Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to:

 

•         Stage 2 referral to the GLA along with the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the report; and

 

•         The conditions and informatives as set out in the main Committee report, as updated within the supplementary report.

PROPOSAL

 

Permission was sought for the demolition of all buildings and structures and comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide two linked blocks of between 6 and 15 storeys (including mezzanine storey) comprising large scale purpose built shared living (LGPBSL) units (sui generis) and two linked blocks of between 4 and 9 storeys comprising residential units (Use class C3), ground floor commercial/community use units (Use class E/F), ancillary facilities and shared internal and external amenity space, associated highway works, blue badge parking, cycle parking, refuse stores, landscaping and access arrangements.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(1)        That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

 

(a)        Stage 2 referral to the GLA along the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the report.

 

(b)        the conditions and informatives set out in the report (as updated within the Supplementary report); and

 

(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 if, by the expiry date of the 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.

 

(4)        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

 

Sean Newton (Development Management Planning Manager) introduced the report, detailing the proposal for the demolition of all existing buildings and the erection of two pairs of linked blocks. Blocks A and B were to be 6 to 15 storeys high and would comprise large shared living units. Blocks C and D were to be 4 - 9 storeys high and would include residential units, ground floor commercial/community spaces, and various facilities. The plan also included highway works, parking for blue badge holders, cycle parking, refuse stores, landscaping, and access arrangements. The total net internal floorspace (NIA) of the development was 19,583 sqm, comprising 12,696 sqm for the co-living element and 6,887 sqm for the C3 dwellings. The proportion of C3 floorspace equated to 35.2% of the total provision, thereby satisfying the minimum threshold of 35%. Additionally, the proposed tenure mix was policy compliant, with 70% allocated to low-cost social rent and 30% to intermediate rent. The proposal, in terms of affordable housing, satisfied the requirements of the London Plan and the Local Plan, subject to an early-stage review mechanism with the Committee’s attention also drawn to the corrections and clarification provided within the Supplementary report circulated in advance of the meeting, including an update on cycle parking provision and on which the recommendation remained to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions (as updated) and completion of a s106 Legal Agreement and Stage 2 referral to the GLA.

 

The Chair thanked Sean Newton for introducing the report and with no clarifying questions from the Committee, then invited Councillor Kennelly (as a local ward councillor who had registered to speak in support of the application) to address the Committee.  The following key points were highlighted:

 

·             The site was located within the Wembley Growth Area with the proposed use in accordance with Brent’s Local Plan site allocation.

 

·             In light of the current housing emergency, support was expressed for the need to increase the level of affordable and social rented accommodation within the borough.

 

·             Support was expressed for the layout and access of the proposed development along with the provision of communal amenity and play space.

 

·             Attention was drawn to sites in Alperton where significant redevelopment including the opening of access to the canal had supported inward investment across the area, which it was hoped could also be achieved in relation to this site.

 

·             Whilst supportive of the application, challenges around parking along Brook Avenue were highlighted, particularly in relation to the impact on Stadium event days.  As a result, Councillor Kennelly advised he was supportive of the car free element of the proposed development with the need for accessible cycling provision and a local CPZ to apply on non-event days also emphasised.  The contribution towards a CPZ was therefore seen as a positive step, although the need for implementation to be for the benefit of those residents in Brook Avenue and the immediate surrounding area was also highlighted as a means of managing parking demand.

 

·             Support was also expressed for the proposed widening of the street, which it was felt would also increase the space available to encourage other active travel measures including staggered parking provision, cycle lanes, traffic calming and additional tree planting and street furniture.  Moving forward, it was suggested that if footfall on Brook Avenue increased, investment in footpaths and pavements would be necessary with a s.106 contribution from the developer towards this investment also recommended.

 

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

 

·             In outlining the commercial use of driveways for parking by properties along Brook Avenue on event days, it was suggested that developing a car-free area could reduce street traffic. As an initial query, the Chair sought details around whether there were any additional benefits associated with this. The response confirmed that driveways had been used to create additional parking on event days, and it was felt that the space could be better maximised through the Brook Avenue development for housing.

