Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)  The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the main and updated within the supplementary committee report.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing garages and proposed erection of a two-storey building withbasement level to provide 2 residential dwellings with front lightwells, associated private amenity space, boundary treatment, cycle and refuse storage.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      The conditions and informatives, as detailed in main and updated within the supplementary committee report.

Mahya Fatemi (Career Grade Planning Officer) introduced the report, advising members that the application sought full planning permission for the demolition of existing garages and proposed erection of two storey building with basement level to provide 2 homes, each with two bedrooms, with front lightwells, associated private amenity space, boundary treatment, cycle and refuse storage. Attention was also drawn to the supplementary report circulated in advance of the meeting, which noted the revised plans received in response to updated information relating to the recently constructed outbuilding at No. 64 Olive Road. It was also noted that the submitted existing and proposed drawings had been amended to accurately reflect this development. Moreover, as part of Part A of Condition 11 (wildlife and nesting features), members heard that the wording of the condition had been updated to provide more site-specific requirements, in line with the Council’s Ecology Officer’s advice. The recommendation remained to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out within the main and updated within the supplementary committee report.

The Chair thanked Mahya Fatemi 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 Adrian Boylan (who had registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

• Adrian Boylan began by noting that his property overlooked the application site and stated that he had not been included in the list of consultees when the proposals were initially announced. He confirmed that he had become aware of the application through word of mouth.

• It was noted that 16 objections to the proposal had been received, including objections submitted by both local ward councillors.

• Members were advised that the proposal involved the replacement of four structures described as garages but contended that these were not used as garages and were instead utilised for commercial storage purposes by the owners.

• Adrian Boylan expressed the view that development within rear garden land should generally be discouraged. He clarified that his objection was not to the principle of development on the site, provided that the existing green space was preserved, but rather to the form and design of the proposed development. It was considered that the introduction of new buildings within a street characterised by 1920s semi-detached properties would be out of keeping with the established appearance of the area.

• As further observations it was highlighted that properties on Wren Avenue typically featured open front gardens, whereas the proposal included a front wall of approximately head height. It was additionally noted that the properties within Wren Avenue did not include basements, whereas the application proposed the introduction of basements as part of the development. The view was expressed that the inclusion of basements was intended to maximise income for the owner and stated that, notwithstanding this addition, each dwelling would still only provide two bedrooms.

• A further concern was raised that a significant proportion of the existing green space to the rear of the current garages would be lost as a result of the construction of what he described as small and visually unattractive dwellings.

• In concluding his presentation to the Committee, Adrian Boylan stated that the proposed development would also result in increased overshadowing of neighbouring gardens and would lead to a reduction in privacy for adjacent flats.

The Chair thanked Adrian Boylan 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:

• Views were sought from the objector as to how the plot might be used as an alternative to the proposed development. In response, Adrian Boylan stated that, in his view, the site would have been more appropriately developed in a manner that reflected and maintained the established character of the surrounding area. It was expected that any development would seek to preserve the open front garden aspect characteristic of other properties along the road, and to be in keeping with the existing architectural style and appearance. It was acknowledged that it would not be possible to replicate the exact design of buildings from the 1920s within a modern development however, it was felt that it would be feasible to avoid introducing a structure that appeared out of keeping within the local context. The view was expressed that the current proposal resembled a brick structure that had been imposed between a Victorian street and an Edwardian street, without sufficient regard for the surrounding environment. By way of comparison, Adrian Boylan referred to other developments within the local area, including those at the Waterworks site near the end of Olive Road and around the corner in Sneyd Road. It was noted that approximately 15 years previously, an empty plot in that location had been developed with a pair of semi-detached houses. The development was described as modern in design but broadly complementary to the style of the surrounding Edwardian housing. Concern was expressed that the current proposal made no meaningful attempt to integrate with the existing environment. It was suggested that the design appeared to prioritise maximising the use of available space, potentially at the expense of acceptable living conditions for future occupants. It was further stated that the proposed development would not provide suitable family housing and indicated that the properties would instead be purchased and used as bedsits, which he described as a typical outcome for developments of this nature within the area. Further concerns were raised regarding the potential for basement accommodation with limited natural light and restricted outward views, given the presence of surrounding high walls, as well as the absence of effective garden space. Adrian Boylan concluded that, in its current form, the proposed development would not provide a desirable living environment and would not be a place that individuals would wish to live.

As there were no further questions raised at this point, the Chair thanked Adrian Boylan 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:

• In referring to paragraphs 62 and 64 of the committee report, members sought clarification on the constrained nature of the site in relation to the Urban Greening Factor and queried what factors had contributed to the site being considered constrained. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) noted that the scheme achieved an Urban Greening Factor score of 0.22. It was explained that this had been achieved through measures including the provision of green roofs, planting and permeable paving. Members were advised that the site was currently predominantly hard surfaced, with only limited areas of ivy and general shrubbery that had developed over time due to lack of maintenance. It was additionally stated that the development would deliver some improvements in urban greening. However, it was explained that the site was constrained by its limited width and depth, particularly given that it accommodated two dwellings without the benefit of a substantial garden area. As a result, opportunities for more significant landscaping interventions such as large communal gardens or extensive tree planting were limited. It was emphasised that while the scheme included enhancements, there was limited opportunity in being able to provide substantial landscaping which would contribute towards urban greening. It was further added that the scheme would nonetheless deliver two dwellings, each comprising two bedrooms, and would contribute to meeting the demand for smaller homes within the borough.

