Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)  Stage 2 referral to the GLA along with the completion of a s106 agreement to secure the planning obligations as set out in the heads of terms outlined in the committee report together with an amendment to Head of Term No 6 to reference Brent River Park and Tokyngton Recreation Ground.

(2)  The conditions and informatives, as set out in the main and updated within the supplementary committee report.

PROPOSAL

Redevelopment of the site to provide a building containing residential dwellings with commercial unit on ground floor, associated vehicular access, cycle parking spaces, refuse storage, amenity space, landscaping and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to a Stage 2 referral to the GLA, the imposition of the conditions and informatives set out in the committee report and the completion of a S106 agreement capturing the obligations set out in the heads of terms outlined in the committee report.

James Mascall (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report, advising members that the application sought full planning permission for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a part 27, part 30 storey building, comprising 180 residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and 17.8sqm of flexible commercial space (Use Class E). The scheme would also include ancillary hard and soft landscaping, cycle parking, refuse storage and plant space.

Attention was also drawn to the supplementary report circulated in advance of the meeting, which outlined a number of minor amendments to the committee report, specifically in relation to the Stonebridge Park Station financial contribution wording which had been amended to allow for the contribution of £222,750 to be used towards improvements at Stonebridge Park Station, as well as for the Stonebridge Park Station Capacity Study. It was additionally noted that a revised Third Floor Plan had also been received which proposed an agreed quantum of long-stay bicycle parking in accordance with comments from Transport for London (TFL). The quantum of provision remained in line with policy T5 standards as set out within the remainder of the committee report. Furthermore, following additional feedback, an amendment would be made to S106 Heads of Terms associated with the application which would specifically require the open space financial contribution to be used towards improvements to and the maintenance of Brent River Park, which included Tokyngton Recreation Ground, Monks Park and St Raphaels Open Space. For clarity, it was confirmed that the location of Brent River Park was located within the vicinity of the development, ensuring that prospective residents would have convenient access to nearby facilities. This provision was intended to compensate for the absence of open space onsite. The recommendation remained to grant planning permission subject to a Stage 2 referral to the GLA, the imposition of the conditions and informatives set out in the committee report and the completion of a S106 agreement capturing the obligations detailed in the heads of terms outlined in the committee report.

The Chair thanked James Mascall 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 Sandy Walker (who had registered to speak as the applicant’s representative) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• It was noted that the scheme would provide 180 high-quality affordable homes, thereby addressing the significant demand for affordable housing across the borough. It was emphasised that every home within the development would be affordable, with almost half designated for social rent, representing the lowest cost housing available. The proposal included 88 new social rent homes, of which 40 would comprise three-bedroom units, thereby responding to the high need for family-sized accommodation in Brent. The representative further noted that this represented a substantial improvement on the previous scheme.

• It was additionally stated that the development would create new amenity green spaces and deliver enhancements to Wembley Brook, thereby improving accessibility and attractiveness for the local community. The scheme would provide 180 square metres of public open space at ground level and 121 square metres of flexible space at first floor level, designed to offer amenities for all age groups, particularly children, and to foster a strong sense of community and belonging. The representative confirmed that the proposal would deliver a significant biodiversity gain, enhancing local ecology and transforming Wembley Brook, achieving an uplift of 160% in watercourse units and an 11% gain in habitat units. In addition, the scheme would include a small flexible space at ground floor level fronting onto the public realm, intended for use as a local coffee shop to activate the area and strengthen community cohesion.

• It was highlighted that the proposals would act as a catalyst for the regeneration of Stonebridge Park. The scheme had been designed to initiate the regeneration of this strategically important site within the borough. It was explained that the design would reflect and respond to both the existing and emerging context, significantly improving the sense of arrival opposite Stonebridge Park Station. It was felt that the proposals would enhance the public realm and contribute to the overall improvement of the Stonebridge Park neighbourhood.

• The applicant’s representative concluded by noting that they had engaged extensively with officers and the local community over the preceding two years to develop a scheme that would deliver high-quality architecture, internal and external amenity space, much-needed affordable housing for Brent, and act as a catalyst for transformation within Stonebridge Park.

The Chair thanked Sandy Walker 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 requested clarification regarding the applicant’s confidence in delivering the proposed development, given that the site had remained vacant for several years and considering potential viability issues. In response, the applicant’s representative confirmed that both the applicant and their partners were fully committed to delivering the scheme. It was stated that grant funding was being utilised and that commencement on site was required early in 2026. The representative emphasised that the intention was to proceed as quickly as possible following the grant of planning permission.

