Agenda item

26/0225 - Brent NHS Primary Care Trust, Wembley Centre For Health & Care, 116 Chaplin Road, Wembley, HA0 4UZ

Meeting of Planning Committee, Thursday 2 July 2026 6.00 pm (Item 4.)

Decision:

RESOLVED to defer the decision for the following reason(s):

· As the majority of Members on the Committee had indicated that they were minded to refuse the application, it was agreed to defer a final decision to a future Committee meeting in order to enable a further report to be provided addressing the indicative reasons outlined as the basis for refusal, including:

i) insufficient provision of affordable housing;

ii) insufficient parking provision on site and impact of congestion on surrounding streets;

iii) lack of community space;

iv) lack of on-site play space for older children;

v) insufficient provision of family sized housing;

vi) harm to neighbouring amenity including loss of daylight; and

vii) impact on non-designated heritage asset and character to the streetscene.

Voting on the above decision was unanimous and accordingly, the application was deferred to allow for further assessment and consideration of the matters identified by the Committee.

Minutes:

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing buildings to provide within buildings of between 3 and 6 storeys, 108 residential units (Use Class C3) and car parking spaces together with associated public realm, landscaping and highway improvements, cycle parking and stores, and all other associated and ancillary works.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1) The prior completion of a satisfactory legal agreement; and

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

Gary Murphy (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report, advising members that the application sought full planning permission for the demolition of the existing Old Wembley Hospital buildings on the site, along with the former Ambulance Station and to redevelop the site to provide replacement residential buildings ranging from 3 to 6 storeys comprising of;

108 dwellings (99 flats and 9 houses);
Which include 11 affordable homes (all at London Affordable Rent level);
New public realm, including landscaped publicly accessible pedestrian route connecting Chaplin Road and Fairview Avenue;
Outdoor amenity space, including private balconies, terraces, communal courtyard, and children’s play space;
Associated landscaping, including new trees; and
Vehicle parking and cycle parking spaces

Attention was also drawn to the supplementary report circulated in advance of the meeting, which noted the receipt of a further representation from Councillor Lorber, together with the officers’ responses. The recommendation remained to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions and informatives set out within the main committee report, together with the prior completion of a satisfactory s106 legal agreement.

The Chair thanked Gary Murphy 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 Sylwester Zabielski (who had registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

Sylwester Zabielski began by stating that he and his partner had purchased their property at 15 Fairview Avenue approximately 6 years ago, having regarded it as their long-term forever home.

The property was described as a 2 storey red brick bungalow situated at the end of Fairview Avenue and adjoining the rear of the former Old Wembley Hospital site. It was stated that the property's features included its natural light, convenient location, relative tranquility, and the privacy afforded to both the dwelling and its garden.

The speaker objected to the proposed development of the semi-detached houses that were designed to replace the parking lot at the back of the Old Wembley Hospital, specifically the construction of 4 dwellings which, in his view, would result in irreversible harm to the levels of daylight, sunlight and privacy currently enjoyed.

The objector stated that both their dwelling and a garden outbuilding would be adversely affected by the proposed development and raised 3 principal concerns:

1) Firstly, Sylwester Zabielski described the kitchen as the heart of his home, being used for dining, entertaining guests and daily living activities. It was stated that the room currently benefited from good levels of afternoon sunlight. Concern was expressed that the erection of buildings measuring approximately 9.45 meters in height and positioned around 9 meters from the boundary fence would significantly reduce the amount of natural light available to the property. It was felt that this separation distance was substantially less than the 18 meters he understood to be required.

2) Secondly, Sylwester Zabielski raised concerns regarding overlooking and loss of privacy. It was highlighted that the proposed dwellings incorporated windows facing towards their kitchen and expressed concern that this would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for the household if the plans were not altered to the same rules he was required to follow while working on his garden house.

3) Thirdly, Sylwester Zabielski referred to the anticipated construction period, which he estimated would last approximately 2 years. Concerns were expressed regarding the impact of the development process, including potential disturbance from demolition and construction works, dust, noise, and water related activities associated with the site.