In considering the response provided, members stressed the importance of considering whether environmental policies such as the Urban Greening Factor were being treated as optional where sites were developed more intensively. Members highlighted the Council’s declaration of a climate emergency and expressed concern that high density development on small sites could undermine environmental objectives if policy standards were not fully met. In addressing the concerns raised, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) stated that the delivery of housing targets relied on a combination of site types, including both large allocations and smaller sites. It was explained that larger sites, such as those previously occupied by large retail premises, offered greater opportunities for significant landscaping, communal amenity spaces and tree planting, which could more easily achieve higher Urban Greening Factor scores. It was further mentioned that smaller sites also played an important role in delivering housing targets, particularly in providing a mix of housing types including one and two bedroom properties. Reference was made to both local policy and the London Plan, which supported the optimisation of site capacity on smaller plots. It was acknowledged that smaller developments might not meet all policy targets in full, including the 0.4 Urban Greening Factor target. However, it was confirmed that officers considered the provision within this scheme to represent the maximum achievable level, alongside ecological enhancements designed to improve biodiversity. It was emphasised that the proposal involved a balance between policy compliance and delivery of housing. Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) further added that, on larger sites, there was more capacity to incorporate significant landscaping and greening features and explained that some sites could more easily achieve a score of 0.4 where large areas of existing green space were retained, whereas this site had limited such opportunities.

• Members raised supplementary points of concern regarding the cumulative impact of developments that did not meet the 0.4 target. Reference was made to recent extreme weather conditions, including an extreme heatwave in May 2026, and emphasised the importance of achieving climate objectives. The role of tree canopy, green roofs and permeable surfaces in mitigating heat, managing surface water and improving flood resilience was highlighted. It was felt that allowing repeated shortfalls on smaller sites could undermine broader environmental outcomes across the borough. Whilst recognising the issues highlighted, Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) stated that it was important to consider performance across the borough as a whole and advised that while some schemes fell below the 0.4 target, others exceeded it, and that overall performance needed to be considered. He agreed that efforts should continue to achieve policy targets wherever possible.

Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) further added that the proposed development would deliver improvements in flood management when compared to the existing condition of the site. It was explained that the introduction of permeable paving and green roofs would help to manage surface water runoff and reduce pressure on drainage systems.

• Members questioned whether a visual Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI) representation of the proposed development from the front could be provided in order to better understand its appearance within the surrounding context. In response, Mahya Fatemi (Career Grade Planning Officer) advised that CGI did not demonstrate the full materiality and detailing of the scheme. It was noted that conditions had been attached to the application to secure the quality of materials and construction details, including windows, roof detailing and green roofs. Slides were then presented from the drawing pack, including a 3D model, to illustrate the proposed development.

• Following up, members queried why CGI images showing the development within the surrounding street context had not been provided, noting that such images were commonly included for comparison in other applications. In response, David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) advised that there was no requirement for applicants to submit CGI images. It was explained that while such images were useful, they were often expensive to produce and were therefore less common for smaller developments.  It was further noted that the models provided were felt to be sufficient to demonstrate the scale, form and siting of the proposed development, although they did not convey the full materiality of the scheme. Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) additionally noted that conditions had been imposed to secure detailed information on external materials and contextual material palettes.

• As a further issue highlighted regarding the proposed basement excavation, members queried the potential risks to neighbouring properties, including any risks associated with subsidence or ground movement. In response, Mahya Fatemi (Career Grade Planning Officer) confirmed that the applicant had submitted a Basement Impact Assessment. Members were advised that the assessment included structural details, engineering calculations, ground stability analysis, flood risk considerations and construction methodology. It was further noted that certain aspects of the basement construction would also be regulated through Building Control and Building Regulations, in addition to the planning process.

• Concerns were expressed that the proposed development did not sufficiently consider long-term sustainability. Members questioned whether the delivery of two dwellings would meaningfully contribute to meeting housing needs and asked whether any assurance existed that the units would not be used as bed and breakfast accommodation in the future. Members further expressed the view that the development constituted overdevelopment and could result in a detrimental impact on the character and quality of the surrounding area. In response, Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) informed members that properties on Sneyd Road generally occupied larger plots and were more closely aligned in size and form to the original houses. He further advised that local planning policy, particularly in areas with higher Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL), supported flexibility and anticipated changes in character over time. It was explained that these policies enabled greater optimisation of smaller sites, including those that did not reflect traditional plot sizes. In relation to the question of occupancy and use, Damian Manhertz (Development Management Area Manager) stated that it was not possible at the planning stage to determine definitively how the properties would be occupied. It was noted that similar developments had been delivered elsewhere and were, in many cases, occupied by residents within the borough. Members were advised that the proposal met relevant space standards and policy requirements for high quality residential accommodation, and on that basis it was considered acceptable from a planning policy perspective.

Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) further added that the use of the property as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) would require planning permission due to the presence of an Article 4 direction in place since 2002. It was explained that even small-scale conversion to a HMO or flats, would require a separate planning application. It was confirmed that the application under consideration had been assessed as Class C3 dwellinghouses and that any alternative use would need to be considered independently through the planning process.

• Questions were then raised on whether the Council would be reviewing its Local Plan, to which David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) responded that work on the new Local Plan was scheduled to commence later in the year. Following on from the previous question, members queried whether issues relating to the adequacy of dwelling size and quality could be addressed within the new Local Plan by future decision makers. In response, David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) noted that current standards for residential space were derived from the London Plan, which in turn reflected national standards. It was further explained that these standards established a consistent baseline for housing quality across the country, with some limited adjustments at London level. Members were advised that standards relating to daylight and sunlight had been in place for a number of years and had been updated to provide detailed guidance on acceptable living conditions. It was confirmed that policies could be reviewed as part of the Local Plan process.

• Members observed that previous planning decisions had shown that refusals could lead to redesigned schemes and suggested that, in this case, refusal might encourage a more comprehensive development involving adjoining properties, potentially delivering larger family sized homes. It was suggested that such an approach might result in greater long-term benefit. In response, David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) advised that refusals could result in an appeal, a revised application, or the abandonment of a proposal. It was emphasised that the Committee must determine the application based only on the proposal presented before it.

• With reference to page 74 of the committee report, members then moved on to question the statement that breaches of the 45-degree guideline in relation to the rear garden of Nos. 60A and B, 62 A, B and C and 64 Olive Road must be weighed against the benefit of delivering two new homes. It was questioned whether this implied that housing need took precedence over established planning guidelines. In response, Mahya Fatemi (Career Grade Planning Officer) presenting slides from the drawing pack to illustrate the proposed plans and elevations. It was explained that much of the proposed footprint would align with existing structures, with an approximate projection of 1.1 meters on the ground floor and from the outbuilding towards No. 60 Olive Road, it would project forward. Members were advised that some impact on light and outlook was anticipated, but this had been assessed against the benefits of delivering additional housing and improving the current site conditions. It was confirmed that a daylight and sunlight assessment had been submitted, including an assessment of overshadowing. The results indicated that No. 60 Olive Road would retain 99% of its former daylight value, No. 62 Olive Road would retain 94%, and No. 64 Olive Road would retain 98%, while other properties would experience no measurable impact. Members were informed that these findings formed part of the overall assessment of impact on neighbouring properties and their gardens.

Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) further mentioned that the proposal complied with Building Research Establishment guidance in respect of sunlight. It was acknowledged that the flank wall of the new dwellings would be visible from neighbouring gardens and would alter visual outlook to some degree. Members were advised that the impact was partly mitigated by existing outbuildings, but that some change in visual amenity would occur. It was confirmed that these impacts had been clearly identified and weighed against the benefits of the scheme in accordance with relevant planning policies, including those relating to site optimisation and changing character in line with the London Plan and Policy BH4.

• In considering the overriding position for more homes in Brent, members were keen to seek details on whether there was any evidence of changes in demand for specific housing types, particularly in relation to two bedroom dwellings. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) explained that planning policy did not specify exact percentages for different dwelling sizes beyond an expectation that approximately 25% of housing provision should be family sized, taking into account the overall housing target of delivering approximately 2,300 homes per year. It was noted that the current proposal fell below that threshold, as it consisted of two bedroom units. However, it was highlighted that there was no policy requirement for every scheme to provide specific types of housing, particularly where no existing family sized dwelling was being removed. It was additionally stated that housing delivery was guided by overall targets set by Government and the Local Plan, rather than by detailed requirements for each individual application. It was also noted that market demand also influenced the types of housing that developers chose to bring forward.

David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) additionally noted that housing need was assessed at the plan making stage. It was explained that national Government set out to local authorities methods for calculating housing need, which informed targets subsequently embedded within the London Plan and local plans. Members were informed that the London Plan was currently under review and that updated figures were expected in the near future. It was further stated that future Local Plan work would include a detailed housing needs assessment to inform policy. Members were further advised that current indications suggested that housing targets could increase significantly to approximately 3,000 homes, with a substantial proportion comprising two bedroom dwellings alongside other housing types.

• As a final query, members sought details regarding the size of the rear amenity space and whether this would consist of hardstanding. In response, Mahya Fatemi (Career Grade Planning Officer) clarified that the proposal would provide approximately 34 sqm of private amenity space across basement, ground floor and first floor levels, including a balcony. It was confirmed that the plans showed peripheral planting within the amenity areas and that the provision exceeded the policy requirement of 20 sqm per dwelling.

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)  The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the main and updated within the supplementary committee report.

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: 5 in favour of granting planning permission and 3 in favour of refusal).