• Members enquired how the applicant intended to minimise flood risk in Wembley Brook. In response, a member from the applicant’s team, (Bob Davis, Landscape Architect) explained that extensive engagement had taken place with the Environment Agency, including several discussions. It was confirmed that the proposal involved breaking out the existing concrete channel and re-naturalising the Brook to restore its natural form, thereby improving hydromorphology. It was advised that soft landscaping would be introduced and terraced to mitigate flooding. It was added that a consultant had been engaged to ensure that both landscape and flood management objectives were balanced. Alex Attwood (Flood Consultant, member from the applicant’s  team) further reported that a comprehensive Flood Risk Assessment had been prepared for the proposals and that extensive flood modelling had been undertaken. It was confirmed that the design ensured there would be no adverse impact on flood risk within the wider borough. It was explained that measures included the careful positioning of building columns within the floodplain and ensuring that water displacement did not occur. It was stated that the drainage strategy would reduce runoff rates, thereby preventing any increase in surface water flooding. It was acknowledged that issues had arisen during initial construction works on the site, where culvert blockages caused increased flood risk. The Committee were assured that a robust Construction Management Plan would be implemented during future works to prevent such blockages and protect residents from flooding. Laura Jenkinson (Planning Consultant, member from the applicant’s team) further added that the naturalisation of Wembley Brook would reduce the likelihood of flooding downstream and confirmed that the proposals would deliver a net benefit compared with both the existing site and the previous scheme.

• Details were sought on any communication which had taken place with the Alstom Traincare Centre, given its proximity to the site. In response, Stuart Davies (Transport Consultant, member from the applicant’s team) explained that the proposed highway works extended up to and included the roundabout at the junction of Point Place and Argenta Way but did not extend beyond into the unadopted private road. It was confirmed that the applicant had limited influence over that road and that any informal parking behaviour would need to be managed by its owners. It was further stated that the proposed works at the roundabout would retain the existing bus stand and would necessitate changes to double yellow lines. The Committee were informed that a raised lay-by would be created on the north side of Argenta Way to serve the development, ensuring that the scheme’s needs were met without reliance on the private road. Stuart Davies confirmed that he had not personally held discussions with the Alstom Traincare Centre.

• Following up, members questioned whether a consultation event had been held, how many people attended, and what feedback had been received. In response, Laura Jenkinson (Planning Consultant, member from the applicant’s team) confirmed that the applicant had presented the proposals to the Committee Review Panel on two occasions and had also presented to the Design Review Panel. It was also reported that a public exhibition had been held and that meetings had taken place with ward councillors. While it was acknowledged that attendance at consultation events had been limited, it was confirmed that all engagement had been carried out in accordance with Brent’s requirements. Members expressed a desire to ensure that local residents had been considered. In response, it was confirmed that meetings had been held with local residents prior to the public exhibition. It was also noted that several attendees had been directly affected by previous flooding, and the applicant had worked with them to demonstrate how the benefits of the scheme would mitigate future flood risk.

• With reference to the committee report, which noted that the development would include a flexible community space for children aged 0 to 4 years, and highlighted that the space could be multi-use, requiring a robust management plan, members stressed the importance of providing a concrete offer for residents, including a meet-and-greet space and facilities for private bookings such as birthday parties, particularly given the scale of the development and potential future schemes. In response, Tom Banfield (Architect, member from the applicant’s team) confirmed that significant effort had been made to ensure the best possible offer for residents. It was stated that Clarion had a long-standing track record in managing buildings and would adopt the same approach for this development. The applicant’s commitment to fostering a sense of community was emphasised and it was confirmed that the space would be designed to accommodate bookings for events and other resident-led activities. The Committee were assured that a management plan would be implemented to maximise the use of the space and encourage community engagement.

• Members observed the shortfall in amenity space for children aged 0 to 4 years and highlighted the need for residents to have access to a community space within close proximity to the development. Members sought a commitment from the applicant to work with officers to identify a flexible solution that would meet both requirements. In response, Laura Jenkinson (Planning Consultant, member from the applicant’s team) confirmed that Condition 26 of the draft planning permission required the submission of an Amenity and Play Space Management Plan. It was explained that this plan would address matters including hours of use, booking arrangements, and measures to ensure user access to the space. It was further noted that the site formed part of a wider location that included Wembley Point, where a scheme currently being developed provided a community facility comprising 878 square metres of non-residential floorspace. This facility included a community gym and other spaces intended for public use.

• Members then moved on to question the applicant’s recruitment process, given the high levels of unemployment in Brent, and assurance was sought that local residents would have access to employment opportunities arising from the development. In response, Tom Banfield (Architect, member from the applicant’s team) confirmed that the applicant had been working closely with officers and that obligations under Section 106 agreements required contractors to meet specific commitments to support local employment. It was additionally stated that these requirements would be incorporated into construction contracts to ensure that opportunities were made available to local people.