In concluding his presentation to the Committee, Sylwester Zabielski recognised that change and progress were inevitable. However, he expressed the view that all development proposals should be subject to the same rules and standards. Sylwester Zabielski urged the Committee to reconsider the proposal, to review a document submitted by his partner seeking amendments to the scheme, and to support changes that would mitigate the impact on their home.

The Chair thanked Sylwester Zabielski for addressing the Committee and then invited members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented. The following key points were noted:

As an initial query, members questioned the distance between the proposed development and Sylwester Zabielski’s property. In response, Sylwester Zabielski advised that the distance between the kitchen window and the boundary fence was approximately 1 meter. It was further stated that the proposed dwelling would be situated approximately 9 meters from the boundary fence.

In referring to the concerns raised regarding overlooking, as well as the potential impacts arising from construction activities, including noise and dust, the Chair queried whether the objector's concerns would be addressed if mitigation measures were secured through planning conditions, including the relocation of windows or the installation of obscure glazing to prevent overlooking. In response, Sylwester Zabielski stated that such measures would only partially address the concerns raised. It was expressed that the principal concerns related to the loss of daylight and sunlight to the property, which were considered to be significant. It was further mentioned that the kitchen had been described within the application process as a non-habitable room, a characterisation with which Sylwester Zabielski disagreed. Sylwester Zabielski advised that the kitchen was fully habitable and formed a central part of daily life, being used extensively. It was emphasised that the room was regarded as the heart of the home and that any reduction in natural light would therefore have a substantial impact on their enjoyment.

Members were keen to seek details regarding the source of the statement that the kitchen was considered uninhabitable. In response, Sylwester Zabielski advised that the comment had been contained within documents published on the Council's website as part of the planning application process, through which stakeholders were able to submit representations in response to the application. Sylwester Zabielski confirmed that he was unable to identify the specific individual who had made the comment and did not know whether it had been made by a Brent officer or another respondent.

The Chair thanked Sylwester Zabielski for responding to the Committee’s questions and then moved on to consider an additional request to speak which had been received from Councillor Lorber (who had registered to speak as an objector), who highlighted the following points:

Councillor Lorber, who had presented a petition opposing the proposed development on behalf of local residents, began by stating that the site had formerly been located within his ward when he was first elected as a Councillor and was therefore very familiar with the area and its surrounding characteristics. It was explained that his objections reflected the concerns of local residents and were based on what he considered to be substantial overdevelopment of the site, including concerns regarding the overall height of the proposed buildings.

Councillor Lorber further expressed concern regarding the level of affordable housing proposed within the scheme. It was stated that Brent required additional affordable housing provision and considered that the development failed to deliver an adequate number of affordable homes.

Further objections were raised in relation to the proposed absence of on-site car parking provision for the 99 residential units. Councillor Lorber urged the Committee to consider the position of nearby developments, including Lowry Lodge and Turner Close, which he described as sustainable developments constructed approximately 15 to 20 years ago. Councilor Lorber advised that Lowry Lodge comprised 22 flats served by 22 car parking spaces, whilst Turner Close comprised 5 houses with 9 car parking spaces and 21 flats with 25 car parking spaces. In addition, it was noted that 10 car parking spaces were available on the surrounding road network through the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) arrangements.

It was stated that the provision of sufficient parking within the area was important due to the site's proximity to Wembley and its surrounding facilities, including a police station, fire station, hospital facilities and a local school. It was felt that a failure to provide adequate parking on-site would inevitably increase parking pressures within neighbouring residential streets.

Reference was made to the Council's policy approach of restricting the provision of parking spaces within new developments and refusing parking permits to future occupiers. Councillor Lorber stated that, in his view, evidence had not been provided to demonstrate that the policy operated effectively in practice. He contended that the system was capable of being circumvented and expressed the view that some residents would continue to own vehicles and park within surrounding residential streets, resulting in inconvenience and disruption to existing residents.

In referring to pages 35 and 36 of the committee report, Councillor Lorber noted that these contained references to national, London Plan, and Brent Council policies relating to the creation of strong and inclusive communities. It was felt that the proposed development would not achieve those objectives. Instead, concern was expressed that the development, which he stated would create a community of 108 homes, could lead to conflict between new and existing residents as a consequence of parking demand generated by occupiers and their visitors.

