Agenda item

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

PROPSAL

 

Demolition of dwellinghouse and erection of a three and part four-storey residential building comprising 13 flats, provision for car parking, cycle and refuse storage, amenity space and associated landscaping.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

 

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

 

James Mascall, Planning Officer, introduced the report and set out the proposal.  Members were advised that the application proposed the demolition of the dwellinghouse and erection of a three and part four-storey residential building comprising 13 flats, provision for car parking, cycle and refuse storage, amenity space and associated landscaping.

 

The Chair thanked James Mascall for introducing the report and subsequently invited Mr Junaid Iqbal (Objector) to address the Committee.

 

The following key points were highlighted:

 

·             Speaking as a resident of Salmon Street, Mr Iqbal thanked the Council for the recent upgrades to the pavements and verges on Salmon Street.  However, there was a strong objection to the new development comprising 13 flats and it was not considered to be an upgrade, as it was felt this would cause more traffic, noise issues and pollution and impact on the quality of life of the residents. 

 

·             Residents felt that the development was too large for the street and did not feel it was for the benefit of the street.  Mr Iqbal said that residents of Salmon Street objected against the proposal but felt ignored.  It was felt that the new development would affect privacy and natural light of the existing homes and cause congestion and parking issues.  The new development would affect safety and property value of existing homes.  It was proposed that less flats be built and the wellbeing of the residents be considered.    

 

The Chair thanked Mr Iqbal for his comments and then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask Mr Iqbal any remaining questions or points of clarity in relation to the application. 

 

The following responses were provided:

 

• On the issue of how Mr Iqbal concluded that the 13 new flats would mean an additional 26 cars, Mr Iqbal explained that each household on Salmon Street had 3-4 cars.

 

• In regards to the smells that the new development would create, Mr Iqbal explained that another development on Salmon Street called Krishna Court caused a lot of anti-social behaviour like cannabis smoking and drinking alcohol. 

 

 

• Mr Iqbal said that he lived right next door to Krishna Court and asked when further developments on Salmon Street would cease, as there had been a number of new developments on the street.  Whilst recognising the need for housing, Mr Iqbal stated that he was not in objection about the development but the size of it, which he felt would cause density and loss of light.

 

As there were no further questions from members the Chair thanked Mr Iqbal and then moved on to welcoming Mr Chandra Gidoomal (Objector) to address the Committee.

 

The following key points were highlighted:

 

·             Speaking as a resident of Salmon Street, Mr Gidoomal said that the new development was not aesthetically pleasing and felt it would impact the charming character of the street.  The street was built by Mr Salmon and Mr Gidoomal had been a resident for 38 years.  Homeowners on the street were not granted planning permission to extend their own homes so Mr Gidoomal asked how permission could be gained for altering the current site.  Mr Gidoomal stated that the development of the land would be against the deeds in Mr Salmon’s name. 

 

·             Mr Gidoomal stated that Salmon Street was an exclusive street and the new development would cause the existing houses to de-value.  Current development Krishna Court was struggling and being used as an AirBnB.  It was felt that the new development was for monetary gain and of no benefit to the residents of Salmon Street. 

 

·             Mr Gidoomal felt that the new development would cause a negative impact to the residents of Salmon Street, such as parking issues and increased road traffic, congestion and noise. 

 

The Chair thanked Mr Gidoomal  for his comments and then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask Mr Iqbal any remaining questions or points of clarity in relation to the application. 

 

The following responses were provided:

 

• Regarding Salmon Street being an exclusive street, it was noted that there was a major housing issue in the country and being what was described by objectors as an ‘exclusive street’ may not justify stopping development.  Mr Gidoomal replied that Krishna Court was built over 4 years ago and had been a major problem on the street.  As it had now turned into an Airbnb and especially during football season, it was drawing a lot of congestion, anti-social behaviour and noise pollution to the street.  Mr Gidoomal said that he understood that there was a shortage of housing but there was other land to develop on, such as at the end of Salmon Street and Fryant Park.

 

As there were no further questions from members the Chair thanked Mr Gidoomal for answering the Committee’s questions.  The Chair then introduced Kieran Stephen as the Architect who was joined by Ben Thomas, Planning Consultant online to assist with any questions.

 

The following key points were highlighted:

 

• A pre-application process had taken place with urban design officers where the design of the scheme had evolved through a collaborative approach resulting in a high quality design that referenced the materials and roof scape forms of the local area, having been short listed for the Housing Design Awards 2024.

