Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to:

·             referral of the application to the Mayor of London (Stage 2 referral) and prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the Committee report;

·             the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee and Supplementary report including an amendment to the Section 106 Agreement Heads of Terms to ensure that use of the £10,000 contribution secured towards the enhancement and improvement to public open spaces in the borough was focussed within the vicinity of the development.

PROPOSAL

 

Redevelopment of site to provide two buildings accommodating residential units, the use of ground floor as a Community Use (Use Class: F2) with additional affordable workspace (Use Class: E) at ground floor level, associated vehicular crossover, car and cycle parking spaces, refuse storage, amenity spaces, landscaping and associated works.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

 

(1)        referral of the application to the Mayor of London (Stage 2 referral); and

 

(2)        the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.

 

Nicola Blake (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report, stating that the application was seeking approval to demolish the existing buildings on site and erect two buildings of up to 10 storeys in height in their place.  The ground floor of the northernmost building would include a community facility measuring 140sqm with the ground floor of the southernmost building including a 251sqm affordable workspace area and a car park.  The development includes 31 residential units within the northernmost building (block A) and 57 residential units within the southernmost building (block B) resulting in 88 residential unts.  The top storey of Block A would have a 234.4sqm communal terrace with attention also drawn to the updates within the Supplementary report and members advised that the recommendation remained to grant planning permission subject to the applications referral to the Mayor of London (Stage 2 referral) and conditions (as amended) and prior completion of a legal agreement.

 

The Chair thanked Nicola Blake for introducing the report and sought further details on the element of development being described as a creative enterprise.  The Committee noted that these included amenities for artists, such as studio and retail space.  The site looked to create broader job opportunities and was not limited to a particular industry.

 

The Chair then welcomed the first speaker Mike Poshteh (who had registered to speak in objection to the application) with the following noted:

 

·             There had been approximately 86 objections from residents who felt that two 20 storey high buildings would impact the existing properties surrounding the development in terms of overshadowing, loss of light & privacy and insufficient space between neighbouring developments.

 

·             It was felt that the area had materially changed since the original application in 2016 given the extent of other developments either built of approved including Alperton Yard, Alperton Waterside and Grand Union St George which had significantly added to liveable units in the area.  Whilst residents understood the need for housing within Brent and London, it was not felt this development was the solution.

 

·             The wider impact on amenity including additional strain on public transport, traffic and congestion, local school and health provision, which were already at capacity.

 

·             Concerns were also highlighted in relation to the overbearing nature of the development and overlooking.

 

The Chair thanked Mike Poshteh for addressing the Committee and then invited members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented, with the following being noted:

 

·                 Further details were sought on the adjustments requested on the site.  The Committee noted that residents would prefer the development to be reduced in scale and mass but recognised that there would be a cost element to this.

 

·                 Clarification was sought regarding the proximity of Mr Poshteh’s home to the new development given the location of the site in a Tall Building and Growth Zone, which it was confirmed was located immediately adjacent to the development.

 

·                 Details were sought on what would be considered a more appropriate development.  Mr Poshteh said that a smaller development would be ideal.  He understood the need for housing but something similar to the Peartree Drive development would be preferable at 3-4 stories.

The Chair then welcomed Dr Matthew Grech Sollars (who had also registered to speak in objection to the application) and invited him to address the Committee with the following key points highlighted:

 

·             Dr Sollars home was located directly opposite the proposed development and he urged the Committee to reject the application and to request that any application subsequently submitted was designed to comply with the necessary BRE guidelines.

 

·             It was felt that the proposed building would reduce the lighting levels in adjacent blocks and break BRE guidelines as per the daylight impact assessment.  Dr Sollars worked from home on some days and the new development would limit the light going into his property and lack of light was known to result in sleep issues, mood disturbances and associated health risks with concerns also expressed in relation to privacy and overlooking.

 

·             Concerns was also expressed in relation to the impact on the surrounding area and local amenity given the level of development across Alperton.

 

·             As a result, Dr Sollars urged the Committee to take account of the wellbeing of those living adjacent to the proposed development and across Alperton and for the proposal to be rejected until an improved, more sustainable proposal was put in place that considered the true impact on the community.

 

As there were no questions from members the Chair then moved on to invite Councillor Georgiou to address the Committee as a local ward councillor with the following comments noted:

 

·             Speaking on behalf of the residents of Alperton Ward, Councillor Georgiou highlighted the intense nature of development across the ward including the impact of large scale construction works which were negatively impacting local residents.

 

·             It was felt that the bulk of these new developments in the area had not addressed the growing level of housing need but had compounded existing issues, such as lack of associated infrastructure and build quality.

 

·             Referring to a letter from a local resident Councillor Georgiou highlighted concerns relating to the current application in relation to loss of light, privacy and overlooking.

