Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)        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 as detailed in the main and updated within the supplementary committee reports.

(2)    The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the main and amended within the supplementary committee reports.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the site with a residential-led (Use Class C3) building with flexible commercial/community floorspace (Use Class E/F) at ground level; new basement excavation; cycle stores and blue badge parking; refuse stores and plant rooms/equipment; hard and soft landscaping including part-naturalisation of the Wealdstone Brook; new play space; and all associated engineering and ancillary works.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)  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; and

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

Sean Newton (Development Management Planning Manager) introduced the planning application committee report, detailing the proposal to demolish the existing College of North West London building and the erection of two mixed-use linked blocks, A and B, which would be respectively 31 and 18 stories (including mezzanine level). The eastern part of the site which fronts Olympic Way would contain the tallest block, Block A. The development would provide 307 residential units (Use Class C3) along with flexible commercial/community use at ground level (Use Class E/F2), basement excavation, shared external amenity space, blue badge parking, cycle parking, refuse stores, plant rooms/equipment, and hard and soft landscaping including the part naturalisation of Wealdstone Brook, a Grade II SINC.

Attention was drawn to the supplementary report, detailing amendments to the main report, additions, corrections and clarifications to the heads of terms. The recommendation remained to grant consent subject to the additional and amended heads of terms, and stage 2 referral to GLA as contained in the main committee report. 

The Chair thanked Sean Newton for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then invited Terry Gamble (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 high-quality design was believed to complement the Wembley area and respond to the height and style of the surrounding buildings.

• Despite the constraints of the site, it was noted that Hill Group had managed to retain and improve the existing open space, providing a new residential garden for all residents and achieving an Urban Greening Factor of 0.45.

• The scheme included new public realm developments, designed in collaboration with Secured by Design, The Football Association (FA), and the Metropolitan Police. These measures aimed to ensure safety and protection during stadium events, preventing a through route from Wembley Park Drive to Olympic Way, while maintaining resident access.

• The development would utilise high-performance building fabrics and air source heat pumps for heating, cooling, and hot water. Additionally, over 90% of the apartments would be dual aspect.

• The importance of delivering meaningful social value through the enabling development approach. The combined social value across both application sites included:

Ø  Over 110 apprenticeships

Ø  Over 155 local job starts

Ø  20% local labour

Ø  Over 260 work placements

Ø  Over 4600 volunteering hours to support community projects within the Borough

Ø  Over 44 new job starts for NEETs, ex-offenders, and mothers returning to work

Ø  Encouragement of local spending within Brent through the supply chain

• That, subject to approval, work on the scheme was intended to commence in Summer 2025.

In concluding this representation, Terry Gamble expressed the hope that the benefits the schemes would bring to the Borough, as well as their contribution to Brent's housing needs, would lead to the approval of the scheme in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

The Chair thanked Terry Gamble 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 a question of clarification, members sought details about the part naturalisation of the Willesden Brook, seeking elaboration on what this process would involve. A supporting consultant responded that extensive discussions had been held with the Environmental Agency throughout the planning application process on various matters. The consultant explained that there was a balance to be maintained between not interfering excessively with the brook and identifying areas for improvement. The landscape plan included reed beds, which were expected to enhance water quality. This improvement had been secured as one of the planning conditions.

• Additional questions were raised around whether any housing providers had been consulted for the proposed site, to which Terry Gamble responded affirmatively, indicating that a combined approach had been adopted for the Registered Provider (RP). Members further queried whether there was consideration for having one housing provider manage one site and a different provider manage the other, or if the intention was to have a single provider manage both sites. In response, Terry Gamble explained that current discussions were based on having a single provider manage both sites.

The Chair thanked the applicants 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:

• As an initial query, members noted that Quintain had expressed operational security concerns regarding the potential link to the south-west of the site with the full-time quarters and sought clarification on whether these concerns had been resolved. In response, Sean Newton (Development Management Planning Manager) highlighted that that ongoing discussions were taking place and explained that the Wembley Master Plan included an ambition to provide a linkage between the two sites. The necessity of controlling crowds along the main routes towards the stadium on Wembley Event Days was also acknowledged.

• Regarding financial contributions, specifically in relation to the £76,000 allocated for the pedestrian crossing, members sought clarification on the figures for the implementation of the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), bus service enhancement, Wembley Park station improvement, and Healthy Streets improvements in the vicinity of the site. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) clarified that there had been no contribution towards Wembley Park station, as it was not requested by Transport for London (TfL), which was confirmed in the supplementary report. It was stated that there was an indicative contribution of £149,500 towards bus service enhancement, as requested by TfL. However, discussions with the applicant were ongoing and would continue through to stage two referrals and the Greater London Authority (GLA). It was further explained that the financial contribution of £76,750, as advised by John Fletcher, was intended to be flexible for allocation towards a pedestrian crossing, improvements in Wembley Park Drive, Healthy Streets improvements, or the implementation of a CPZ.

