Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)  The conditions and informatives, as set out in the main committee report, removal of the conditions as set out within the supplementary report and additional requirement for a Section 106 Agreement to secure the following Heads of Terms:

• A requirement to submit the Statutory Biodiversity Metric to identify the pre-development biodiversity value of the site prior to commencement of development.

• In the event that the house is not construction as a self-build in line with the legal definition of Self Build and Custom Build Housing or subsequently sold or occupied for persons other than the applicant within 3 years after the house is completed to notify the Council in writing. The owner would then be required to secure off site BNG units either through registered offsite biodiversity gains or statutory biodiversity credits to secure the 10% net gain in biodiversity, with such evidence submitted to the Council.   

PROPOSAL

Proposed demolition of garage and x3 sheds and, erection of dwellinghouse with basement level, addition of new fence to south side of the site, provision of 2 car parking spaces, cycle and refuse storage, landscaping and associated access to land rear of 7 Randall Avenue.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolved to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as detailed in the main committee report and removal of the conditions as set out within the supplementary report.

Sarah Dilley (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report, advising members that the application sought full planning permission for the proposed demolition of garage and x3 sheds and, erection of dwellinghouse with basement level, provision of 2 car parking spaces, cycle, and refuse storage, landscaping and associated access to land rear of 7 Randall Avenue. Attention was also drawn to the supplementary report circulated in advance of the meeting, which outlined an error that had been identified within the Summary of Key Issues section of the committee report. It was explained that the error appeared within the Flood Risk and Drainage subsection, where reference had been made to the need for a condition requiring the submission of a drainage strategy. It was confirmed that such a condition was not considered necessary and that no drainage condition had therefore been included. Sarah Dilley (Principal Planning Officer) further reported that an additional objection had been submitted, which raised concerns primarily relating to biodiversity net gain and the status of the proposed self-build exemption. It was stated that officers had undertaken a further review of these matters, including an assessment of relevant appeal decisions. It was noted that although the supplementary report had suggested the use of conditions to secure both the self-build exemption and any biodiversity net gain requirements, subsequent legal advice had been sought and additional research undertaken. It was confirmed that officers now considered it more appropriate for these matters to be secured through a legal agreement in order to ensure compliance with the self-build definition or, alternatively, to secure biodiversity net gain should that be required. Sarah Dilley (Principal Planning Officer) further advised that an email had been received earlier that day which contained several attachments, including a petition with 251 signatures, a copy of the Brent Council Article 4 Direction for the Homestead Park Conservation Area, the character appraisal for the conservation area, and a photograph that depicted enforcement officers outside 7 Randall Avenue. The Committee were advised that much of the content contained within the email and the petition had already been addressed within the consultation section of the committee report. It was further noted that the email referred to a Home Office investigation at 7 Randall Avenue. It was confirmed that although the use of 7 Randall Avenue had been considered within the officer report, the referenced investigation was not a material planning consideration. It was also explained that the email made reference to covenants affecting the land, but it was reiterated that covenants were likewise not material planning considerations for the purposes of determining the application.

The recommendation remained to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as detailed in the committee report, removal of the conditions as set out within the supplementary report and additional requirement for a Section 106 Agreement to secure the following Heads of Terms:

• A requirement to submit the Statutory Biodiversity Metric to identify the pre-development biodiversity value of the site prior to commencement of development.

• In the event that the house is not construction as a self-build in line with the legal definition of Self Build and Custom Build Housing or subsequently sold or occupied for persons other than the applicant within 3 years after the house is completed to notify the Council in writing. The owner would then be required to secure off-site BNG units either through registered offsite biodiversity gains or statutory biodiversity credits to secure the 10% net gain in biodiversity, with such evidence submitted to the Council.  

The Chair thanked Sarah Dilley (Principal Planning Officer) for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then moved on to consider a request which had been received to speak on the application and invited Tim Waters (who had registered to speak as an objector online) to address the Committee in relation to the application.

While audio technical issues were being resolved with the online speaker, the Chair proceeded to invite Murtaza Poptani (who had registered to speak as the Agent) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• Murtaza Poptani began by highlighting that the proposal concerned a backland site for a single-family dwelling. Murtaza acknowledged the planning history, including the previously dismissed appeal. Murtaza emphasised that the key issue before the Committee was that officers had undertaken a detailed assessment of the revised scheme in the context of that history and were satisfied that the amended proposal had addressed and overcome the earlier reasons for refusal, particularly those relating to scale, bulk, height and design.

• The Agent clarified that the proposal was materially lower and smaller than the scheme dismissed at appeal. The Agent stated that the current maximum height was approximately 6.65 metres, representing a reduction of around 1.6 metres compared with the appeal scheme and being lower than the height permitted under the earlier outline consent. It was noted that officers had concluded that, when considered alongside the amended roof form and the revised siting of the building, the development would not appear visually dominant or harmful to the prevailing character of the area, including views from the adjacent Homestead Park Conservation Area.