• As an additional issue, members enquired whether any consultation or communication had taken place with Transport for London regarding improvements to Stonebridge Park Station, including potential contributions towards step-free access or other upgrades. In response, Tom Banfield (Architect, member from the applicant’s team) confirmed that negotiations had taken place with officers and that, as part of the Section 106 obligations, a defined contribution of approximately £220,000 had been secured for Stonebridge Park Station. It was further added that this contribution would also include funding for a capacity study.

• As a further issue highlighted, members questioned why the shared ownership model had been pursued, what other models had been considered, and requested feedback on the applicant’s experience with shared ownership. In response, Tom Banfield (Architect, member from the applicant’s team) explained that, as a housing association, the applicant managed and operated a significant number of shared ownership homes. It was stated that considerable effort had been made to ensure that the design and mix of homes within the scheme were appropriate, balancing variety with grant requirements and deliverability. It was emphasised that the applicant was eager to deliver the scheme and provide affordable homes for the borough, and that these considerations had informed the approach throughout the process.

Jehan Weerasinghe (Corporate Director Neighbourhoods and Regeneration) noted that shared ownership continued to be recognised as an affordable housing product. It was confirmed that the Brent Local Plan did not preclude shared ownership and that, while some boroughs adopted different policy positions, shared ownership remained acceptable was consistent with Greater London Authority (GLA) guidelines.

The Chair thanked Sandy Walker and his team 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:

• The Chair asked officers to provide their assessment of the quality of the architectural design and its contribution to the local townscape throughout the planning process. In response, Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) confirmed that the scheme had undergone both Design Review Panel and Quality Review Panel processes during the pre-application and application stages. It was noted that the proposal followed a previously consented scheme on the site with a similar footprint. It was also stated that the applicant had engaged extensively in pre-application discussions, which were reviewed through the Quality Review Panel (QRP) and Distribution Requirements Planning (DRP) processes. Both panels supported the general design principles of the building, as did the Placemaking Manager and Urban Design Officers within the planning department. It was explained that the building comprised two interlocking blocks connected through a central core and featured a rationalised, well-designed and articulated elevational treatment with a carefully considered materials palette. It was confirmed that officers considered the design to sit comfortably within its context and described it as exemplary in quality. It was noted that the building would form an attractive and well-designed gateway to this part of the borough. David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) further added that the development would deliver a range of new facilities to support both future residents and the existing community.

• The Chair noted the site’s strategic location in terms of Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) and proximity to the North Circular Road. It was questioned how the design had addressed potential air quality and noise issues arising from its location adjacent to one of the busiest roads in the borough. In response, James Mascall (Principal Planning Officer) confirmed that the application was accompanied by an Air Quality Assessment, which examined potential impacts from nitrogen dioxide and carbon dioxide. It was reported that, based on data from receptors, no air quality mitigation was required for residents. It was additionally explained that the extant consent had required mitigation for floors 3 to 6 due to nitrogen dioxide concerns based on 2016 emissions data. However, updated data indicated that nitrogen dioxide levels had reduced, likely due to decreased car usage, and therefore no mitigation was necessary under the current proposal. Members were advised that a Noise and Vibration Assessment had also been submitted, which considered noise levels from the North Circular Road. The assessment identified that recommended internal noise levels of 35 decibels during the day and 30 decibels at night would not be met without mitigation. Consequently, specific glazing specifications were required to achieve compliance, and a condition would be imposed to ensure the development was undertaken in accordance with the assessment. Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) further added that air quality outcomes were positive and that conditions had been secured to require a Construction Management Plan to mitigate emissions during the build phase.

• Members then moved on to focus on issues identified within paragraph 55 of the committee report and expressed concern regarding the disproportionately small entrance to the residential part of the building, asking whether improvements could be made. In response, Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) confirmed that this issue had been identified during the application process. It was reported that discussions with the applicant had resulted in an agreement to provide updated information on the entrance design during the discharge of conditions relating to materials. This would include details on how the entrance would be defined through materiality and colour treatments. Members were advised that, following further discussions, the wording of the condition would be tightened to specifically reference the entrance, ensuring that officers could review the detail when the condition was discharged.

• With respect to paragraph 165 of the committee report, views were sought from officers around the Healthy Streets approach. In response, Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) confirmed that the scheme incorporated a significant number of elements contributing to the provision of Healthy Streets. It was explained that, through the Section 106 agreement, a financial contribution had been secured for improvements to the cycle route CFR 23, which runs alongside the application site. It was additionally stated that the definition of the highways works contribution had been widened to allow additional funds to be allocated to Healthy Streets initiatives, should these be considered appropriate, particularly if a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) was not pursued.

