Agenda item

Refused the recommended granting of planning permission on for the following reason(s):

• The design of the proposed development was not considered to be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area.

Voting on the above decision was as follows: - 4 in favour of refusal & 1 in favour of granting planning permission.

PROPOSAL

Proposed erection of two storey 3x bedroom dwelling house with installation of a front brick boundary wall for the vacant parcel of land directly to the North of 125 Preston Road.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives, as detailed in the committee report.

Janseway Cheung (Career Grade Planning Officer) introduced the report, advising members that the proposal sought planning permission for a two storey 3-bed 5-person dwelling which would form a new end of terrace property adjoining with the existing pair of semi-detached dwellings at No.123 and No.125 Preston Road. The dwelling would have an angled mono-pitch roof design, with the highest point towards Pellatt Road, where it met the junction. The proposed development would also incorporate a 6.0m deep single storey rear element that would have a flat roof set at an eaves and maximum height of 3.0m. Other associated works involved the creation of a front forecourt with planting and combined cycle and refuse storage, the erection of a brick front boundary wall, and wooden fenced side boundary treatment. Private external amenity space would be provided to the rear garden for the residents of the property.

The application site related to a grass verge with some shrubs that was located to the north of the dwelling at No.125 Preston Road and was sited on an open road junction, fronting Preston Road to the east and Pellatt Road to the north.  Members were advised that the site was not situated within a Conservation Area and did not contain any designated or undesignated heritage assets and for highway purposes, whilst not within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), was located within the Wembley Event Day Parking Zone.

Attention was also drawn to the Supplementary Report circulated in advance of the meeting, which outlined additional representations received in objection from the adjoining neighbour at 125 Preston Road.  Members were advised the comments raised mainly reflected those already received and addressed within the main Committee report, with the recommendation therefore remaining to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives outlined within the main report.

The Chair thanked Janseway Cheung for introducing the report.  As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then moved on to the consider the requests which had been received to speak on the application and invited Nisha & Kunal Shah (who had registered to speak in objection) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

Advising that they were speaking as the adjoining neighbours to the site at 125 Preston Road Nisha & Kunal Shah outlined what they felt to be a number of weaknesses in the basis of the assessment supporting the recommendation within the report with specific concerns highlighted in relation to the following areas:

·            The impact arising from the design of the proposal on the character of the area.  Members were advised that the proposal would have the effect of attaching a new dwelling directly to 125 Preston Road, converting a semi-detached pair into an end-of-terrace, removing the visual gap and unbalancing the symmetry of the pair which it was felt conflicted with adopted SPD1 guidance in relation to removing openness of a sensitive corner plot and creating the impression of a continuous terrace.  The use of flat roofs, pale bricks and minimal detailing was also felt to contradict the Metroland nature of red brick, pitched roof and mock tudor character style of buildings in the surrounding area.

·            Overdevelopment, based on the rear projection of the building having been felt to exceed the maximum set for semi-detached properties within Brent’s Residential Extension Supplementary Planning Document.  In addition, concerns were expressed in relation to the impact in terms of daylight and amenity, with it pointed out no daylight/sunlight assessment had been submitted and the proposal also breached the 45 degree rule on the ground floor habitable window as a minimum safeguard.

·            The impact in relation to the Boundary Wall and Drainage deliverability relation to 125 Preston Road as the adjoining property, with members advised that it was felt the proposal would block access to an existing rainwater downpipe with no provision for its rerouting making the scheme undeliverable.  In addition, concern was expressed at the biodiversity net loss arising from the scheme which it was felt represented a breach of Local Plan Policy BGI1 & London Plan policy G6.

·            As a result, the scheme was felt to have breached multiple Brent and London Plan policies and be undeliverable as designed, introducing permanent harm to both 125 Preston Road and the wider character of the surrounding area.  Concern was expressed that whilst the officer report had acknowledged breaches of Brent and London Plan policies, as well as the statutory biodiversity duty, these had been assessed as “not significant.”  Referring to two previous refusals at 125 Preston Road of over dominant extensions on the same corner site and the significance of the area as a gateway to the Wembley Stadium complex it was not felt the assessment had considered the reputational and design impact of the proposal, with the need also identified to recognise the weight given to the conflicts in terms of the adopted policy framework.  Based on the breaches identified it was felt the Committee therefore had clear grounds to refuse the application and on this basis members were urged to reject the recommendation for approval within the report.

