Agenda item

The Chair exercised his casting vote to grant planning permission subject to:

·       The conditions and informatives as set out in the main Committee report.

·       Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London along with the prior completion of a satisfactory s106 legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the report.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing hotel building and community centre and erection of a part 6, part 8 and part 10 storey 318 room aparthotel plus basement accommodation with associated ancillary facilities, community floorspace (Use Class F1/F2), servicing, landscaping and cycle and refuse storage.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)  The conditions and informatives as set out in the main Committee report; and

(2)  Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London along with the prior completion of a satisfactory s106 legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the report.

James Mascall (Career Grade Planning Officer) introduced the planning application committee report, detailing the proposal for the demolition of existing hotel building and community centre and erection of a part 6, part 8 and part 10 storey 318 room aparthotel plus basement accommodation with associated ancillary facilities, community floorspace (Use Class F1/F2), servicing, landscaping and cycle and refuse storage. Attention was drawn to the supplementary report which set out the receipt of an additional petition containing 10 letters of support which referenced the economic benefits and design of the scheme from properties along High Road, following the publication of the committee report. Minor alterations and corrections to the main report were also detailed within the supplementary report.

The Chair thanked James Mascall for introducing the report and then invited Simon Fowler (who had registered to speak as the applicant’s representative) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• The redevelopment proposals had initially been discussed with officers of the Council in 2020, focusing on the masterplanning of the site and surrounding area, and exploring various options.

• A number of workshops had been conducted to identify how the area could transition over time. Once these principles were embedded within the local plan, it was noted that positive meetings had been subsequently held with the Council’s planning team & design officers.

• The applicant’s representative highlighted that the collaborative approach between teams guided the process, resulting in numerous iterations of the scale and transitions of massing within the development and to adjacent properties. Efforts were made to minimise impacts on neighbours and ensure that the comprehensive masterplan anticipated in the site allocation could continue to progress.

• Simon Fowler expressed that the proposed scheme was designed to respond to the changing character of Wembley town centre, with the height and mass being transitional to the scheme to the south at 6 St. Johns Road, which Members first resolved to grant in April 2022. It was noted that throughout the application, it was demonstrated that a tall building on this site was contextually appropriate, with no substantial harmful short-term effects, and that the scheme aligned with the anticipated masterplanned redevelopment.

• In detailed terms, Simon Fowler further emphasised that significant efforts were made regarding materiality, the façade of the building, and creating an active frontage. Collaboration with officers had focused on integrating the scheme into the townscape, including revisions to servicing and the landscaping strategy.

• From the outset, it was felt that the redevelopment would maximise public benefits. It was further expressed that community space was ensured to be integral to the proposals and accessible to all, significantly enhancing the streetscape and townscape. The opportunity was also taken to highlight that the planning application had garnered substantial positive interest from the local community, with local businesses expected to benefit from increased local spending throughout the construction and operational stages, while maximising local employment opportunities.

• In closing their presentation to the committee, the applicant representative expressed gratitude for the time taken to consider the planning application and indicated readiness to answer any committee questions.

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

• Reference was made to the community use space of the proposed development and as an initial query, members sought details on who could use the space and at what rates. In response, Simon Fowler confirmed that there would be no restrictions on the use of the community space. The space was designated under Class F1/F2 use. As a community centre, it could be hired for various functions, including use by churches, at rates likely to reflect the market rates for a community facility in the location.

• In addition, members requested clarification on the proposed plans, particularly concerning the demolition of the existing community centre and the erection of a hotel. Simon Fowler clarified that the planning application included the demolition of the community centre and the erection of the hotel. It was noted that the site allocation referenced the re-provision of community use, and the applicant representative expressed a keen interest in providing public benefit through the proposed development.

• In response to further questioning, Simon Fowler advised that a Construction Management Plan would be implemented to ensure that no utilities or assets would be adversely affected. It was also noted that Thames Water was a statutory consultee through the plan, serving as a mechanism to ensure that no sewers or pipes would be ruptured in the area.

• Members sought clarification regarding the submission of a fresh planning application for the scheme, given that existing planning permission for the site was already in place. Simon Fowler explained that the initial planning application had been formulated at a time when aspirations for the site and the area were not as clearly defined as they were currently. Considering the scale and anticipated changes in the area, the previous scheme was deemed to have underdelivered. The current proposed scheme was considered a better contextual response, with a more appropriate scale.