In concluding his presentation to the Committee, Councillor Lorber emphasised that the proposal represented an unsustainable form of development that would give rise to avoidable conflict within the local community. It was further stated that the application site constituted public land and therefore presented an opportunity to deliver a greater level of affordable housing. In his view, the proposed development had failed to make adequate provision in this regard and therefore represented a missed opportunity to address local housing needs.

The Chair thanked Councillor Lorber 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, members sought further details regarding the raised in relation to parking provision and other associated issues in the near area to the proposed site. In response, Councillor Lorber advised that most of the surrounding area was located within a CPZ. It was stated that Chaplin Road was an extremely busy route and that, during works undertaken by the water company on Harrow Road, a significant proportion of traffic had been diverted through Chaplin Road, resulting in increased congestion. Councillor Lorber further advised that Chaplin Road served as an access route to the local primary school and was therefore already subject to substantial levels of parking demand and vehicular traffic. It was reported that local residents had expressed concern that a development comprising more than 100 residential units, with very limited parking provision, would result in displaced parking being accommodated within surrounding residential streets. Reference was made to the Council's ongoing consultation regarding a Safe School Scheme for Barham Primary School. It was explained that the proposals would restrict vehicle access and parking within Danethorpe Road, Bassingham Road and neighbouring streets adjacent to the school. It was highlighted that Chaplin Road had not been included within the proposed restrictions and the view was expressed that motorists who would no longer be able to access or park within the surrounding streets would instead seek to use Chaplin Road, thereby placing additional pressure upon the area. It was considered that this was a factor which had not been taken into account within the planning application. In support of his concerns, Councillor Lorber referred to Lowry Lodge and Turner Close, which he regarded as examples of successful and sustainable development. The Committee were informed that he had visited the area at approximately 3pm on the day of the meeting in order to assess parking usage and observed that approximately 50% of the available parking spaces were occupied. He considered this demonstrated that parking provision remained necessary even during daytime periods when many residents were likely to be away from home. Councillor Lorber stated that, in his opinion, the proposal did not constitute sustainable development and expressed that the application formed part of a wider pattern of similar developments and that the cumulative impact of such schemes was creating conflict and difficulties for existing residents due to insufficient parking provision. He further advised that he had attended a consultation event relating to the proposed development and had specifically enquired as to why additional parking spaces had not been incorporated into the scheme, to which he had been informed by the developers that Brent Council planners had advised against the provision of further parking spaces.

Further information was also requested regarding the history, purpose and significance of the site, including the reasons for its current form and use. In response, Councillor Lorber provided historical context regarding the site and explained that the original Wembley Hospital had been established prior to the creation of the NHS and noted that a building within the hospital grounds was known as Barham House. Councillor Lorber highlighted that Barham House had been named after Titus Barham and the Barham family. It was stated that the family had donated the land upon which the hospital had been constructed and that Mrs. Barham had played an active role in assisting with its operation. It was further mentioned that the hospital had been funded through contributions from the Barham family together with public subscription and therefore represented an important public asset. Concern was expressed that the proposed development failed to provide appropriate recognition of the contribution made by the Barham family. It was emphasised that heritage assets should not be considered solely in terms of their physical buildings, but also in relation to the individuals whose efforts had delivered important facilities and services for local communities. In this regard, Councillor Lorber highlighted the role played by the Barham family in establishing a much-needed public hospital for the residents of Wembley during the late 1920s and early 1930s. Councillor Lorber stated that the hospital was in the process of being lost and expressed concern that no replacement community facility had been proposed as part of the redevelopment. He considered that the installation of a limited number of information signs would not adequately reflect either the significance of the site or the contribution made by the Barham family. In reiterating his earlier objections, Councillor Lorber stated that he regarded the proposal as an overdevelopment of the site and expressed the view that insufficient parking had been provided and that the development sought to maximise residential accommodation across the site without delivering any community facilities. It was felt that a development comprising 108 residential units with no community facilities could not reasonably be regarded as contributing towards the creation of strong and inclusive communities. For these reasons, Councillor Lorber urged the Committee either to defer consideration of the application in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to submit an improved scheme, or alternatively to refuse the application on the grounds he had outlined.