• Members expressed concern regarding pressures on GP surgeries, schools and play areas, emphasising the need to ensure that additional facilities were provided and that existing services were not overburdened. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) explained that when planning policies were developed through the Local Plan, an Infrastructure Delivery Plan was prepared in parallel. This plan assessed requirements for school places, medical facilities, community facilities and other infrastructure necessary to support the level of development envisaged. It was confirmed that officers worked closely with colleagues in the Education department to monitor school capacity and identify areas where new provision might be required, particularly within designated growth areas. An example of a new secondary school in the north of the borough by the name of North Brent School was cited and it was noted that demand for school places varied across the borough with reductions in some areas. Members were advised that similar monitoring applied to medical facilities, referencing the inclusion of a medical facility within the Grand Union scheme. It was emphasised that infrastructure requirements were reviewed throughout the lifetime of the Local Plan. It was further explained that schemes contributed to strategic infrastructure through the Community Infrastructure Levy (SCIL), which was allocated through a separate process. While development management did not directly control this allocation, funds generated through SCIL supported infrastructure delivery across the borough. David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) further noted that £200,000 had been secured through Section 106 contributions specifically for play space as part of the scheme.

• Members questioned whether officers were satisfied with the proposed arrangements for waste and recycling within the residential blocks. In response, John Fletcher (Team Leader – Development Control, Transport Planning) acknowledged that the site was constrained, particularly at ground floor level. It was explained that, as with previous proposals, agreement had been reached for a bi-weekly collection service, which would reduce the amount of storage space required for waste on the ground floor. While the arrangement would require effective management and rotation of bins, it was confirmed that officers were satisfied that the proposals were workable with the additional contribution for more frequent collections. Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) further stated that the draft Section 106 agreement included a schedule requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a Waste Management Plan. It was confirmed that this would create a legal obligation for the applicant and that the Development Control Transport Planning Team would work with planning officers to discharge the condition.

• Clarification was sought around how issues relating to daylight and sunlight would be mitigated. In response, James Mascall (Principal Planning Officer) reported that the application was accompanied by a Daylight and Sunlight Assessment. It was noted that the development was located slightly further from Tokyngton Avenue than might typically be expected for schemes of this nature. It was confirmed that 11 properties had been assessed, with 10 meeting the Building Research Establishment guidance for daylight and sunlight. One property failed due to the presence of an external canopy in its rear garden, which had already significantly reduced daylight and sunlight levels. It was explained that, because the existing values were very low, the percentage change appeared large, although the actual impact was minimal. Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) further added that the site already benefited from an extant planning permission for a tall building, which was a material consideration. It was stated that the additional impact beyond what had previously been consented was extremely marginal. It was emphasised that, in weighing the planning balance, the minimal harm to one property was substantially outweighed by the delivery of a 100% affordable housing scheme, including a significant proportion of family-sized homes. It was confirmed that the relationship with adjacent developments had also been assessed and considered acceptable.

• It was questioned whether officers were satisfied with the flood risk mitigation measures included within the application. In response, Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) confirmed that officers were satisfied and explained that an extensive process of engagement had taken place with the applicant, the Lead Local Flood Risk Authority acting on behalf of the Council, and the Environment Agency. It was reported that the Environment Agency had undertaken detailed hydraulic modelling to assess the flood risk implications of the proposed development. It was further stated that a significant amount of work had been carried out to ensure that the proposal would not result in undue harm in relation to flood risk. It was also confirmed that the Environment Agency had concluded that the hydraulic modelling was fit for purpose and that the proposed flood risk measures were acceptable.

• Members queried whether the contribution towards a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) could be used for improvements to highways and for implementing parking controls in the area, including Point Place, and whether there were options for introducing control measures. In response, John Fletcher (Team Leader – Development Control, Transport Planning) indicated that the process would involve using the contribution to fund consultation on a Controlled Parking Zone. It was confirmed that implementation would require at least 50% support from the local community. It was also noted that significant development was coming forward in the area, much of which was car-free, including the current scheme, which would increase pressure on parking. Growing support for a Controlled Parking Zone was anticipated and it was confirmed that, if introduced, it would be designed to make the most efficient use of space, including the provision of parking bays and double yellow lines where necessary. While it was acknowledged that there was shortfall in disabled parking provision on the site due to its constrained layout, it was confirmed that an agreement had been reached to provide 3 disabled parking spaces along the Point Place frontage. Members were informed that this mirrored proposals for Wembley Point, which included widening Point Place and providing additional disabled parking spaces. It was further noted that once both developments were implemented, Point Place would be widened and offer improved disabled parking provision and greater flexibility for accommodating blue badge holders within 50 metres of the site. Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) additionally stated that the obligation relating to the Controlled Parking Zone contribution, as drafted in the Section 106 heads of terms, was sufficiently flexible to allow expenditure on highways improvements as well.

DECISION

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

(1)  Stage 2 referral to the GLA along with the completion of a s106 agreement to secure the planning obligations as set out in the heads of terms outlined in the committee report together with an amendment to Head of Term No 6 to reference Brent River Park and Tokyngton Recreation Ground.

(2)  The conditions and informatives, as set out in the main and updated within the supplementary committee report.

(Voting on the above decision was unanimous).