Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement and the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.

PROPOSAL

The proposal is for the partial demolition of the HNS Autos building and other associated buildings on site and erection of new building comprising residential units and commercial space at ground floor level, cycle parking spaces, blue badge parking, amenity space and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to completion of a legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations:

(1)   Payment of the Council’s legal and other professional costs in (a) preparing and completing the agreement and (b) monitoring and enforcing its performance.

(2)  Notification of material start 28 days prior to commencement.

(3)  Off-site Affordable Housing Financial Contribution (£185,470) to be utilised to fund additional affordable housing within the Borough together with an early and late stage review.

(4)  Affordable Workspace Provision contribution (£150,000)

(5)  Detailed design stage energy assessment:

(a)  Initial carbon offset payment to be paid prior to material start if zero-carbon target not achieved on site.

(b)  Post-construction energy assessment. Final carbon offset payment upon completion of development if zero-carbon target not achieved on site.

(c)  ‘Be seen’ energy performance monitoring and reporting

(6)  Controlled Parking Zone – Financial contribution of £16,000 towards implementation of Controlled Parking Zone in the vicinity.

(7)  A parking permit restriction to remove the right of residents to on-street parking permits in any future Controlled Parking Zone that is implemented in the area.

(8)   Highway Works under a S38/S278 Agreement to:

(i)             widen the footway along the eastern side of Bridgehill Close fronting the site to 2m

(ii)            remove the existing crossovers to Bridgewater Road and reinstate them to footway and verge.

(iii)          repave the footway fronting Bridgewater Road, together with associated amendments to lining, signing, lighting and drainage and any other accommodation works.

(9)  Car Club - Provision of three years free membership of a local Car Club for all incoming residents.

(10)                 Financial Contribution of £7,000 towards off-site planting of two street trees and their maintenance within the vicinity of the site.

(11)                 Submission of a detailed ’Television and Radio Reception Impact Assessment’ and underwriting of all mitigation required in addressing any interference.

(12)                 Indexation of contributions in line with inflation (to be indexed from date of Planning Committee resolution)

(13)                 Any other planning obligation(s) considered necessary by the Head of Planning.

Nicola Blake (Principal Planning Officer, Brent Council) introduced the report, stating that the application was seeking approval of a new eight storey building situated on the northeast side of Bridgewater Road along the southeast junction of Bridgehill Close. The proposal sought to demolish the existing buildings on site and provide an eight-storey building accommodating residential units, light industrial workspace, and a single ancillary disabled parking space accessible via Bridgehill Close. Ancillary floorspace, such as cycle stores and plant areas would be located at the ground floor level, with refuse stores also on the ground floor and accessed via Bridgehill Close. While the proposal included 720 sqm of light industrial floorspace, the provision of affordable workspace would be provided by a CIL contribution of £150,000.

The Chair thanked Nicola Blake for introducing the report and subsequently invited Alan Gunne-Jones (who had registered to speak as the agent) to address the Committee.

The following key points were highlighted:

·       This site had extant planning permission which was granted in 2022 and had proposed 28 residential units and industrial floor space with a s106 agreement securing, amongst other matters, affordable housing.

·       Following the grant of this planning permission, the viability of the approved scheme was appraised, given that it had undertaken a 2-year journey from application submission to the granting of planning permission in 2022. The appraisal concluded that the approved development proposals were no longer viable and furthermore, experience suggested that identifying a Registered Provider to acquire a small affordable package of sub-10 units would prove problematic and render the permission undeliverable.

·       The concept of an off-site contribution to affordable housing on viability grounds was therefore considered and reviewed with the planning department through formal pre-application engagement with the outcome sufficiently encouraging to proceed with the submission of this current application.

·       The key differences between the permitted scheme and the one currently under consideration were as follows:

a)     An additional 4 residential units achieved by adding one extra storey to the approved scheme and increasing the height by 3.1 meters.

b)    A scheme that is fully compliant with current building regulations in terms of fire safety and protection through the inclusion of a separate fire escape core.

c)     A financial contribution to provide affordable housing off-site.

d)    A financial contribution to provide street trees and their ongoing maintenance.

e)    A financial contribution to provide affordable workspace.

f)      A commitment to assess the impact of the development on television and radio reception and to mitigate any interference if deemed necessary.

g)    Car club membership for residents increased to 3 years.

h)    An increased financial contribution to the CPZ and carbon offset.

·       Alan Gunne-Jones concluded by stating that the above points had significant benefits that had not formed part of the previously approved scheme and were delivered by a scheme that was only one storey higher than the approved scheme and added 4 residential units. He felt that, on balance, the proposed scheme delivered more benefits than the approved scheme and hoped this would justify a grant of planning permission.

The Chair thanked Alan Gunne-Jones for addressing the Committee and invited Members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented with the following noted.

·       In response to further clarification being sought on plans to provide children’s play areas on the first and fourth floors, the Committee were advised that there were discussions regarding the potential inclusion of small children's play equipment, a soft surface, and the creation of a facility catering to younger age groups.

·       Members sought clarification regarding the change in affordable housing provision from the approved scheme. Alan Gunne-Jones confirmed that the extant planning permission included a s106 agreement to provide affordable housing units on site as a percentage of the overall development. This presented challenges related to viability and the acquisition of a Registered Provider (RP) to take on the units within the development which included workspace, general market housing, amenity areas, and children’s play areas. Establishing a clear maintenance responsibility for the RP had proved to be difficult. Whilst the extant planning permission was still valid, due to viability, the present scheme offered a financial contribution to deliver affordable housing off-site.