 

·             It was observed that Brook Avenue was on the route of a proposed new cycle quiet way, as part of the strategic cycle network, with the Chair seeking views on the potential benefits in terms of the development proposal.  In response, Councillor Kennelly advised that any contribution made through the scheme would be welcome, including the potential to establish one side of the road as parking and the other side as a cycle lane. Regarding parking provision, he expressed a desire to collaborate with officers and developers to ensure the management of parking was supported alongside wider active travel measures for the benefit of all existing residents and residents within the scheme.

 

·             Views were then sought on whether it was felt that making the development car-free, would still leave the current primary issues of traffic and parking unresolved. In response, Councillor Kennelly expressed concern that residents were increasingly worried about parking provision, particularly with the rise in Wembley event days, with the car-free element therefore providing an opportunity to create a safer and greener space for residents, especially with the addition of the cycling highway which had the potential to tackle some of the concerns being expressed.

 

As there were no further questions from members, the Chair proceeded to invite Max Plotnek (who had registered to speak as the applicant’s planning consultant) to address the Committee.  The following key points were highlighted:

 

·             The scheme had undergone a collaborative and proactive process over the last 2 years with Brent’s planning, design, and highways officers, the Design Review Panel, the GLA, local residents, and the Environment Agency.

 

·             The scheme had been designed to deliver a series of benefits, including a significant contribution to the Council’s annual housing target equivalent to 387 homes, of which 100 would be affordable.

 

·             The high-density nature of the scheme was considered appropriate for the site, which was allocated for 450 dwellings in the Local Plan and located within the Wembley Growth and Opportunity Area.

 

·             The co-living concept provided a new housing product  enabling individuals to live independently in well-designed studio apartments with supporting shared facilities that provided the added benefit of promoting social interaction and community events.

 

·             Unlike other co-living schemes, however, this would provide both co-living residents and affordable housing tenants with a strong connection to nature through heavily landscaped gardens.

 

·             The scheme sought to provide a high-quality design that satisfied Brent and GLA guidance and which was well designed and managed with homes offering good access to light, outlook and amenity spaces in a sustainable location close to excellent transport links at Wembley Park.

 

·             The design aimed for low energy consumption and would significantly exceed the minimum environmental targets being designed to achieve EPC A, WELL Building Standards Platinum Certification, an urban greening factor score almost 50% above the minimum requirement, increased tree canopy cover as well as biodiversity net gain.

 

·             In summary, the scheme was felt to offer a range of planning benefits, including the addition of 100 affordable homes, complemented by an alternative housing product designed to create a mixed community, high-quality and professionally managed co-living homes fostering a sense of social cohesion, and a positive regeneration outcome including a new public square with community play facilities for all age groups.  This would also generate significant financial contributions through s106 and CIL as well as providing job creation during both the construction and operational phases of the co-living building with the Committee reminded that on the basis of the assessment provided the application had also been supported by an officer recommendation for approval.

 

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

 

·             As an initial query, further details were sought regarding whether the developers would collaborate with the Council to open the public space to cyclists and other active travel users, and how the development would impact the pavement to facilitate more active travel on the road. In response, Robert High (PRP Architects also attending in support of the applicant’s planning consultant) explained that the proposals for the Brook Avenue development included exploring a cycle lane as part of the Healthy Streets assessment, with plans to show a cycle lane at both ends of Brook Avenue. The developers expressed their willingness to collaborate with Brent, highlighting the benefits that the scheme would deliver, including improved footpaths without crossovers, enhanced greening, and the integration and servicing of blue badge bays. Max Plotnek also reminded the Committee that the developers had committed £100,000 as part of the s106 package towards Healthy Streets improvements.

 

·             In highlighting the proposal would involve the demolition of 22 properties, the Chair sought further details as to whether the applicant had already acquired the relevant properties and, if not, was confident they would be able to secure  ownership to enable the development to proceed should permission be granted. Confirmation was provided that the vast majority of the properties were under the applicant’s ownership, with the Committee advised that negotiations with the remaining property owners were ongoing. Confidence was expressed that the developers could achieve the plans, given that much of the site was already secured.

 

·             As a further issue raised in relation to timescales, the Chair was keen to seek details on the anticipated duration of the proposed new build given the potential impact of the ongoing development being undertaken at an alternative site on Brook Avenue.  In response, the Committee was advised that construction was expected to take approximately 2.5 to 3 years, as outlined in the Construction Management Plan.