The Chair thanked Councillor Lorber for responding to the Committee’s questions and then moved on to consider a further request to speak which had been received from Councillor Brown (who had registered to speak as a Ward Councillor), who highlighted the following points:

Councillor Brown began by stating that, together with Councillor Lorber, he had organised and submitted a petition to ensure that the strong views of local residents were brought before the Committee, given the significant concerns that had been expressed regarding the impact of the scheme on the surrounding area.

It was noted that the proposals for the former Wembley Hospital site included the provision of more than 100 residential units whilst incorporating very limited parking provision. Concern was expressed that this would result in additional vehicles being accommodated on surrounding residential streets, thereby increasing congestion and creating significant traffic related problems for existing residents, future occupants of the development and their visitors.

It was further highlighted that the proposed 99 flats would be provided without any parking spaces and stated that, irrespective of the reasons for this approach, he considered the situation to be unacceptable.

Councillor Brown also raised concerns regarding the level of affordable housing proposed within the scheme. It was noted that just over 10% of the homes would be provided as affordable housing and argued that this fell significantly below the targets set out within Brent's Local Plan. In his view, this level of provision was inadequate for a development of such scale.

In addition, Councillor Brown expressed concern regarding the absence of any community facilities within the development despite the site replacing a former community asset. He referred to the historical significance of the site, noting that the original hospital had been established through public subscription and the efforts of the Barham family. It was considered that the proposals failed to provide appropriate community infrastructure or adequately recognise the site's heritage value.

It was further stated that local residents deserved a higher quality scheme than that being proposed. It was felt that a development of this scale should deliver a meaningful level of affordable housing together with the necessary infrastructure and facilities required to support future residents. Concern was expressed that the proposal would instead increase congestion and place further pressure on local roads and public services.

In concluding his presentation to the Committee, Councillor Brown expressed that he did not believe the application to be in the best interests of Wembley and urged the Planning Committee to refuse planning permission. He advised that he had spoken with numerous local residents and reported that none had expressed support for the proposal or considered it to be a beneficial development for the area.

The Chair thanked Councillor Brown 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:

Clarification was sought regarding the concerns expressed by local residents in relation to the proposed development, in addition to the parking issues that had already been raised. In response, Councillor Brown advised that residents of Turner Close had expressed significant concern regarding the scale and height of the proposed buildings, which they believed would dominate and overshadow their existing homes. It was further reported that residents of Chaplin Road had raised concerns regarding traffic congestion within the area. It was stated that the surrounding road network was already heavily congested, particularly during school drop off periods associated with Barham Primary School. It was considered that these issues would be further exacerbated by the proposed school safety scheme affecting Bassingham Road and other routes serving the school. Councillor Brown expressed the view that the development had not been planned in a sensible or sufficiently considered manner. It was highlighted that the proposal comprised more than 100 residential units, including 99 flats that would be provided without any parking spaces. In his opinion, this would inevitably result in increased pressure on surrounding roads, leading to greater congestion and parking difficulties within the local area.

Members queried whether the parking impacts associated with the development could be mitigated through the introduction of CPZ within the surrounding streets and sought Councillor Brown's views, together with those of local residents, on such an approach. In response, Councillor Brown advised that the surrounding streets were already subject to CPZs. As a result, it was considered that the introduction of additional CPZ would have little or no effect, as the area already operated within a CPZ and there was therefore no scope for further expansion.

Supplementary queries were raised regarding whether extending the hours of operation of the CPZ could assist in addressing parking pressures associated with the proposed development, to which the Chair clarified that the CPZ operating on Chaplin Road was currently applied between 10am and 3pm.

Further details were sought regarding the level of affordable housing proposed within the development, noting that it appeared to fall significantly below Local Plan expectations, and requested additional information regarding the implications of this shortfall in the context of housing demand within the borough. In response, Councillor Brown advised that one of the most significant areas of housing demand within Brent related to larger family homes. Concern was expressed that, whilst some of the affordable housing units proposed would provide smaller accommodation, including approximately 3 or 4 one-bedroom properties, the overall provision would not adequately address the borough's identified housing needs. It was noted that only 11 of the 109 residential units would be provided as affordable housing, representing just over 10% of the total scheme. It was stated that this level of provision fell substantially below the affordable housing targets expected by Brent for developments of this nature. The view was expressed that the proposal was a poorly conceived scheme that failed to deliver the type and quantity of housing sought by the borough and did not adequately respond to identified local housing needs.