• In relation to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, Murtaza Poptani noted that the officer report confirmed full compliance with the Council’s adopted guidance. It was highlighted that the development sat below the 30 degree and 45-degree lines, that appropriate separation distances had been maintained, and that privacy would be secured, where necessary, through conditions. This included the requirement for obscure glazing to the dormer window facing Dollis Hill Lane. It was also noted that officers had concluded that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm by way of loss of light, outlook or privacy.

• The Agent acknowledged that concerns had been raised regarding the proposed basement. The Agent reported that officers had confirmed that the site lay within Flood Zone 1, that the Basement Impact Assessment was acceptable for planning purposes, and that matters relating to construction methodology, drainage and safety were appropriately controlled through pre commencement conditions and through compliance with Building Regulations.

• On the matter of parking and access, Murtaza Poptani stated that the proposal provided 2 off street parking spaces, which was consistent with the previous outline approval and compliant with the maximum parking standards. The scheme also included provision for cycle storage, electric vehicle charging, and a turning area to allow vehicles to exit the site in a forward gear. It was additionally noted that Transport Officers had raised no objection, subject to conditions.

• In concluding his address to the Committee, Murtaza Poptani highlighted that the proposal would deliver a high quality, family sized dwelling that met all space standards, accessibility requirements and water efficiency standards, and would contribute in a modest but meaningful way to the delivery of housing within the Borough. For these reasons and having regard to the detailed and balanced assessment presented within the officer report, the Agent confirmed support for the recommendation and requested that the Committee grant planning permission.

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

• As an initial query, the Chair questioned why the proposal included 2 parking spaces for what had been defined as a modest garden development, and why only 2 spaces had been provided rather than 1. In response, Murtaza Poptani explained that 1 parking space had been allocated to the existing dwelling and 1 parking space had been allocated to the proposed dwelling.

• The Chair then queried what consideration had been given within the design to the turning area and the refuse store. In response, Murtaza Poptani stated that the refuse store had been positioned in its proposed location because it was required to be within a specified distance of the highway. It was explained that, in relation to the previous application, it had been determined that the refuse store must be situated in that location in order to allow for collection by refuse operatives. It was confirmed that the design had therefore deliberately placed the refuse store in that position.

As there were no further Committee questions raised at this point, and following the resolution of the technical difficulties, the Chair returned to the request which had been received to speak on the application and invited Tim Waters (who had registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• Tim Waters began by noting that the application followed 2 previous applications that had been refused by the Council, including one that had been dismissed on appeal in March 2024. It was also noted that, in dismissing that appeal, the Inspector had concluded that a dwelling of a similar size would not relate positively to the existing context and character of the area and would therefore be contrary to planning policy. It was stated that the current proposal was no better and contained multiple shortcomings that equally justified refusal.

• The objector expressed the view that there was no legal mechanism proposed to secure the dwelling as a self-build development, despite appeal precedent and case law determining that such a mechanism was necessary. It was noted that the applicant was a company specialising in the letting of owned or leased real estate, including the operation of No. 7 Randall Avenue as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO), and therefore the claim that the dwelling would be occupied by the company owner appeared unlikely. It was highlighted that officers were recommending the imposition of a condition to secure the self-build and occupancy restriction on what the objector described as the spurious basis that it would be too costly for the applicant to enter into a section 106 agreement. The speaker further maintained that the use of a condition was wholly inappropriate, could not be legally enforced, and would not prevent the property from being sold to an unrelated individual within the defined self-build period. The objector considered this completely unacceptable and contrary to the primary purpose of the legislation relating to self-build housing.
• Tim Waters stated that without a legally enforceable self-build mechanism, the development could not be exempt from the mandatory requirement for a 10% biodiversity net gain, contrary to the applicant’s claim.

• The objector further stated that the proposal incorporated a 60sqm basement, comprising nearly 40% of the overall gross internal area of the dwelling, which had been predominantly allocated as an entertainment and games room. The objector contended that the Basement Impact Assessment submitted by the applicant was wholly inadequate. It was noted that it had not been prepared by a certified or qualified engineer and failed to assess likely impacts on groundwater, surface water run off and land or structural stability, all of which should properly be assessed as part of the application.

• The speaker added that the proposed means of access to the new dwelling was entirely inadequate, including for construction purposes. It was noted that the access was only 2.8 metres wide and was shared with No. 9. The speaker stated that this arrangement created an obvious risk of pedestrian and vehicular conflict, which the application and the officer report had failed to address.

• Tim Waters observed that no urban greening factor calculation had been undertaken, contrary to planning policy.

• The objector also expressed concern that the proposal included an additional parking space intended to serve the adjoining House in Multiple Occupation at No. 7 Randall Avenue. It was felt that this raised clear privacy concerns and indicated that the new dwelling may similarly be operated as a House in Multiple Occupation.