The Chair thanked Nisha and Kunal Shah for addressing the Committee and with no questions or points of clarification raised by members of the Committee then moved on to invite Adam Dainow supported by Joe Willians (who had registered to speak as the applicant and agent respectively) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

In opening his comments, Adam Dainlow (as applicant and owner of the application site) outlined the nature of his business in seeking to develop imaginative, design led homes on small plots of land in a way that mirrored the aim within the London Plan to support considered intensification.  In terms of the application presented to the Committee, it was pointed out the design had reflected the positive work and engagement process with the Council’s Planning Officers which had led to the development of what regarded as a highly considered scheme seeking to utilise an underused piece of land in order to provide a family sized home based on an exemplary and high quality design and which it was felt would serve as a benchmark development for the local community.  In providing further detail Joe Williams (as the applicant’s agent) took the opportunity to highlight:

·            The proposal was for a new two-storey, three-bedroom family home on the vacant parcel of land directly north of 125 Preston Road.  Members were advised that at present, the site was under-utilised and made a limited contribution to the local character of the area. The scheme therefore sought to enhance the use of the land and make positive and efficient use of what was felt to represent a sustainable location, with good access to local amenities, employment opportunities, and public transport links, including Preston Road Station and three bus stops all within easy walking distance.

·            The new home had been designed to meet national and London Plan housing standards, providing generous internal space, triple aspect daylighting, and over 50 square metres of private garden and would also respond directly to Brent’s identified need for family housing of three bedrooms or more.

·            Design quality had been a central focus of the proposal with the architecture felt to offer a contemporary response to the character of Preston Road, contributing to the variety of neighbouring styles ranging from 1930’s Tudorbethan semis to neighbouring 1960’s and 1990’s estates. To ensure continuity, the design had reflected the established palette of local materials such as the red brickwork base and reinterpretation of the white render with all representing high-quality, durable finishes.  The proposals had also been assessed as consistent with Policy 6.1.7 of the Brent Local Plan, which supported excellence in contemporary architecture and design that evolved and enhanced local character.

·            Members were advised that care had also been taken in developing an appropriate massing, with it highlighted that the scheme had been praised in the pre-application advice as 'a well-designed contemporary exemplar, in which the angled roof form would follow the geometry of the existing roof at No.125 Preston Road and would respect the eaves level of the neighbour'.

·            In terms of the design, it was pointed out that the new building, acknowledging its prominent corner position, aimed to provide a more defined corner to the junction with Pellatt Road, which it was felt would contribute positively to the identity of the street.

·            Members were also advised of the work undertaken by the applicant with the Council’s Planning Department to ensure that the proposals responded appropriately to the recommendations of the pre-application advice, including refinements to materials, boundary treatments, and landscaping.  It was also pointed out the development had achieved the required Urban Greening Factor, through the introduction of new trees and planting and incorporation of sustainability measures such as green roofs, water efficiency, and secure cycle storage.

·            In summing up, it was therefore felt that the proposal not only made effective use of a small brownfield site in line with local and national policy, but also would provide a much-needed family home designed to meet all space and design standards whilst contributing to the local built environment with a high-quality, contemporary approach that also embedded sustainability, biodiversity, and accessibility at its heart.  As such it was hoped the Committee would recognise the application as representing a positive, policy-compliant contribution to Brent’s housing provision and urban character.

The Chair thanked Adam Dainlow & Joe Williams 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:

·            In response to queries raised regarding the proximity of the application site to the adjoining property at 125 Preston Road and nature of the design compared to the surrounding area, the applicant advised that whilst recognising the impact likely to be experienced during the construction phase of the development the overall design quality of the development was felt to be high.  This included the type of materials which members were reminded had been designed to reflect the established palette of materials used locally.

·            Referring to images of the design displayed at the meeting, members sought further assurance regarding the impact on neighbouring properties and surrounding area noting the difference in character and style of the development and adjoining property.  In response, members were advised of the efforts made to ensure design of the development respected and reflected the nature of the area.  Whilst recognising the contemporary design approach it was pointed out the proposals were policy compliant with careful attention having been paid to proportions, detailing and materials and the appearance felt to be suitable in terms of the established urban nature of the surrounding area and based on the corner location of the site, which also lent itself to a more contemporary and ambitious architectural approach.