• Members raised queries regarding the provision of family-sized homes within the scheme, noting that the current provision was 15%, whereas policy BH6 required 25%. Clarification was sought on the reasons why the current provision was deemed acceptable. In response, Sean Newton (Development Management Planning Manager) explained that while the policy aimed to maximise the provision of family dwellings, viability considerations impacted the housing mix. It was stated that 15% was the maximum achievable on the site at present. Sean Newton provided a breakdown of the housing blocks, noting that Block A, the smaller affordable housing block, contained 85 dwellings, with 16 (19%) being family housing. Block B included 30 family-sized units, approximately 13.5%. Combined, this resulted in 15%, with a higher weighting in the affordable block. Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) added that the delivery of family-sized accommodation was prioritised in affordable products due to the significant number of families on the waiting list for affordable housing. This balancing exercise was considered holistically when assessing viability.

• Members posed questions regarding the shortfall in amenity space and the financial contribution cited within paragraph 81 of the committee report. In response, Sean Newton explained that dense high-rise developments often struggled to provide the full quantum of amenity space required by policy. The constrained site made it difficult to provide sufficient communal space. Consequently, a financial contribution of approximately £100,000 was sought for improvements to nearby open spaces, play facilities, and/or improvements to the routes leading to these spaces. In continuing the response, Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) added that, given the town centre location and site constraints, the development had delivered as much amenity space as felt possible to secure and the overall assessment had been the proposed provision was felt to provide enough access to amenity space of a sufficient size and type to meet residents' needs.

• In addressing further questions regarding the allocation and impact of the £100,000 financial contribution towards improvements, Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) explained that the contribution would be considered within the context of collecting funds for the enhancement of existing open spaces across multiple applications. It was noted that the Council's Park Service would have the discretion to allocate and combine these funds to undertake larger improvement projects within public open spaces in the vicinity of the application site as well as contributing to broader improvement initiatives that the Council intended to implement on its estates.

• Further questions were raised regarding the possibility of involving local and small businesses to ensure they benefited from the construction activities. In response, the Committee were advised that Council teams actively linked opportunities with local businesses. However, it was clarified that such provisions were not secured within the Employment and Training Plan.

• In response to further questioning regarding the delivery and servicing plan for the site, Sean Newton (Development Management Planning Manager) explained that a delivery and servicing plan was being secured to ensure that all deliveries to the site would be timed. Additionally, there would be a central collection point for deliveries, such as those from Amazon, where residents could collect their packages. In continuing the response, Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) further added that the new building differed significantly from the one it replaced in terms of usage intensity. Previously, when the building was fully occupied by the college, there was a significant number of students coming and going at certain times of the day. The new building would have a different relationship in terms of the number of occupants and its intensity of use. The delivery and servicing plan aimed to ensure that arrangements worked effectively, including partnerships for waste collection.

• Concerns relating to flood risks were highlighted, with members noting the proposed site's proximity to the Welsh Harp. In response, Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) conveyed that the new building had a similar footprint to the existing one, but the residential accommodation was significantly above ground floor level. In the event of a major flooding event, the residential uses would be separated from the floodwaters. Sean Newton (Development Management Planning Manager) further elaborated that the Welsh Harp was located approximately 1.5 km away, with an estimated reservoir volume of 1.6 cubic metres. In the event of reservoir failure, a significant amount of water would head towards the site. To address this, the applicant was required to prepare an evacuation plan, ensuring residents knew what actions to take. The plan also included provisions for dry areas above floodwater levels. It was also stressed that there was no imminent flood risk from Welsh Harp. Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) further mentioned that sustainable drainage measures would reduce the rate of surface water flooding by 77%, representing a significant improvement. In concluding the response, Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) explained that in the event of surface water flooding, attenuation measures would release water into the drainage network at a slower rate, preventing system overload.

• In response to further questioning around Section 278 agreements, details were provided that a Section 278 agreement pertained to works executed by the developer, with the Council providing supervisory oversight. In this case, a Section 106 contribution would be received, with the Council determining the most appropriate use of the funds.

• Members then inquired about the provisions for electric scooters and electric cycles, specifically questioning the inclusion of charging points. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) confirmed that provisions for electric vehicle charging, including for bicycles, had been included as a planning condition. It was explained that mechanisms had been put in place within the conditions to assess the feasibility of delivering electric vehicle charging as part of the cycle parking facilities.

• The Chair observed that there was only one blue badge parking space on site and inquired about the distance to the nearest additional parking space, should there be more than one blue badge occupant within the proposed buildings. In responding to the inquiry, John Fletcher (Team Leader - Development Control) stated that the nearest additional blue badge parking spaces would be located on the opposite side of Wembley Park Drive, in front of the shop parade, or on Brook Avenue.

• As a final query, members sought details about the potential impact of the proposed tall building within the tall building zone on the views of the Wembley Arch, specifically from Barn Hill. It was confirmed that the proposed development would not compromise the views of the Wembley Arch. It was explained that while the development would come near to the bottom of the arch, the arch would still be visible from Barn Hill, which was a locally protected view. Therefore, from the designated locally protected view, the arch would remain uncompromised.

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 application’s referral to the Mayor of London (Stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed in the main and updated within the supplementary committee reports.

(2)  The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the main and amended within the supplementary committee reports.

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