 

·             Concerns were also highlighted in relation to the nature of affordable housing provision proposed which had included an element of shared ownership that Councillor Georgiou felt did not represent a genuine affordable housing tenure.  In acknowledging the scheme offered 35% affordable housing provision it was felt a higher level needed to be sought with the inclusion of 56 private units at market rent also challenged.

 

·             In terms of build quality within existing developments the opportunity was also taken to highlight existing issues being faced by residents including broken lifts, antisocial behaviour in communal areas, lack of access to communal areas due to safety concerns and significant construction issues, which it was felt needed to be considered and addressed by the Committee in approving further developments and seeking to ensure the necessary commitments and build quality design from developers.

 

·             Whilst welcoming financial contributions being offered as part of the application, clarification was also sought on the Controlled Parking Zone provision and how that would be utilised, the maintenance of street tree planting and improvements to open spaces which it was felt should be focussed on local provision.  Whilst the contribution towards step free access at Alperton tube station was also supported it was highlighted these measures were required now rather than at some stage in the future.

 

·             As a final point, concern was also expressed at the loss of the previous public house on the application site as a local amenity and its redevelopment with what was felt to represent unaffordable housing provision and further overdevelopment in the area without the necessary supporting infrastructure.

 

As there were no questions from members the Chair then moved on to invite Jay Patel on behalf of the applicant to address the Committee with the following comments noted:

 

·             In highlighting that the current application followed a consent (lapsed) for a similar development he advised that following extensive discussions with officers the scheme was now felt to have addressed all relevant planning considerations and was therefore commended to the Committee for approval.

 

·             In terms of the previous application submitted, the revised scheme included an increased level of affordable housing with a better tenure mix that was in accordance with the requirements within the London and Brent Local Plan and had been designed to meet the latest guidelines in relation to fire safety

 

·             The conditions proposed were felt to be reasonable and would ensure the development was built as approved with minimal impact on neighbours.  Comments from neighbours were fully understood and had been considered by officers, who confirmed in their report that, on balance, the proposal would not adversely impact on the amenities of neighbours.

 

·             The proposal provided much needed housing in an area already designated for housing.  Any shortfall was mitigated by contributions as detailed in the report.

 

The Chair thanked Jay Patel for addressing the Committee and then invited members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented, with the following being noted:

 

·             In terms of use of the play area to be included in the communal rooftop terrace confirmation was provided this would include separate areas for younger and older children with the area retaining a flexible use.

 

·             Details were sought on why blocks A and B had been separated and whether this related to potential future ownership of part of the site with the Committee advised that any potential discussions with interested Register Providers would be subject to future consideration and had not impacted on current design of the scheme.

 

·             Regarding how long the development had been vacant, the Committee noted that this had been since 2015 with the public house building unlettable in its current condition.

 

·             As the site was in a tall buildings zone, further details were sought on the design consultation and whether there was an opportunity to increase the height of the scheme to maximise the level of affordable housing provision.  In response the Committee were advised that the applicant had felt the existing scale of the development provided the most appropriate fit for the current site.  In terms of the adjacent site to the rear of the proposed development confirmation was provided this was not owned by the applicant but discussions had taken place with the owner to ensure any future development plans would not adversely impact on either site.

 

The Chair thanked Jay Patel for answering the member’s questions and, with no further speakers, he then invited members questions to officers in relation to the information presented, with the following noted:

 

·             Details were sought on levels of light and obscured windows.  The Committee were informed that a daylight assessment had been carried out to assess the impact on neighbouring properties.  The buildings surrounding the new development were fairly new and around 9 storeys high.A lot of them had long recess balconies with dual aspect apartments and light was restricted.  The levels of daylight and sunlight received by the new homes and amenity spaces within the development were considered to be appropriate for a scheme of this density, with the provision of private external amenity space (in the form of balconies) outweighing the associated reduction in daylight received by rooms. It was also noted that residents would be able to access a variety of amenity spaces throughout the site, with the majority of these meeting BRE guidance levels for sunlight. The proposal was therefore considered to be acceptable in relation to the levels of internal daylight and sunlight.

 

·             In terms of the design standards applied members were advised it was considered that the proposed buildings had successfully addressed the criterion set out within London Plan Policy D9, owing to the buildings limited impact, given their height when considered in the context of them being located with a Tall Building Zone, while remaining functional for all future users, with key accessibility points addressed, allowing the navigation through the site, between the two buildings. It was noted that an access condition would be added to ensure the level changes between the sites were addressed and would not impact the building's functionality.  Overall, the building’s design and appearance was considered to be acceptable. Whilst resulting in a substantial pair of buildings the focus of the development on the main road junction, and the light materials were considered to mitigate the height. The overall design and materiality of the proposed development was also considered to respond to and compliment the wider streetscene and local area, with a contemporary design language that would be broadly in keeping with other recent developments of a similar scale.