 

Following on, clarification was sought on the timeline for commencing the development works on site should planning permission be granted.  In response, Max Plotnek advised that this would depend on the legal agreement and various s106 obligations being secured along with necessary conditions being fulfilled, which it was estimated could take up to 12 months to complete.  In terms of managing the impact of the construction work, the Committee was advised of the robust nature of the Construction Management Plan which included a range of measures to minimise and mitigate against any disruption to neighbours and the surrounding area.

 

·             Further clarification was also sought on the plans for community play space provision, including the age groups that would be catered for and whether the spaces would be accessible to other local residents as well as tenants given the shortfall in private amenity space identified.  In response, Robert High advised that the affordable housing element of the development would have a private courtyard with a range of play areas for different age groups.  Care had been taken in relation to the placement of play areas, especially for those aged 0–4.  The development would also include nature trails along the brook with the central square, which would be open to the public, including a range of facilities and a youth space including a social hub with Wi-Fi access.

 

·             Members were keen to seek details on whether any surveys had been conducted to determine the demand for co-living in Brent.  In responding, Max Plotnek advised that a co-living needs assessment had been conducted in support of the application to evaluate demand. It was noted that co-living was effectively transitioning people away from traditional family housing, which was often rented by small groups or used for flat shares. Instead of creating new demand, co-living shifted existing demand from one type of housing to another, thereby freeing up family homes. On the basis of the assessment undertaken, he advised that the developer was therefore confident of the level of demand for co-living accommodation as an alternative housing product.

 

·             Following on, members also queried how the rental prices for co-living units compared to the private sector, HMOs, and other types of accommodation. The Committee was informed that co-living allowed individuals wishing to live independently to rent a small studio flat at a lower price than a one-bedroom apartment. The fixed prices included council tax, internet, and gym membership, which helped renters with budgeting. Additionally, there was security of tenure and the provision of 24-hour security was also particularly popular for reasons of safety.

 

·             Referring to the composition of 100 affordable housing units, members sought clarity on the tenure mix of the 70:30% split.  In response, clarification was provided that the mix involved 70% low cost social rented units and 30%as an intermediate affordable housing product.  In terms of being able to offer 100% low-cost social rented units the Committee heard that the appraisals had been based on a 70:30 split, which was the tenure mix required by policy.  It was noted that changing the mix at this stage would be difficult.

 

·             Continuing on the issue of affordable housing, members sought further details about the rationale behind the decision to propose  co-living units alongside  affordable homes and whether consideration had been given to increasing the level of low cost rent affordable housing provision.  In response the Committee was advised that the current proposal had been designed to satisfy the adopted tenure split with co-living recognised as a housing choice and counted towards the housing supply ratio as per London Plan Policy.  The provision of 100 affordable housing units would satisfy the required 35% on-site target given the size of the development and was therefore also policy compliant.

 

·             As a more general issue, questions were raised about whether developers had considered different alternatives for the site. Members were advised that different options had been considered but the applicant had felt the nature of the site would support a mixed use incorporating a community of co-living (for which demand had been identified) and affordable housing.  It was noted that, at this stage, a Registered Provider (RP) had not yet been appointed to manage the affordable units.

 

·             Reference was made to the community amenity facilities that were due to be provided in the main courtyard area within the central square, with members requesting a more detailed plan for their implementation. The applicant’s representatives highlighted that the centre of the scheme featured an open space extending from Brook Avenue to the brook. This area included various play and seating areas. At the southern end of the site, there would be additional landscaping including a platform overlooking the brook.

 

·             As a final question, further clarity was sought on the financial contribution towards TFL infrastructure improvements totalling £130,000 which it was confirmed related to bus service enhancements in the vicinity of the site.

 

The Chair thanked Max Plotnek and Robert High for responding to the Committee’s queries and then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask officers any remaining questions or points of clarity in relation to the application, with the following

key points covered:

 

