscaping, the proposal would see a net gain in bio diversity equivalent to a positive change of 61.7%, additionally a s106 contribution of £71k had been agreed to offset habitat loss.

·                The Urban Greening Factor of 0.40 was in accordance with policy targets.

·                A carbon offset payment would be secured through the s106 agreement and directed towards Brent carbon offset fund.

·                The Committee welcome the s106 contributions that would be made if the application was approved, however felt strongly that that given the scale of the development in the Wembley area, that priority should be given to the Wembley area when decisions were made about how to use the contributions received.

·                Following Committee concerns in relation to a number of shortfalls identified in the daylight/sunlight assessments the Committee was advised that in the context of student accommodation in a high density urban environment the proposal was felt to provide a good standard of internal daylight and sunlight, although it was acknowledged that levels to bed rooms, particularly at lower levels would be more constrained. Given the context of the site it was deemed appropriate to apply a degree of flexibility within the BRE guidelines and as such it was felt that any minimal shortfalls were acceptable in the context of the proposed development.

·                It was noted that overshadowing was unavoidable on the type of constrained site that the proposed scheme would occupy.

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 alongside the application’s referral to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations detailed in the Committee report.

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