 

·             Regarding the obscured windows, the Committee was informed that the south facing windows would be obscured and this was considered as an acceptable level and secured via Condition 7.

 

·             Further clarification was sought on the affordable housing provision within the scheme with it note that the scheme would deliver 33 affordable units (10 Shared Ownership and 22 London Affordable Rents) at 35.5% by habitable room. As the scheme was delivering more than 35% affordable housing, confirmation was provided it had qualified for the Fast Track route, as set out within both the London Plan and Brent's Local Plan, subject to both an early and late stage review mechanism. The scheme would achieve a policy compliant level of family sized homes (24 homes in total) in line with policy BH6.

 

·             In terms of the quality of residential accommodation clarification was provided that of the 88 units proposed, 66 units would feature a dual aspect outlook which had been welcomed. The units which included single aspect outlook had been suitably located facing south-west and north-east, reducing any reliance on solely north or south facing units which was also welcomed. Those homes would have outlook to the west over Ealing Road, and to the north and east over Hatton Road. Windows would be obscure glazed to some windows facing towards the south, given the proximity of both the southern building and Grand Union House development. While there were very few instances of single aspect windows, given that the site was within the Alperton Growth Area it was considered that the shortfall of dual aspect units could therefore on balance be considered acceptable, resulting in an efficient use of the land in an urban context.  In terms of the impact on neighbouring properties whilst there were some windows which did not achieve the BRE, the scheme did provide an overall high level of compliance with BRE guidance, which was considered to be acceptable given the urban context of the site and its location within a Tall Building Zone. The properties that were mainly affected currently afforded an outlook over the low scale existing buildings on site resulting in higher levels of daylight than could be expected in a typical urban context, in addition to being affected by their own developments and balcony placement. On this basis the overall benefits of the development including the delivery of new commercial floorspace and residential homes (including a policy compliant level of family sized homes) was felt to outweigh the limited harm identified with the design of the building and quality of residential accommodation considered to be acceptable and the height and massing in keeping with the local context.

 

·             Details were sought on whether this development was in line with the Alperton Masterplan given the concerns and objections highlighted in relation to overdevelopment and the lack of associated infrastructure and need identified for potential review of the Plan as a result.  In noting that the previously consented application had been included within the Masterplan the Committee were informed that the Local Plan was subject to regular review with the development site located with the Alperton Growth Area and a Tall building Zone as identified within the current version of the Local Plan.

 

·             Further details were sought on the levels of consultation that had taken place on this application.  The Committee noted that the consultation was carried out in line with statutory guidelines, which consisted of letters to individual households, site notices and the application being advertised in the press.

 

·             Further clarification was sought on the potential to be able to extend the height of the development given its location within a Tall Building and Growth Zone as a means in seeking to maximise the potential of the site.  In recognising the need to assess the application as presented, members were also reminded of the balance needing to be achieved in relation to site density and the relationship with neighbouring properties and wider urban context of the surrounding area with the current proposals in terms of the impact on height and density of the site considered to be acceptable and suitable in their current form.  In terms of adaptability for future use the development included two clearly defined separate entrances to the blocks which provided the potential for separate ownership or management, subject to the necessary agreements being reached.

 

·             Further details were sought on initial proposals to include a drinking establishment within the new development, which the Committee were advised was no longer proposed with an alternative use to be provided in the form of a community centre as well as a workspace.

 

·             In terms of financial contributions to be secured towards improvements in open spaces, details were sought whether this could be conditioned for allocation and use in the local area rather than across the borough as a whole which officers advised it would be possible to secure.

 

·             In response to further details being sought in relation to the financial contribution supporting step free access at Alperton tube station members noted this had followed discussion with TfL with the proposals now at design stage and a further contribution also secured towards bus service enhancements to reflect the cumulative impact on services.  Members were advised the step-free access project was interlinked with the Piccadilly Line upgrade project.

 

·             In regards to transport and parking provision the proposed alterations to the public highway were considered to be acceptable, considering the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists with 3 disabled parking spaces which was in accordance with standards and met the London Plan minimum allocation of an allocated disabled space for 3% of the units to be provided, with the remainder of the development expected to operate free of cars.

 

·             As a final query details were sought on the adequacy of the servicing and refuse arrangements for the site which it was confirmed had met the required standards.

 

The Chair thanked the officers and as there were no further questions from members the Chair then moved on to the vote.

 

DECISION

 

RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to:

 

(1)        referral of the application to the Mayor of London (Stage 2 referral) and prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the Committee report;

 

(2)        the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee and Supplementary report including an amendment to the Section 106 agreement Heads of Terms to ensure that use of the £10,000 contribution secured towards the enhancement and improvement to public open spaces in the borough was focussed within the vicinity of the development.

 

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: 6 For; 1 Against & 1 Abstention)