Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)        The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the report.

(2)        The conditions and informatives as detailed within the report.

PROPOSAL

Proposed second and third floor extensions to 4 x existing blocks to create new self-contained residential dwellings. Associated enlargement of refuse storage, cycle parking spaces to front / rear and improvements to soft landscaping to communal garden.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)  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.

Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) introduced the planning application committee report, detailing the proposal for second and third floor extensions to 4 x existing blocks to create new self-contained residential dwellings, and associated enlargement of refuse storage, cycle parking spaces to front / rear and improvements to soft landscaping to communal garden.

The Chair thanked Damian Manhertz for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then invited Maria S (who had registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• In highlighting her objections it was felt the proposed development would result in a complete transformation, with much taller buildings, including two out of four blocks doubling in size, featuring flat roofs. Changes in the layout and size of the new flats, as well as the addition of balconies were noted. The period style of the 1930s, which characterised the current buildings, was felt to be entirely lost.

• Concerns were also highlighted in relation to the significant disruption that leaseholders and occupiers would endure during the demolition and construction phases. It was felt that this disruption would be particularly challenging for residents who spent the majority of their time at home, due to noise, dust, dirt, restricted movement, and invasion of privacy.  It was also pointed out, if approved, the applicant had three years to commence the works, leaving residents in a state of limbo, unable to plan their lives, sell, or rent their properties, resulting in prolonged suffering and uncertainty.

• Concerns were expressed that, even if residents survived the construction phase without severe mental health impacts, many would find themselves in a completely new environment within a much larger estate, which would no longer feel like home with the enlargement of the new floor area equivalent to 24 existing flats, not 16, representing a 60% increase. It was felt that this would likely result in a proportional increase in the number of residents, all using the existing communal areas and amenities, significantly worsening the quality of life for current residents.

• In concluding her representations the objector strongly believed it was the Council's moral duty to reject the proposal and protect the property owners and occupiers who it was felt would be adversely affected by the freeholder's financial interests and the Council's pursuit of additional properties, without sufficient consideration for the potential harm and suffering caused to the existing residents.

The Chair thanked the objector 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 about the course of action the objector would take if the proposed development was her building and it required additional works and extension. In response, the objector stated that she would not require an extension of the building and noted that the building was constructed as a unit approximately 90 years ago, and it was originally intended to remain as such. It was also pointed out that the building materials and construction methods used at the time of the original construction were entirely different from those used today. It was expressed that if the buildings were no longer functional, redevelopment should be considered, but not at the expense of the current residents' quality of life.

• Following up, members inquired if there would be any circumstances under which the objector would consider altering the building. In response, members were advised that there was no necessity for any alterations with the proposed works attributed the impetus for development and council policies aimed at increasing the number of flats and generating financial gain from developers. It was felt that any financial benefits derived from the development should be allocated to compensating the residents for their significant suffering with many existing residents felt as though they did not truly own their properties and were treated as dispensable.

The Chair thanked the objector for responding to the Committee’s queries and then moved on to invite Renata Krajewska (who had also registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• In outlining their concerns Renata Krajewska noted that the proposed development would alter the character of the estate, with concerns raised regarding the presence of asbestos.

• It was noted that the garden would be overshadowed by the new development, resulting in a significant loss of sunlight.

• It was felt that the development would lead to an increase in the number of people residing in the building and using the garden.  Concerns were also expressed about a potential rise in crime.

• The objector felt that the development would generate additional noise, causing disruption to the residents with the overall disturbance to the residents' daily lives highlighted as a significant concern.

• It was felt that the new development would result in overlooking, leading to a loss of privacy for existing residents.

• It was also felt that the presence of construction sites would bring dust and other nuisances, further impacting the residents' quality of life.

• The objector felt that the development would lead to an increase in traffic in the area, exacerbating existing congestion issues.

• As a final point, concerns were raised about the availability of parking spaces, which would be further strained by the new development.

The Chair thankedRenata Krajewska for addressing the Committee. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then invited Theo Barrett (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 application presented had followed pre-application discussions with the officers to ensure compliance with Brent’s Planning policies, the London Plan, and National policy with the proposals fundamentally compliant with the Development Plan, and no objections raised by any statutory consultees.

• The proposal aimed to deliver housing in a sustainable location, including family housing, and was described as resulting in improved amenity benefits for both existing and new residents.

• Theo Barrett highlighted that the proposed dwellings were designed to be dual aspect and would benefit from daylight levels exceeding the relevant requirements.

• It was noted that the impact of daylight and sunlight on neighbouring buildings had been assessed and found to be acceptable, with no adverse impact.

• In terms of sustainability, the proposal had included the use of Air Source Heat Pumps and photovoltaic panels to achieve high levels of energy efficiency. This was combined with a 67% reduction in CO2 emissions from the Part L 2021 baseline and a Biodiversity Net Gain of over 10%.