The Chair thanked Councillor Brown for responding to the Committee’s questions and then moved on to consider a further request to speak which had been received from Phil Clark (who had registered to speak as the applicant’s representative), who highlighted the following points:

Phil Clark began by stating, as outlined within the committee report, public facing healthcare services had ceased operating from the site in 2000. It was noted that the buildings had subsequently been declared surplus to requirements in 2019 and had remained vacant and unused since that time.

The applicant's representative stated that the site constituted a sustainable brownfield location which had been allocated for redevelopment within the Council's Local Plan. It was explained that the proposals had adopted a design led approach intended to unlock and optimise the redevelopment potential of the site.

Phil Clark advised that the application sought to address one of London's key priorities through the delivery of new homes in an accessible and sustainable location. The scheme would provide 108 high quality residential units, including affordable housing, family homes and wheelchair accessible accommodation. In addition, the proposals included a new publicly accessible pedestrian link connecting Fairview Avenue and Chaplin Road, positioned behind retained mature trees and supported by generous landscaped areas and children's play facilities.

The Committee was informed that an extensive pre-application engagement process had been undertaken. This had included public exhibitions together with presentations to the Council's Community Review Panel, Design Review Panel and a Members' Briefing. It was noted that the proposals had evolved through ongoing engagement with Brent's Planning, Urban Design and Highways Officers. According to the applicant's representative, this process had resulted in significant improvements to the layout of the scheme, its architectural appearance and the quality of the landscape and amenity provision.

The applicant's representative highlighted a number of key benefits arising from the proposals. These included the redevelopment of a previously developed, sustainable and vacant site and a meaningful contribution towards the borough's housing supply, including the delivery of affordable housing. It was further stated that the scheme would improve the pedestrian environment and streetscape along Chaplin Road.

In addition, the Committee was advised that the development would generate significant investment within the Wembley area through Council Tax receipts together with Section 106 and Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (SCIL) contributions.

Phil Clark further stated that the scheme had responded to requests to recognise the site's cultural heritage through the inclusion of information boards within the proposed pedestrian link.

The applicant's representative additionally advised that the scheme would achieve an 11.7% biodiversity net gain, an Urban Greening Factor of 0.4 and carbon savings of 75% through the incorporation of renewable technology and sustainable construction methods.

Phil Clark expressed that Fairview New Homes remained committed to exploring opportunities to increase the level of on-site affordable housing through the utilisation of GLA grant funding.

The applicant's representative further advised that Fairview New Homes did not engage in land banking practices and instead focused on the prompt delivery of developments from acquisition through to construction. It was stated that, subject to the grant of planning permission, construction of the development could commence in Autumn 2026, with the first homes anticipated to be completed in early 2028.

The applicant's representative additionally advised that the proposals had been prepared with input from a multidisciplinary team of professional consultants. It was noted that the supporting documents submitted with the application had been carefully assessed by Council officers and had been deemed compliant with the requirements of relevant national, regional and local planning policies and guidance.

In concluding his presentation to the Committee, Phil Clark requested that the Committee support the officers’ recommendation and grant planning permission for the proposed development.

The Chair thanked Phil Clark 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, members enquired how long the existing building had been vacant, to which Phil Clark advised that the site had been vacant since around 2019. It was explained that the site had only been acquired from the NHS earlier in the year and that, whilst the building had been used periodically during the Covid 19 pandemic for the storage of PPE equipment, it had otherwise remained unused.

Members then sought clarification regarding the total number of parking spaces proposed for the development, to which Phil Clark confirmed that a total of 12 parking spaces were proposed.

Following on from the previous question, members queried whether the parking spaces would be allocated. In response, Phil Clark confirmed that 9 parking spaces would be allocated to the family houses, which comprised 9 3-bedroom family homes. It was added that the remaining 3 Blue Badge spaces would be managed through a car park management plan.