·             Further details were sought on flood risk mitigation with members noting the site was immediately adjacent to Wealdstone Brook.  In response the Committee was  advised that the site fell within a flood zone in relation to both fluvial and surface water with protection of, and access to, the Brook being a key element of the scheme alongside the flood mitigation measures.  The application had included a Flood Risk Assessment which had been reviewed and assessed by the Environmental Agency.  The rear of the site and garden area would be regraded to provide greater capacity in case of flooding. Sustainable drainage systems, including the introduction of water butts, would be implemented to help manage rainfall.  As further clarification officers advised that the reprofiling had also allowed for some underground storage containment for surface water flooding. Work had been undertaken with Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) to ensure that the surface water runoff from the proposed development was at a greenfield rate. Therefore, it was believed that the development would not pose a risk of exacerbating any flooding incidents. In continuing the response, it was further noted that the Environment Agency had initially raised objections to the proposals due to insufficient details on capacity and storage. However, the applicant had collaborated with the Environment Agency to address these concerns, leading to the withdrawal of their objections from a flood perspective and the proposed drainage strategy (subject to conditions) considered acceptable in terms of being able to sufficiently attenuate water and reduce the risk of flooding.

 

·             Further details were sought reading the way in which the shortfall identified in relation to private amenity space had been addressed within the application.  In response the Committee was advised that whilst the shortfall in private amenity space had been acknowledged this was felt to have been offset by the quality of space that had been provided, which was considered to be acceptable and to have meet or exceeded London Plan standards and was of a size, shape and depth to encourage use.  Reference was also made to the communal space proposed within the development alongside the access available to nearby parks and other community space including Olympic Way and public open spaces in Wembley Park. Policy targets outlined in BH13 were referenced, highlighting that both the numerical and qualitative aspects of amenity spaces were crucial. Overall, officers had determined that the development site met quantity and quality standards within policy and the Council’s adopted Residential Amenity Space and Play Quality SPD.  This had included an assessment in respect of the requirement that where sufficient private amenity space could not be achieved to meet full policy requirements the remainder should be applied in the form of communal amenity space including proximity and access to nearby public open space.

 

·             In noting that the site was not currently included within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) but did require resident permits to park on Wembley Stadium event days further clarification was sought on the implementation of the proposed CPZ for non-event days in the area for which a financial contribution of £100,000 had been secured.  In noting that the development would be car free (expect for the provision of blude badge spaces) members were also aware of the potential overspill parking that was often associated with the implementation of CPZ within surrounding streets that were not included with officers confirming that determining the extent of any CPZ would require consideration to be given to the size of the consultation area and feedback received as a result on the streets to be included.   It was also noted that due to the lack of a CPZ covering Brook Avenue, residents for nearby developments  that were subject to “car free” agreements were currently able to circumvent that by parking on-street (other than on Stadium event days) which is why it had been considered important to seek to secure funding for the implementation of a CPZ via a s106 Agreement.

 

·             Assurances were then sought to ensure that standards were met so that the nearest residential house to the application site 23 Brook Avenue, would not experience undue overlooking or blocking of sunlight. Regarding Block A, which was situated closest to 23 Brook Avenue, members were advised of the plans to pull that Block further away from the boundary by approximately 5 metres. It was noted that the windows on the flank of 23 Brook Avenue did not serve habitable rooms and the primary windows were on the front and rear, so sufficient sunlight would still be achieved to meet standards with officers referring to the site plans in order to provide further clarification and a condition also proposed that would require the flanking window to be obscure glazed for privacy.  The applicant had also submitted a Daylight and Sunlight assessment to demonstrate the impact of the development on surrounding existing properties, which had identified that whilst the majority of neighbouring properties would not experience significantly adverse impacts to daylight some would experience a reduction.  When considered against retained values, however, the deviation from guidance had not been assessed as excessive with the scheme also seeking to maintain reasonable separation distances and step down in height to neighbouring properties in order to minimise any significant adverse effects whilst also looking to maximise use of the site for housing purposes.  As such, given the considerations outlined and the wider planning benefits of the scheme (including the delivery of new housing) the proposal was, on balance considered acceptable in this respect.

 

·             In recognising the number of comments received from statutory consultees, further details were sought on the way in which the comments raised by the GLA (Stage 1 response) in relation to the shortfall in net biodiversity gain (BNG) would be addressed in seeking further on-site opportunities or by securing a financial contribution.  Confirmation was provided that the proposed development had been designed to secure a net BNG of 1.73%, which fell below the 10% target outlined in London Plan Policy G6.  It was, however, pointed out that the application had been submitted prior to the mandatory 10% net gain requirement having come into force, meaning that Policy BGI1 would apply. The Biodiversity Impact Calculation Report indicated that the existing site had 11.29 habitat units, which post development would increase to 12.78 habitat units, resulting in an uplift of 1.49 habitat units or a 13.15% net gain in biodiversity.  Whilst the proposed plans would result in the loss of urban tress and gardens this would be compensated by the creation of an urban biodiverse green roof, garden, rain garden, grassland and 42 new urban trees. As such the development was considered to comply with Policy G6 of the London Plan and Local Plan Policy BGI1 with conditions to be imposed to ensure details of the landscaping and biodiversity enhancements were secured to achieve the net gain BCG.