• In concluding his presentation to the Committee, Tim Waters respectfully requested that the Committee refuse planning permission.

The Chair thanked Tim Waters for addressing the Committee and then invited members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair 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:

• Members questioned, with reference to the supplementary report, whether confidence could be maintained in the wider construction method and associated mitigation measures, given the identification of an error in the Basement Impact Assessment. It was further queried whether the proposed drainage arrangements remained sound in light of this error. In response, Sarah Dilley (Principal Planning Officer) highlighted that, in respect of drainage, the site was located within Flood Zone 1, which was categorised as being at low risk of flooding. It was confirmed that, taking into account the scale of the proposed development and the extent of landscaping, officers were satisfied that the arrangements were acceptable and that there was no requirement for a drainage condition. In relation to the Basement Impact Assessment, members were advised that matters concerning structural integrity would also be addressed through compliance with Building Regulations.

• The Chair then sought clarification regarding the proposed driveway, which measured 2.9 metres in width. The Chair noted that vehicle sizes were increasing on average and added that refuse bins were occasionally brought along the side of the property. The Chair expressed concern that pedestrians would also be required to use this access route, including during hours of darkness, and queried whether the arrangement provided a safe means of access to the dwelling. The Chair questioned what assessment had been undertaken and whether restrictions on parking could be considered in order to reduce risk. In response, John Fletcher (Team Leader Development Control) noted that the dwelling would be served by a driveway measuring slightly under 3 metres in width, which currently provided access to garages at the rear of No. 7 and No. 9 Randall Avenue. It was confirmed that this would be the sole point of access for the new dwelling. Members were further advised that the width aligned with British Standards for a driveway serving a single house, and this was the basis upon which officers had assessed its suitability. It was explained that a separate footway would not normally be expected for access to a single dwelling and that the driveway was intended solely for cars. It was emphasised that refuse vehicles would not use the driveway and confirmed that the proposed bin store was situated within 20 metres of the highway, which complied with the standards for refuse collection. It was also noted that the applicant proposed improvements to the surface and lighting of the driveway, which would enhance safety.

• Turning to the question of whether a reduction in parking provision could be considered, John Fletcher (Team Leader Development Control) stated that this was challenging because the proposal concerned a family dwelling, where car ownership was typically higher, particularly for households with children. He noted that the site had a Public Transport Accessibility Level of 2, which indicated relatively limited transport accessibility. He further observed that the surrounding street already experienced high parking demand, had little spare capacity, and was not subject to a Controlled Parking Zone. For these reasons, he considered that off-street parking was necessary to avoid additional parking pressures on the street.

• Clarification was sought by members on whether it was appropriate for insinuations regarding alleged issues of fly tipping or antisocial behaviour associated with the current landlord to influence the Committee’s judgement in the determination of the planning application. In response, the Chair explained in general terms, when an application was presented to the Committee, it was considered neutrally irrespective of the identity of the applicant. The Chair stated that members were required to assess the planning merits of the proposal itself rather than any allegations relating to individuals. The Chair advised that the relevant question was whether the proposed development would be likely to create or exacerbate such issues due to its design, rather than any matters associated with the applicant.

• Details were sought on what other changes, aside from the reduction in height, had been made to render the proposal acceptable when compared with previous schemes. In response, Sarah Dilley (Principal Planning Officer) directed members to paragraph 38 of the committee report, which contained a table outlining the principal changes. It was explained that the planning history included an appeal scheme from 2023, as well as an earlier outline planning permission with reserved matters that had lapsed before implementation. It was stated that the table provided a useful comparison between the outline consent and the current proposal. It was noted that the height had been reduced by approximately 55cm. It was confirmed that the dwelling remained broadly within the same position as the outline scheme in terms of site layout, parking arrangements and roof form. It was also noted that, unlike the outline scheme, the current proposal included a basement. It was explained that the footprint of the dwelling was marginally larger, and that excluding the lightwells, the subterranean element increased by less than 4sqm, while the overall height had been reduced.

• In response to further queries relating to the drawing pack, officers presented slides illustrating what had been approved under the outline consent, the proposed site plan, and the layout of Bedroom 3, including the southwest facing dormer and the window to the first-floor ensuite.

DECISION

Having consider the application, the Committee RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to:

(1)  The conditions and informatives, as set out in the main committee report, removal of the conditions as set out within the supplementary report and additional requirement for a Section 106 Agreement to secure the following Heads of Terms:

• A requirement to submit the Statutory Biodiversity Metric to identify the pre-development biodiversity value of the site prior to commencement of development.

• In the event that the house is not construction as a self-build in line with the legal definition of Self Build and Custom Build Housing or subsequently sold or occupied for persons other than the applicant within 3 years after the house is completed to notify the Council in writing. The owner would then be required to secure off site BNG units either through registered offsite biodiversity gains or statutory biodiversity credits to secure the 10% net gain in biodiversity, with such evidence submitted to the Council.   

(Voting on the above decision was unanimous).