Members were keen to seek details on whether the level of affordable housing provision could be increased. In referring to paragraphs 43 to 59 of the committee report, which detailed the viability discussions undertaken in relation to affordable housing delivery, Phil Clark explained that the maximum reasonable amount identified through viability testing had been 10 affordable units. However, this provision had subsequently been increased to 11 units, including a 3 bedroom dwelling. It was noted that this exceeded the level supported by the viability assessment. It was mentioned that Fairview New Homes had an experienced in-house Affordable Housing Team and that, should a Registered Provider (RP) be secured and grant funding obtained, opportunities to increase the provision further would be explored. However, it was stated that the current position reflected the viability of the scheme at that point in time.

Requests for information were raised regarding the number of jobs expected to be generated during construction. In response, Phil Clark advised that the section 106 agreement sought to achieve approximately 11 local employment opportunities, based upon a formula contained within Brent's Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). It was noted that construction works would be subcontracted, but that approximately 11 local employment opportunities were anticipated.

Referring to apprenticeship opportunities linked to Brent Works, members sought further clarification regarding the offer. In response, Phil Clark confirmed that apprenticeships formed part of the proposed section 106 Heads of Terms. It was further stated that the requirement was based on 1 apprenticeship for every 10 units delivered.

Members enquired how long the proposed development would take to complete, to which Phil Clark advised that the anticipated construction duration was approximately 18 months.

Further information was requested regarding the public consultation process, including the number of residents who had participated and the overall response received from the local community. In response, Phil Clark advised that 2 public exhibitions had been undertaken. It was explained that approximately 2,300 properties and businesses had received consultation material in advance of the exhibitions. It was noted that a second exhibition had been arranged following an issue identified during the first consultation exercise. Attendance had been higher at the first exhibition, with approximately 35 to 40 attendees, whilst the second exhibition had attracted approximately 20 to 25 attendees. It was stated that a mixture of support and concerns had been expressed and that the issues raised had been discussed with officers throughout the application process.

Following up, members questioned what the principal concerns raised by residents had been during consultation. In response, Phil Clark advised that, at the time of consultation, the scheme had proposed a consistent 6 storey form across the site and that concerns had related primarily to the height and massing of the development. Parking provision had also been raised as an issue. It was noted that affordable housing had not formed part of those discussions as a position had not yet been established at that stage. It was explained that the design had subsequently evolved, with greater articulation and stepping in height. The scheme now stepped from 3 storeys on the eastern edge to respect the existing residential context, rising through 4 and 5 storeys, with 6 storeys limited to the north western corner where it related more appropriately to neighbouring civic buildings and larger scale development.

With reference to residents' concerns regarding parking provision, members queried why the level of on-site parking was so limited. In response, Phil Clark explained that GLA policy, alongside planning policies within Brent and other London boroughs, promoted a move away from vehicle use in sustainable locations. It was highlighted that the site was classified as PTAL 4, benefitting from bus services on Chaplin Road and relatively equal proximity to Sudbury and Wembley Central railway stations. As a result, the site was considered sustainable and planning policy supported reduced levels of parking provision.

Members then questioned whether discussions had taken place with planning officers regarding the possibility of increasing parking provision. In response, Phil Clark advised that Fairview's experience demonstrated that developments subject to car free restrictions often experienced a cultural shift in travel behaviour. It was stated that extensive discussions had taken place with the local authority regarding parking provision and that a negotiated position had ultimately been reached, which was reflected in the current proposal.

Considering active travel policies, members enquired whether the consultation had identified factors discouraging active travel in the area and why residents felt that public transport options insufficient. In response, Phil Clark explained that the principal concern raised by residents had been the lack of parking provision. It was further noted that discussions had therefore largely focused on parking. It was added that the proposed Section 106 agreement included an active travel contribution and that a travel plan would also be secured.

Members observed that the scheme did not fully achieve the Local Plan Policy BH6 target for 3 bedroom homes and asked why that target had not been met. In response, Phil Clark explained that the scheme delivered approximately 24% 3 bedroom accommodation against a target of 25%. It was further mentioned that achieving the appropriate balance of unit sizes within the development, whilst maintaining efficient building layouts, had resulted in the final mix proposed. It was noted that the scheme comprised approximately 26% one bedroom units, 50% 2 bedroom units and 26% 3 bedroom units, including 9 semi-detached and terraced 3 bedroom houses.