• The development was planned to be “car-free,” ensuring that new residents would not contribute to existing parking stress in the vicinity of the site.

• The applicants representative conveyed that public transport would not be adversely impacted by the increase in users resulting from the proposal, and the provision of cycle spaces exceeded the minimum requirements of Brent and London Plan Policy.

• It was stated that pre-commencement conditions had been agreed upon with the officers to limit impacts on local residents during the construction period with existing residents also to be kept informed about the proposals and construction activities.

• Affordable housing would be managed through early and late-stage viability assessments to determine the feasibility of delivering affordable housing within the scheme.

• The proposal was anticipated to provide planning benefits that would result in economic, social, and environmental gains for both existing and future residents.

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

• Members sought further details about the plans for securing the parking arrangements for the proposed development. In response, the supporting consultant explained that there was currently parking available on the site, but it was located outside of the red line boundary. There was an existing arrangement for some residents to use these parking spaces, however, with the new proposal, which entailed development above the existing flats, no parking permits would be issued to the new flats. The consultant affirmed that this condition could be secured either through a planning condition or via a section 106 legal agreement.

• Members expressed concerns regarding the level of consultation with the 41 existing residents residing in the block. The supporting consultant responded that a prior approval application had been submitted in 2023. Prior to this submission, a letter had been dispatched to both owners and occupiers of the premises, informing them of the forthcoming application. Although the 2023 prior approval application was ultimately not approved, the residents had been informed of the applicant's intentions. Consequently, the decision had been made to pursue the planning application route. Following up, members sought clarification on whether the letter had included details about the proposed development to which the supporting consultant confirmed that the letter had included a description of the development but did not contain drawings or detailed plans, though these had been made available on the Council's website. This raised related questions as to whether any face-to-face meetings had been held with the existing residents. In responding to the query, the supporting consultant stated that no face-to-face meetings had been held with the residents.

• Members also highlighted concerns around the significant discrepancy between the financial viability assessment provided by the applicant and that of the Council, with it being noted that the developers projected a deficit of £853,000, whereas the Council's independent review identified a deficit of only £181,000, resulting in a difference of £700,000. Members sought an explanation for the substantial discrepancy. Additionally, members were keen to seek details regarding the applicant's offer to compensate for the major disruption to current residents. In addressing the first question, the supporting consultant explained that the viability assessment was an integral part of the application process, particularly when the policy-compliant level of affordable housing could not be met. This assessment encompassed various inputs, including sales values, finance, developer profit, and build costs. Minor adjustments to these inputs could result in significant differences in the final outcome, even for smaller schemes. The consultant identified two primary differences, which included a slight variation in build costs and a disagreement on the developer profit margin, which ranged between 17.5% and 20%. Despite these differences, both assessments indicated a deficit. The consultant assured that this matter would be secured within the Section 106 agreement, to be reviewed at both early and late stages. Should build costs decrease or sales values increase, a material difference would be reflected, potentially resulting in a contribution. Regarding the secondary question, the supporting consultant elaborated on the wider benefits proposed to mitigate the disruption to current residents. A number of residents had highlighted areas for improvement, such as the garden spaces. A landscape plan had been submitted, aiming to refurbish the garden spaces, incorporate sustainable urban drainage systems, introduce new tree planting, and enhance amenity areas. Additionally, some building facades required improvement, which would be addressed as part of the development, providing a visual and amenity enhancement. The design was considered an improvement and complementary to the existing structures, developed in close collaboration with Brent's Design Officer during pre-application discussions. The supporting consultant further mentioned the submission of a construction logistics plan and a construction environmental management plan, which were expected to include clauses on community liaison, informing residents about the timing, duration, and nature of construction activities, enabling them to plan accordingly.

• Member sought confirmation on whether the building would be repainted, to which it was affirmed that the new parts of the building would indeed be repainted. Following on from the previous question, members requested details on the rendering work that would be undertaken. In response, it was explained that the proposals included rendering work in areas where the new construction joined the existing building. These areas would need to appear seamless and aesthetically pleasing from a design and visual perspective. The consultant noted that the freeholder had the authority to carry out these improvements, though alterations to individual leaseholders' flats, such as windows, would not be possible. The consultant additionally stated that no contributions would be required from existing leaseholders as part of this planning application.

• The Chair sought details on whether any insulation or EPC rating works would be undertaken to uplift the buildings, noting the age of the buildings and whether the applicant would be implementing any measures to enhance the building's green credentials, apart from the PV panels being installed on the new dwellings, which were part of the mandatory requirements. The Chair emphasised the committee's interest in understanding the benefits for the existing users. Additionally, the Chair noted that the current car parking for the site fell outside the red line area of the site boundary and inquired whether there were any EV chargers in those parking spaces or any ambition to install passive EV chargers for residents in the future. The supporting consultant addressed the first question by explaining the challenges associated with the relatively complex ownerships, which limited the ability to make alterations to other people's flats. This complexity also impacted the overall viability of the scheme, which was not producing a surplus at present. Consequently, there were no proposals within the scheme to alter or amend individual leasehold flats. However, there may be improvements within some of the communal areas and within the exterior of the building. The building fabric for the new area or new flats would be of high quality, incorporating PV panels, air source heat pumps, and other credentials. This commitment aimed not only to connect to the existing infrastructure but also to improve the overall efficiency and sustainability of the new flats. Regarding the ambition to install passive EV chargers, the supporting consultant stated that they could not provide a definitive answer, as the arrangements for that parcel of land were unclear, and it was not included within the current application.