·            In seeking further details on the consultation undertaken in relation to the application, members were advised this had complied with the Council’s statutory requirements and involved notification being provided for properties in the immediate surrounding area and adjoining neighbours.

·            In response to a final question, clarification was also provided in relation to the standard of the accommodation in relation to internal space, ceiling height access to daylight and outlook, with confirmation provided this had been designed to comply with policy standards with reference made to the plan for the ground floor in terms of the size and layout of the development. which were felt to provide high levels of outlook and daylight and confirmation that the rear extension would have a depth of 6.0m as allowed for single storey rear extensions within Brent’s Residential Extensions & Alterations SPD.

With no further questions raised, the Chair thanked Adam Dainlow & Joe Williams 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:

·            Further clarification was sought in relation to assessment of the design and character of the development in relation to the criteria within the London Plan and Brent Design Guide SPD1.  In response, officers advised of the need outlined with SPD1 for new development to positively respond to the existing context, scale and existing character of the surrounding area particularly with regards to massing and materials.  In terms of the application site, Preston Road was identified as a residential street consisting of mainly two storey semi-detached and detached dwellings typically set back from the road behind a front forecourt with low brick boundary walls/open driveways and rear gardens with dwellings representing a mix of architectural styles, including metro-land and mock Tudor.  Whilst recognising the proposed development adopted a contemporary architectural approach, which was different from the traditional character of neighbouring residential properties, it was considered to be of high design quality, demonstrating a thoughtful response to both its context and its constraints with the building well-proportioned and carefully composed, including deep window reveals, use of shadow gaps, well articulated openings and a high-quality material palette that contributed to a strong architectural identity.

In this respect, the design was assessed to have been informed by principles set out in Brent’s Design Guide SPD1, which members were reminded encouraged high-quality infill development that complemented its surroundings while avoiding pastiche replication.  Although the proposed dwelling was acknowledged to depart from the more traditional appearance of the adjacent semi-detached pair, officers felt it had also taken visual cues from the local area in terms of scale, height, and building line with the overall height and footprint of the dwelling reflecting that of the adjoining property, ensuring that the proposal fitted comfortably within the established streetscene and the angled roof design providing a distinctive architectural feature and defined presence.

Whilst recognising that the scheme would result in the loss of symmetry with the adjoining semi-detached property, this had been considered acceptable given the neighbouring dwelling included a cat-slide roof design which would preclude any addition or more traditional design approach in that location maintaining its symmetry.  The corner nature of the site and transitional role played within the street hierarchy also meant the site was felt to offer the opportunity for a more innovative architectural response.  Members were also advised that the footprint and height of the propose dwelling were also aligned with the prevailing scale of adjoining semi-detached dwellings with the depth of the rear extension also broadly following the rear building line of the neighbour at No.125 Preston Road and therefore maintaining the relationship of the dwellings within the rear garden plots.

In acknowledging the concerns outlined by the Committee in respect of the design and character of the development compared to the surrounding area and relationship with neighbouring properties, confirmation was provided that the proposed development was considered to be a good example of modern design and acceptable in relation to the terrace aspect whilst also creating a positive visual interest given its siting on a road junction.  Whilst recognising the building had departed from the architectural language of the adjacent properties its design was felt to have been developed in a way that respected the footprint, building line, geometry and materials of the neighbouring dwellings along the street and was not therefore considered to disrupt the metro-land character of the area meaning that Policies DMP1 and BD1 of the Local Plan were felt to have been complied with.

·            Following a query relating to the overall principle of the development, confirmation was provided that given the sites location within a residential area with good access to public transport, it did fall within a priority area for new homes under Policy BH4 of the Brent Local Plan.  In this regard, the development had been recognised as contributing towards the borough’s housing targets given it would deliver a family-sized dwelling for which there was an identified need in the borough with the general principle of providing a residential dwelling in that location therefore considered to be acceptable.

·            In response to confirmation sought in relation to the standard and quality of the proposed accommodation, members were advised that the proposal had been assessed as compliant with the standards within policy D6 of the London Plan relating to internal space, ceiling height, access to daylight and outlook and the delivery of a high-quality dwelling for future residents.