The Committee questioned the rationale for allocating parking spaces to all family houses whilst providing no general parking for apartment residents beyond Blue Badge spaces. In response, Phil Clark confirmed that the 3 Blue Badge spaces were intended for apartment residents. It was explained that the allocation of the remaining 9 spaces to the family houses had emerged through the design and negotiation process and was considered the most appropriate arrangement. It was noted that 3 terraced houses had direct access from Chaplin Road with parking spaces immediately in front of them, making allocation logical, whilst the remaining house spaces had also been considered the most suitable use of the available parking provision.

Members noted the provision of children's play space but expressed concern regarding facilities for older children and teenagers. Members questioned whether a dedicated indoor youth space could be incorporated within the development. In response, Phil Clark advised that the scheme met all on-site play space requirements for children up to the age of 11 years. It was noted that there was a shortfall of approximately 100 sqm² in provision for children aged 12 years and over, and that a financial contribution had therefore been secured through the Section 106 agreement to provide facilities at Barham Park. It was stated that a dedicated indoor youth space had not formed part of the development brief and added that, without an on-site management presence, ongoing management and supervision of such a facility would present challenges.

Details were sought regarding discussions with Registered Providers concerning affordable and potentially social rented housing. In response, Phil Clark advised that there was no provision of social rent housing on the development and that providing social rent on the development would result in fewer affordable units than could currently be achieved through London affordable rent.

Questions were raised regarding daylight impacts, the 45-degree rule and separation distances, with reference to the concerns highlighted by one of the previous speakers. In response, Phil Clark advised that the proposed development would be located approximately 9.7 meters from the rear elevation to the boundary fence and approximately 10.7 meters from the affected window. It was highlighted that the window at No.15 was a flank window rather than a rear facing window. Phil Clark additionally stated that, whilst he was not suggesting there would be no impact, the proposed design represented the least harmful option available.

Members noted that the application had originally proposed 4 affordable housing units, which had subsequently increased to 7, then 10, and finally 11 units, and questioned whether there had been a genuine intention to maximise affordable housing provision. In response, Phil Clark explained that the applicant had initially identified 4 affordable units as representing the maximum level supported by its viability assessment. It was noted that this position had been independently tested and challenged by the Council's viability consultant, including scrutiny of values, costs and interest percentages. As a consequence of those discussions, the affordable housing provision had increased to 10 units, with a further negotiation resulting in the inclusion of an 11th affordable unit.

The Chair referred to concerns regarding overlooking from windows and questioned whether obscure glazing could be secured by condition. Assurances were also sought regarding the implementation of measures to mitigate construction dust and noise. In response, Phil Clark advised that the development had been designed in accordance with recognised good design principles and maintained a separation distance of approximately 9 meters from the site boundary. It was stated that the windows in question served bedrooms located on the second and third floors and that obscure glazing was therefore unlikely to be appropriate, as it would adversely affect residential amenity for future occupants. It was further explained that the scheme complied with the applicable separation distance standards contained within the Council's Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). In relation to construction impacts, it was highlighted that a detailed Construction Management Plan had been prepared in consultation with officers, specifically addressing the relationship with No.15 Fairview Avenue. The Plan included measures relating to dust control, noise management and the positioning of site facilities. It was confirmed that compliance with the approved Construction Management Plan would be secured by condition.

The Chair referred to the possibility of a commemorative plaque and sought clarification regarding discussions that had taken place. In response, Phil Clark noted that the matter had been raised at both the Member briefing during the pre-application stage and by local residents during public consultation. It was confirmed that a planning condition required details of the commemorative arrangements to be submitted to and approved by officers prior to installation. It was further mentioned that the specific content, historical references and number of plaques had not yet been determined, but that the matter was secured through a planning condition.