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:

• Member queried whether the presence of asbestos in the building was a planning consideration or if it was addressed under building regulations. In response, Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) informed that asbestos in buildings was addressed through other legislation. It was explained that it was not possible to ascertain the presence of asbestos without separate testing. Other legislation covered the safety protocols for dealing with hazardous substances in building materials.

• As an additional issue, concerns about the number of flats and the adequacy of communal garden space were raised. Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) advised that the current external space was fairly large, measuring approximately 1,589 square metres. Additionally, some properties would have private balconies, which were included as part of the external space. On average, each unit would have over 28 square metres of external space, which exceeded the requirements of the Local Plan, even where ground floor dwellings were allocated 50 square metres each. The space was also scheduled to be re-landscaped, with more planting and green space to improve its overall quality. It was confirmed that the amount of amenity space, considering both existing and new flats, would comply with policy BH13.

• Members were keen to seek details as to whether the applicants were providing a financial contribution to compensate for the absence of affordable housing. In response, Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) advised that where there were ten or more new properties, affordable housing should be provided on-site, and a viability test would determine whether it was feasible to provide affordable housing either on-site or, if not feasible, through a financial contribution. For developments with fewer than ten homes (between five and nine), a financial contribution would be taken instead of on-site provision due to the smaller number of properties. In this particular case, as there was no profit being made to provide affordable housing either on-site or off-site, no affordable housing contribution was required. Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) further added that the applicants had proposed no affordable housing and were required to demonstrate through a viability assessment that they could not viably deliver any affordable housing. This assessment was reviewed and discussed in the committee report, with BNPP concluding that the scheme was in deficit. Consequently, the scheme could not viably deliver any affordable housing on-site, thereby complying with policy. The scheme would also secure an early and late-stage review, as required for non-fast track schemes. If there was any uplift, there would be an opportunity for a contribution towards affordable housing or, if substantial, the option for early-stage delivery on-site. It was clarified that under the former policy, developments with fewer than ten homes were not required to provide any affordable housing. However, the current Local Plan, adopted in 2021, recognised that smaller schemes (five to nine homes) could still contribute towards wider affordable housing.  Victoria McDonagh addressed the confusion regarding the 35% and 50% thresholds, explaining that the policy required delivering the maximum viable amount of affordable housing. If a scheme did not meet these thresholds, it did not mean non-compliance with policy; rather, it required demonstrating the maximum viable delivery. In this case, the scheme was in deficit, resulting in no affordable housing. It was additionally noted that late-stage reviews tested actual construction figures, and if a surplus was identified, a contribution would be secured.

At this stage in proceedings, the Committee agreed to apply the guillotine procedure under Standing Order 62(c) in order to extend the meeting for a period of 15 minutes to enable conclusion of the item and remaining business on the agenda.

• In continuing, members sought details as to whether there was a commitment from the developers to ensure that the existing building would be brought in line with the new development, thereby benefiting the current residents. In response, David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) advised that the Council could only secure improvements that would mitigate the impact of the proposed development. Legally, the Council could not secure enhancements that would solely benefit existing residents. However, improvements such as landscaping and open space enhancements could be secured, as these would mitigate the increased intensity of use. Support was also expressed for the rollout of EV charging across the Borough. However, in the context of a car-free development, EV charging would not mitigate the impact of the development. Therefore, while the Council encouraged freeholders to implement EV charging, it could not be secured through this application.

• Member sought clarification on whether the character of the development would align with the character of the area and how the rendering works would affect the area's character. Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) advised that the area featured a diverse range of buildings. Opposite the proposed site was Knowles House, a taller, more modern council building. Adjacent to the site was Fairfield Court, which had recently received permission for upward extensions and had a slightly different design. The surrounding area included various other building types, resulting in no uniform or fixed character. The design of the new development had been carefully considered and evolved to its current form. Officers expressed confidence that the appearance of the new development would sit comfortably within the surrounding area. Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) further added that the character of the area was expected to change over time due to site intensification, such as upward extensions and more efficient site use. It was reiterated that the design had been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the Council’s Design Officer. It was also noted that details of the external materials would be conditioned as part of the planning consent.

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

DECISION

The Committee RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to:

(1)  The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the report.

(2)  The conditions and informatives as detailed within the report.

(Voting on the above decision was unanimous in support).