 

• The building had been carefully designed to protect the properties adjacent on Salmon Street and Queen’s Walk.  The proposed building gradually stepped down to a single storey on those boundaries.  Officers concluded in the committee report that “The overall impact of the development was considered acceptable in relation to neighbouring properties having regard to daylight, sunlight, outlook and privacy.”

 

• Mr Stephen expressed that not only would the scheme provide much needed new homes, including four family homes, the proposals also included a highly efficient design that incorporated a range of energy efficient measures including high standards of insulation, heat pumps for heating and hot water systems and also a roof mounted PV array providing an overall 63% reduction in carbon emissions over Part L. 

 

• The scheme proposals would achieve a biodiversity net gain of 22.96% in hedgerow and 13.86% net gain in habitat units.

 

• All of the homes would have private gardens or terraces, 77% of the homes would be dual aspect, there was high compliance with Daylight and Sunlight BRE Guidance and all homes would meet the minimum size requirements, demonstrating a high quality living environment for future residents.

 

• With regard to affordable housing, a viability appraisal was submitted and had been independently assessed by industry experts appointed by the council.  They consider the scheme to be capable of delivering a surplus of £41,000 which would be paid to the Council as a contribution as it would not be viable to deliver affordable housing on site.  The proposals also included a payment towards Healthy Streets of £29,000 for highway improvements to the vicinity of the site as well as a CIL contribution of £329,000.

 

• Members noted that there would be a late-stage review mechanism to capture any potential uplift in profitability as the development progresses.

 

• There were no statutory objections to the scheme proposals who were all supportive of the scheme.  Officers have concluded that the application is acceptable and in accordance with local and national policy and recommend for its approval. 

 

The Chair thanked Kieran Stephen for his comments and then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask Kieran Stephen any remaining questions or points of clarity in relation to the application. 

 

The following responses were provided:

 

• In regards to external amenity space, each dwelling would have 20 sqm of space with 50 sqm for ground floor dwellings as standard.  These specifications met Brent’s standards and in some cases exceeded them.  All balconies were set in by 80% for privacy.  There would be significant biodiversity net gain and 10 new trees being planted.

 

• In response to the question about the double mini roundabout near the development and concerns about pedestrian safety and how the new development would benefit new and existing residents, a contribution of around £29,000 had been agreed towards highway infrastructure.  In regards to benefits to the residents, consultation had been done with the neighbours face to face, letters were sent to neighbouring addresses, research was conducted into the local area, its character and history and high quality materials would be used.  There would be 13 new homes including 4 family homes, which was a provision of over 30% family accommodation and exceeded the Council’s minimum standard of 25%.  It was noted that 4 dwellings would be 2-bedroom, 4 person units, which would be suitable for newly starting families and there had been a bias in the scheme towards larger units.  In regards to direct benefits to the residents, 10 new trees would be planted and there would be 2m buffer planting for ecology benefits.

 

• In response to whether or not the deeds of Salmon Street had been seen, officers stated that this was not a planning consideration, but rather a legal consideration for the owner of the property.

 

• Whether alternative proposals to the 13 units had been considered, it was stated that multiple proposals were considered to address the optimal provision for the site.  There had been 2 pre-applications that addressed materiality and form and were then redesigned accordingly a few times following consultation with residents and the Council.

 

• To the question of whether this development was considered a landmark building on Salmon Street, the Architect responded that it was not and that there were other buildings of a similar height to this development.

 

• Regarding the size and impact of the development on neighbouring properties, a daylight and sunlight assessment had been carried out and was found to be entirely consistent with BRE guidance for external and internal living spaces. 

 

• Regarding the chosen height of the development, it was noted that the development was 60m from the boundary of the intensification corridor whereby heights of up to 5 stories high may be permitted.  There were local buildings with a similar height.  The ridge level would also be of the same height as many of the properties on Salmon Street.  The building sloped down to 3 stories towards the neighbouring properties and the third story was an inhabited roof.  Ridge heights were kept consistent, and the team took time to understand the different types of roofs in the area, which helped generate the roof shape and all windows from the first floor upwards were obscured.  Landscaping echoed that of the local area and the same height ridging was used so not to impact the neighbours.

 

• In regards to the intensification corridor, the scheme was not within the intensification corridor but was near to it and fell under the H2 London Plan, which was designed to provide housing on a small site.  Additionally, this scheme was listed for a local designs award for addressing local character.