·            Further details were sought on the position regarding the biodiversity net gain (BNG) relating to the proposed development, which it was noted had been assessed as achieving a net loss of 46.39% in relation to the baseline habitat value.  In response members were advised that whilst measures had been included to improve biodiversity such as biodiverse roofs, pollinator perennial planting, trees and lawn these were not enforceable over the period required and only recognised as “vegetated garden” of low ecological value.  It was, however, permissible for acceptable development proposals that fell under the BNG requirement to provide either off-site units and/or statutory biodiversity credits. To address this issue, an informative had therefore be included within the recommended consent to remind the applicant that their development did not benefit from a statutory exemption, and that a Biodiversity Net Gain Plan must be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the development commencing to be secured through the purchasing off site habitat units.

·            In querying the constrained nature of the site in relation to the landscaping and Urban Green Factor required to be achieved for developments of the type proposed, members were advised that the existing grass verge which formed the basis of the application site comprised heavily modified grassland with limited ecological value, consisting primarily of amenity grass and some ornamental shrubs.  Whilst recognised as contributing to the visual amenity of the street scene, it was not designated as protected open space under the Brent Local Plan.  Enhancements in relation to the sites landscaping as part of the proposed development were outlined, which members were advised had been designed to maximise on-site soft landscaping, introduce a greater diversity of plant species and incorporate measures to support biodiversity and wildlife, such as habitat features and native planting. These enhancements had been assessed as sufficient to satisfy the relevant policies of the Brent Local Plan with respect to meeting the Urban Greening Factor, landscaping and on-site ecological improvements with details of the hard and soft landscaping works to be secured by condition prior to commencement of the development.

In response to a further query regarding external amenity space, members were advised that the provision of external amenity space in the rear garden would comply with the numerical standards required under Policy BH13 of the Local Plan.

·            Members also sought further clarification in terms of the impact on residential amenity arising from the size of the proposed rear extension.  In highlighting the requirement that rear extensions and alterations should not have a significant impact on the outlook or amenity of any neighbouring properties (enforced through the height and depth limits of Brent’s Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD) members were advised that whilst the proposed extension would be built to the shared boundary and project (to a limited extent) beyond the existing extension, the development (having regard to the levels of distancing with the rear garden of the adjoining neighbours and the relationship of the proposed ground floor rear extension and the first-floor rear building line with the adjoining neighbours) was not considered to have an unduly detrimental impact to the neighbouring amenities in terms of an overbearing nature, loss of light, outlook and an increased sense of enclosure.  Members were advised, however, that given the scale of the proposed development a condition restricting further extension had been secured.

·            Confirmation was also provided that as the development sat to the north of 125 Preston Road there would be no overshadowing of the neighbour and the submission of a BRE daylight and sunlight assessment had not therefore been required in support of the application.

·            In querying the lack of a drainage strategy members were advised that the proposed development was not sited within a flood zone with the proposed hard and soft-landscaping scheme site-wide assessed as ensuring that sufficient surface water attenuation would be achieved.

·            In once highlighting the relationship of the proposed dwelling in terms of its proximity to the neighbouring property members queried whether any party wall agreement would be required in order to address drainage concerns.  In response, members were advised that party wall arrangements did not form part of the relevant material planning considerations relating to the application so had not been addressed as an issue within the main report.  Confirmation was, however, provided that the conditions to be secured as part of the application included the restriction of permitted development rights.

·            As a final comment, members also sought further details on the assessed highway impact of the scheme.  In response, officers advised that no off-street parking spaces had been proposed for the house, which would meet maximum parking standards set out in policy. Whilst the property was located within the Wembley Event Day Parking Zone, there was no CPZ within the local area and on-street parking could not be controlled outside of event days.  Although confirming that no parking survey had been submitted for the current application, a previous survey submitted for the planning application for the residential development at the junction of Pellatt Road with Walton Gardens and Chamberlayne Avenue had shown that there was sufficient capacity on-street to safely accommodate any parking from the dwelling with cycle parking and bin storage also be provided to comply with standards.

As there were no further questions from members the Chair thanked everyone of their contributions and then moved on to the vote.

DECISION

In view of the issues highlighted the Committee RESOLVED to refuse the recommended granting of planning permission for the following reason(s):

·            The design of the proposed development was not considered to be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area.

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: - 4 in favour of refusal, 1 in favour of granting planning permission and 1 abstention).