 

·             Members then moved on to focus on the response from officers to the comments raised by the Metropolitan Police regarding concerns relating to anti-social behaviour. Officers advised that these concerns had primarily related to the provision of the youth space and wi-fi hub in the public square given the potential open access.  As an assurance, members were advised that whilst it would be possible for the public to access the square, password access would be required to use the wi-fi as a means of seeking to address the concerns raised.

 

·             As a further query, the Committee inquired about the oversight of individuals entering the co-living space and whether an operational management plan had been put in place.In response officers advised that co-living arrangements were required to adhere to the London Plan, including the criteria specified in policy H16 and the more recently adopted London Plan Guidance for large-scale purpose-built shared living. As part of this a draft Operational Management Plan had been provided detailing how the co-living element would be managed, which would also be secured through the s106 legal agreement and would be required to comply with the H16 criteria policy and London Plan Guidance.  In terms of potential nomination rights it was noted that these would only be available in relation to the affordable housing element of the scheme.

 

·             In response to further details being sought on the opportunities taken to maximise the level of affordable housing provision within the scheme, members were advised of the balance needing to be achieved in relation to the cumulative impact of the development.  Whilst the site was located within the Wembley Opportunity Area the current design had been developed to mitigate against any adverse impacts on the surrounding area resulting from the proposed increase in height including variants to the massing to mitigate neighbouring overbearing impacts and design features to prevent overlooking.  The current proposals with regard to the level of affordable housing provision also satisfied the requirements of the London Plan (H4: Delivering Affordable housing; H5 Threshold approach to applications & H6 Affordable housing tenure) in terms of the approach used to maximise the delivery of affordable housing with the level and tenure mix proposed meaning the scheme had satisfied the policy requirements enabling a fast track route.  The current maximum proposed height had also been assessed as acceptable in terms of the overall design, scale and bulk of the proposed development and having regard to the distance to neighbouring properties.

 

·             In response to further clarification on the use of CIL and s.106 contributions towards the pavement improvements along Brook Avenue (including potential use the CIL contribution from Wembley Park Gardens) officers advised that the development proposals already included the provision of disabled parking bays and loading bays where the current footway existed, the widening of the highway into the site, and the establishment of a new footway along the entire development frontage.  In terms of CIL contributions it was currently estimated the scheme (subject to approval) would generate between a £3 - £3.2m CIL contribution, which could be utilised by the local authority to deliver community infrastructure projects across the Borough and would be in addition to the £100k financial contribution also due to be secured through the legal agreement towards Healthy Street improvements in the vicinity of the site aimed at providing improvements to traffic calming, surfacing, pedestrian amenity, provision of a cycleway, planting and street furniture as additional benefits to the car free development.  Members were also advised that the proposed scheme would reinstate the existing current footway crossovers providing further opportunity to improve the street for active travel.

 

Details were also sought regarding the need to secure provision of a cycle route, with the Committee advised that the applicants Healthy Streets Assessment had included a proposal for a 1.5m wide cycle lane which it was noted remained a priority for integration as part of the Healthy Street improvements and would be supported by the proposals to widen the highway along the site frontage due to be secured through the s38/278 agreement.

 

·             In response to details being sought on the relationship between the height of the scheme and other developments near Wembley Park on the opposite side of Brook Avenue officers confirmed that whilst the proposed scheme was situated just outside the Tall Building Zone only part of the proposed development would constitute a tall building as defined in policy with the proposed development designed to step up its height gradually from 4 to a maximum of 15 storeys.  When considered against the Forty Lane Intensification Corridor  and emerging character of Brook Avenue including the development on Matthews Close and adjacent to Wembley Park Station officers therefore felt the proposed development would not appear out of context with the applicant having also submitted an assessment that considered the long views from surrounding streets and the impacts on the immediate frontage.  On this basis, officers had concluded that a taller building in the proposed location would be both appropriate and acceptable.