 

• In regards to accessing local transport and being 3.75 short of parking spaces, it was asked whether there would be a parking overspill onto neighbouring streets.  It was explained that the travel plan was designed with this consideration to mitigate any impact on local transport infrastructure.  The local area was analysed using 2011 census data, which showed that 43% properties were car free and 7 spaces would be appointed.  As over 50% of properties were likely to own a car, the provision in place would stop overspill onto neighbouring roads.  There would be 24 cycle spaces and electric vehicles charging points on site and a travel plan had been prepared.  Analysis showed that there was not likely to be much impact on the local transport infrastructure even during peak times.

 

The Chair thanked Mr Stephen for responding to the Committee’s queries and then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask the officers any remaining questions or points of clarity in relation to the application. 

 

The following responses were provided:

• In regards to how the scheme fitted into the local area and landscape, the Site Location Plan was tabled showing the elevation of Salmon Street and the other developments nearby.  It showed three storeys and the ridge heights being lower than the neighbour on Salmon Street.  A lot of massing had been faced away from the neighbouring properties.  Page 3 of the drawings pack showed the design of the building in terms of the materials used to ensure that it was in keeping with the local character.

 

• In regards to steps taken to ensure that the building was in line with the character of the street, it was acknowledged that the building did deviate from the character of the street, as it was taller than its immediate surroundings but did not have a harmful impact on the character of the street.  New homes would be delivered, the intensification corridor was 60m and there were good public transport links.

 

• In terms of over-looking of adjoining properties, slide 6 of the drawings pack demonstrated two windows would have windows within 9m of the boundary but that these windows overlooked a narrow space which was to the front of the house and this minor deviation from the guidance was acceptable. 

 

• Members asked for clarification of what the boundary treatment was that prevented overlooking.  Slide 17 was shown to show floor and ground levels in relation to the height of the boundary treatment and demonstrate that these factors would prevent significant overlooking. 

 

• In regards to the concern about the current development site going from a 5 bedroom house to a 13 unit development, it was explained that each site was bespoke and analysed as such.  This was a large site on Salmon Street and assessed for impact on neighbours, quality of amenity space and housing provision and it satisfied officers that it met the development plan.  It was a bigger development than what was built there before but the plans looked to optimise the site. 

 

• Whilst commending the commitment to carbon neutrality, members asked how waste would be managed and it was explained that waste would be collected from Queens Walk and then be placed in a secure area.  There was estimated to be 60l per residual waste and 60l for recycling per bedroom.  A mixture of 240l bins and Euro standard bins were to be used on the site and placed within distance of refuse lorries. 

 

• It was highlighted that planning policy set a threshold for 35 % on-site affordable housing that should be provided and, where not possible, that developments must undergo a viability test.  A viability test was conducted and it was concluded that the scheme would deliver a surplus of £41,000.  Therefore, it would not be possible to provide affordable housing on-site but this would be secured as an off site contribution.

 

 

• The Late Stage Review would take place when 75% of the units were sold.

 

• In regards to how to avoid drainage issues and flooding, it was explained that Thames Water was consulted and reviewed all information provided with the application and advised accordingly.  The Committee asked to ensure that health and safety processes were in place.  It was stated that a drainage strategy was in place, provided by the local lead flood authority.

 

• With regard to construction impacts, it was highlighted that a Construction Logistic Plan and Construction Method Statement would be secured, and that there are also controls under the Control of Pollution Act.

 

• Responding to whether many applications were being received similar to this one, officers stated that this was the only development being considered of its like at the moment but each application was assessed for its own merits and against the development plan.

 

• Regarding questions about whether the materials will match those in the area, it advised that the proposal was a modern interpretation incorporating brickwork and similar materials to neighbouring properties.

 

• In regards to the quality of the amenity space, it was reported that there was an access issue on the north western corner of the site, which had since been rectified by placing a boundary treatment, which would limit noise too.  The site was set lower than the street and the depth and thickness of the boundary treatment was also a noise buffer from noise from the road. 

 

As there were no further questions from members the Chair then moved on to the vote.

 

DECISION

 

RESOLVED to grant 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 5, 1 Against and 1 Abstaining.  One Member was against the application due to the shortfall in parking and the lack of amenity space.  Another Member abstained due to there being no affordable housing on site and the development being of no benefit to local residents.