• Members sought further details regarding the aspirations of the scheme and the fact that the proposed development exceeded the Tall Building Zone. In response, Simon Fowler explained that the aspiration, initiated five years ago, was to establish a masterplan to ensure the redevelopment of the area. Regarding the Tall Building Zone, it was clarified that the policy in the Local Plan did not restrict all buildings outside of Tall Building Zones. Simon Fowler further elaborated on the details of the Tall Building Zone Policy.

• Views were then sought regarding whether the proposed development was in line with the character of the area. In response, Simon Fowler stated that, given permission had previously been granted for an 18-storey building on the opposite side of the road to the proposed development, a 10-storey building was considered an entirely adequate response. It was also noted that the building was of transitional height, which did not prejudice the future redevelopment of the remaining parts of the site allocation. The proposed development had been designed to ensure that it did not prejudice the potential for development on adjacent sites.

• Members observed that the term for visitors' aparthotel stays was a maximum of 90 days and sought details on the target audience. Simon Fowler responded that Wembley had one of the most significant demands for visitor accommodation, given the proximity of Wembley Stadium to the site. It was felt that there was an untapped demand for hotel accommodation. It was noted that the 90-day restriction for visitor stays had been imposed by the Council, as the aparthotel differed from a traditional hotel. Detailed information about the nature of the rooms was provided, including that 10% of the rooms were wheelchair rooms.

The Chair thanked representatives 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, with the following being noted:

• Views were sought regarding the rationale for developing a tall building outside of the Tall Building Zone in an area predominantly filled with residential properties, following the permission of the previous planning scheme. In response, James Mascall (Career Grade Planning Officer) explained that the previous consent had been considered at a Planning Committee in 2018, prior to the adoption of the Local Plan. The site allocation policy for Elm Road was one of the new key considerations from the Local Plan. While it was acknowledged that the tall building was not within the Tall Building Zone, it was felt that this would not harm the surrounding character of the area. It was noted that the building was situated within the context of many other buildings within the Tall Building Zone, such as the King Edward Court development, which was 11 storeys in height and situated at a higher ground level than the proposed development. The site allocation policy also recognised that the development was in an area of transition and within the Wembley Opportunity Area, designated for growth and regeneration. It was further noted that the proposed development was on a corner site and had an open character. From an urban design perspective, it was felt that visually, the additional height on the corner site could be supported. While the proposed development was taller than the surrounding buildings, the materials used would reflect the general composition of those houses. Members were advised that the development was also compliant with the London Plan. Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) further added that considerations had been made regarding whether there was any harm in situating the building outside of a Tall Building Zone. The townscape analysis had determined that, in the context of various views and other aspects of policy (D9), no harm was found. It was concluded that the building fit within the character of the townscape and had no impact on any protected views or heritage assets. The proposed development, being on a corner site, would assist in the transition of wider sites coming forward for development in the future. Benefits of the development included its potential as a visitor attraction, serving as a focal area in London, and the creation of construction and operational job opportunities under the Employment Training Plan.

• Members reiterated concerns that the views of the committee required further consideration by officers, particularly in challenging proposed developments that exceeded the boundaries of the Tall Building Zone. Members were keen to seek detailed reasoning behind the transition from the extant permission of up to 5 storeys to the acceptance of a 10-storey aparthotel, given its location outside the Tall Building Zone in a residential area, with limited benefits. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) acknowledged that the proposed development was not within the Tall Building Zone. However, detailed analysis revealed no harm in permitting a building of that height, considering the design components. The Committee heard that the proposed scheme had been reviewed by a Quality Review Panel and deemed acceptable from a design perspective by the design officer. Slides were presented, and David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) highlighted and explained the CGI view from the East to the site.

• In response to further questioning, members were advised that planning permission had been granted in 2022 for the conversion of a family dwelling house at no. 14 St John’s Road into two flats. The windows of the property were also obscure glazed. The proposed development would be situated within 9 metres of these windows. There were no concerns regarding privacy, as there were no directly facing windows, and the windows were obscure glazed, serving non-habitable rooms in accordance with the SPD1 Guidance.

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

DECISION

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: For 3, Against 3, Abstention 1)

As there was an equality of votes, the Chair exercised his casting vote to grant planning permission.

RESOLVED to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives detailed in the main committee report, along with the application’s referral to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations detailed in the report.