The Chair thanked Alan Gunne-Jones 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. Issues raised included the financial viability appraisal, early and late stage upward only review mechanisms, and fire safety with the following responses noted.

·       Confirmation was provided that the site was policy compliant. The financial viability appraisal had been reviewed by the Councils advisors and it was determined that on site affordable housing could not be provided if the scheme were to be delivered. Officers added that the extant planning permission granted in 2022 included an affordable housing quantum which met the Fast Track criteria and therefore, there had been no requirement for a financial viability assessment to be submitted. Following approval, the developer had conducted a more thorough financial analysis and concluded that it was not financially viable to proceed with what they had received planning permission for. The applicant had submitted a new application to effectively replace the extant consent which remained valid for another year. With the new application, which proposed a development at below 35% affordable housing, there was a requirement for a full viability assessment to be submitted with the application and independently assessed by the Council and its advisors. The assessment concluded that there was a slight surplus of less than it would cost to deliver even one onsite affordable unit. This was why officers were recommending approval for the application on the basis of an offsite contribution to the maximum breakeven amount calculated with independent advisors. It was also noted by officers that, since planning permission was granted in 2022, housing number targets had significantly increased, and it was important to have a site that could be deliverable to secure homes to meet overall housing targets. At the time of consideration for the scheme with extant permission, the old local plan was in effect and the current London plan had not been adopted. In response to the new Local Plan, the applicant was continuing to deliver the same quantum of commercial space and was proposing a contribution of £150,000 for the provision of off-site affordable workspace. It was noted that the application still carried a CIL liability.

·       It was confirmed that there was both an early and late stage upward only review mechanism through the s106 legal agreement, with any additional surplus in viability increasing the contribution towards off-site affordable housing.

·       Members observed that the previous application site was one storey lower than the proposed site and inquired whether it might be feasible to add an extra storey to provide more affordable housing. Officers responded that a nuanced balancing exercise had taken place regarding the impact of the proposed building on the street scene and the maximum quantum of housing that could be accommodated on the site, with a previously taller proposed scheme being rejected. In assessing the proposed scheme, officers had consulted heavily with the Urban Design Officer to ensure the resulting scale was policy compliant, and Officers had concluded that the proposed scheme was the maximum in terms of the height and scale of the building that would reasonably be acceptable on the plot of land. Policy context details were also noted.

·       Members asked whether there had been past instances where an approved scheme had been reassessed due to a new application being submitted.. In response, officers explained that there was a need to ensure that applications made were assessed on their own merit. Officers routinely considered new applications on sites that already had planning permission and emphasised the importance of acknowledging changing financial circumstances, such as build cost. The difficulties around viability were emphasised.

·       In response to Members’ questions around fire safety, officers advised that building regulations were separate to material planning considerations and that all relevant building regulations would need to be met if extant consent were to be implemented. The present application met those requirements. It was noted that the changes to overcome fire safety issues were substantive but not significant, and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) was satisfied from a land use perspective under the current application.

·       Considering that the current extant permission on site was not fast tracked and referencing the two fire escapes within the building, Members queried whether it held as much weight as indicated in the report, to which officers explained that this formed one factor for consideration, as it increased the development costs related to how the fire mitigation measures were implemented within the envelope of the building. Certain parts of the building needed to be separated from other parts of the building which had not been the case in the original consent. This constituted part of the reason for the submission of the application. Other reasons included financial viability. Although the site did not deliver onsite affordable housing, the development did deliver 4 additional residential units than the extant consent had. Officers had concluded that the planning gain in terms of an increase in housing delivery was acceptable.

·       Inquiries were made around the challenges of acquiring a Registered Provider to take on a housing mix of different tenures. Officers responded that larger Registered Providers had a preference for larger developments with more homes in one space as opposed to various different sites across the Borough which would make maintenance and operational costs higher. Affordable housing blocks tended to be contained within the larger developments because they could all be concentrated into one building and associated costs would be distributed amongst those tenants as opposed to various different sites across the Borough. It was noted that, whilst the Council worked with developers struggling to find Registered Providers and provided lists, it was particularly challenging to acquire a Registered Provider for small sites.

·       The Chair asked why the overall compliance and mitigating factors outweighed any concerns around height and overlooking at the existing semi-detached house at no.2 Bridgewater Road. Slides were presented, and the officers highlighted and explained the proposed site plan in comparison to the extant permissions.

·       Members raised questions around parking spaces on the development site, considering that other developments within the area were normally car free. Officers confirmed that there was a car free agreement and a single disabled parking bay. It was noted that car free agreements removed the ability for residents to apply for a parking permit. There was also a contribution towards the CPZ in the area which had increased from 14,000 to 16,000 within the present application from the extant permission.

·       As a separate issue, questions were raised about the Waste Management Strategy and whether there was a condition to have one for the application. The response was that there was a delivery and services plan which had been covered by condition 25 and was being reviewed by Highways Officers as well as Strategy Officers.

·       As a further issue highlighted, Members queried whether safety was an issue regarding the communal roof garden above the 7^th floor within the plans. Officers had secured by condition a railing and boundary treatments to ensure that the area was safe.

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

DECISION

RESOLVED to granted planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement and the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: For 5, Against 0, Abstention 1)