 

·             In terms of the management of traffic and parking on Stadium event days, officers advised this impact would be limited by the car free nature of the development alongside the traffic management and parking restrictions already in place on event days.  In terms of access, during any construction phase the applicant had submitted a Construction Logistic Plans which would be secured through condition in order to detail the measures in place to minimise the impact on the surrounding transport network which officers advised would include event days.

 

·             Recognising the relationship between the proposed development site and Wealdstone Brook, given its contribution to the wider ecological network as a designated site of importance for nature conservation and also as a wildlife corridor, details were sought on the measures included to manage this element of the scheme and ensure the necessary mitigations in relation to protected habitats and species.  In response, the Committee were informed that the applicant had submitted a Preliminary Ecological Assessment, Further Bat Survey, Biodiversity Audit and Arboricultural Impact Assessment which had all been assessed as acceptable by the Ecology Officer.  The Preliminary Ecological Assessment had included a number of recommendations designed to enhance biodiversity which would be secured via condition. A River Conditions Assessment had also been conducted to evaluate the existing quality of the waterway in the brook, confirming that there would be no change to the existing condition of the brook as a result of the development.

 

·             In response to further details being requested on the waste management provision within the proposed scheme officers confirmed that the bin storage provision for the dwellings located at the front of the building would satisfy requirements.  In relation to the co-living blocks revisions had been made to the refuse stores and level of provision per resident increased.  Whilst below the total level required the arrangements were felt to be acceptable based on the provision of twice weekly collections by a private contractor and an assessment with similar schemes in the surrounding area.

 

·             Further assurance was sought in relation to the s.106 contribution secured in relation to the implementation of a CPZ scheme in the vicinity of the development site with members keen to ensure opportunities were taken to the maximum the contribution obtained.  In response, members were advised that the opportunity had been taken to secure funding towards the provision of CPZs for a majority of developments within the vicinity of the site with an additional residents parking scheme in place on Stadium event days meaning the level of contribution secured was felt to be sufficient to enable the necessary consultation to proceed ahead of any potential implementation.

 

·             In noting that not all land required for the development to proceed was currently in the ownership of the developer, details were requested on how that would be addressed and whether the use of Compulsory Purchase powers may be deemed necessary.  Officers confirmed that this remained a civil matter between the developer and relevant landowners involved.  Should it not be possible for agreement to be reached between the relevant parties and planning permission be granted, it was confirmed that the permission could not be implemented unless the developer had acquired all of the individual plots that formed the application site.  In terms of the use of Compulsory Purchase powers these would only be considered as a last resort and would require the developer to have approached the Council with a specific request (which was not currently the case).  The Council would then need to consider whether the request justified use of Compulsory Purchase powers having assessed against the relevant criteria and procedures.

 

·             Referring to the issues highlighted by the GLA and TFL as part of the statutory consultee process, details were sought on the way in which measures had been secured within the development proposals to address concerns relating to the scheme leading to a car dominated landscape and alignment with the Healthy Street principles in terms of space and access available for pedestrians and cyclists.  In response, officers advised how the comments submitted had been  used to support ongoing discussion with the applicant regarding enhancement of the proposals which had included the reinstatement of existing drop kerbs and the widening of pavements outside the active frontage of the site alongside limiting on street parking for blue badge holders with the securing of opportunities for the provision of a cycle lane, additional planting and landscaping and other Healthy Streets measures to contribute to a better street environment also highlighted, supported through the Travel Plan secured as part of the application.

 

·             In response to further details being requested in relation to securing support for car club membership to be included as an element within the Travel Plan, members were advised that membership would be expected to be open to residents within both the co-living and affordable accommodation units within the scheme.  Whilst a car club was already in place on the same street it had been suspended during the pandemic and was therefore in the process of being reinstated with the development seeking to fund resident membership for at least two years to encourage use and one car park bay to be provided for use by the car club, with use being driven by demand.

 

·             As a final issue raised, confirmation was provided that the provision of a single loading bay for the commercial unit was felt to be sufficient.

 

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)        Stage 2 referral to the GLA along with the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the report; and

 

(2)        The conditions and informatives as set out in the main Committee report, as updated within the supplementary report.

 

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: Unanimous in favour)