The Chair thanked Phil Clark for responding to the Committee’s queries and then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask the officers any remaining questions or points of clarity in relation to the application, with the following being noted:

As an initial query, members sought clarification regarding the Council's target within the Local Plan for the delivery of affordable housing on new developments. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) advised that both the London Plan and Brent's Local Plan contained a strategic target for 50% of new homes to be delivered as genuinely affordable housing. It was explained that this target was intended to apply across the plan period and not on an application-by-application basis. It was noted that, when the London Plan was adopted, it had been recognised that not all schemes would be capable of achieving the 50% target due to factors including viability considerations. As a result, the threshold or fast track approach had been introduced. Members were also informed that schemes delivering 35% affordable housing with the appropriate tenure split of 70% low cost rent and 30% intermediate housing would not be required to submit a financial viability assessment and could proceed via the fast track route, subject to an early stage review should substantial works not commence within 24 months of planning permission being granted. Members were further advised that developments on public sector land were subject to a 50% affordable housing threshold and, where this was achieved alongside the required 70% and 30% tenure split, no viability assessment would be required. Where the threshold was not met, applicants were required to submit a financial viability assessment demonstrating that the development would provide the maximum viable level of affordable housing. It was confirmed that Brent's Local Plan mirrored this approach and that the scheme under consideration had been viability tested and demonstrated to provide the maximum viable level of affordable housing. As a result, the proposal was considered to accord with the relevant London Plan and Local Plan policies.

Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) added that the application had not met the threshold for the fast-track approach and had therefore been subject to a full assessment of the applicant's submitted Financial Viability Assessment (FVA) both internally by specialist Council officers and externally by independent consultants acting on behalf of the Council. It was explained that the original Financial Viability Assessment, submitted in November 2025, proposed 4 affordable housing units as the maximum viable provision and identified a deficit of £508,485. Following an independent review by BNP Paribas, the Council concluded that the scheme would generate a surplus and could therefore support a greater level of affordable housing provision. A revised Financial Viability Assessment was subsequently submitted in January 2026, increasing the affordable housing offer to 7 units. Following further independent assessment, officers concluded that the scheme would still generate a surplus and could therefore accommodate additional affordable housing provision. Following further testing and review, it had been concluded that the provision of 11 affordable housing units would result in a deficit of approximately £191,000. However, the applicant had agreed to provide the 11 units as a without prejudice offer, meaning that the affordable housing provision proposed exceeded the level identified by the viability assessment as deliverable.

David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) further advised that the Council's consultants had confirmed that the proposal represented the maximum amount of affordable housing that could viably be delivered on the site. It was noted that current policy permitted either Social Rent or London Affordable Rent and that the affordable housing proposed fully complied with the relevant London Plan and Local Plan policies. Members were further reminded that every proposal involved both benefits and harms and that the role of the Committee as decision maker was to weigh those considerations in determining whether planning permission should be granted.

Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) additionally noted that the draft Heads of Terms for the Section 106 Agreement included provision whereby, should grant funding subsequently become available through a Registered Provider (RP) and the GLA, the affordable homes could be converted to social rent tenure.

Concerns were expressed that developers appeared able to rely upon viability arguments to avoid meeting the Council's 50% affordable housing target and members questioned the value of maintaining such a target if it was not achieved in practice. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) acknowledged that since the Local Plan had been drafted around 2019/20 and subsequently adopted in 2020/21, economic conditions had become significantly more challenging. It was highlighted that there were substantial increases in construction costs, interest rates and other financial factors, all of which were assessed through the viability process. It was explained that viability assessments involved professional estimates which were rigorously tested and challenged by the Council's consultants and officers. It was noted that, in some cases, RPs had subsequently acquired blocks of affordable housing, resulting in a greater level of affordable housing delivery than was originally identified through viability assessments. However, officers were required to assess applications in accordance with adopted planning policies and the robustly tested viability evidence available at the time of determination. The Committee were further advised that development involved risks for developers and that if viability risks were considered excessive, schemes might not come forward at all, resulting in reduced housing delivery. It was added that there remained significant demand for both housing and affordable housing within the borough and that bringing forward developments had become increasingly challenging.

David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) further stated that, when the Local Plan was reviewed, consideration would be given to the level of affordable housing likely to be realistically achievable in future market conditions. It was also noted that Brent had historically been one of the highest performing London boroughs in terms of housing and affordable housing delivery, although delivery levels had declined over the previous 2 to 3 years due to financial conditions. It was highlighted that housebuilding had fallen across Brent, London and nationally. It was reiterated that the strategic 50% affordable housing target was not intended to be applied on an application-by-application basis and therefore could not be treated as a material consideration in the assessment of the current proposal.

Views were then sought regarding whether it was felt the proposed provision of 11 wheelchair user dwellings alongside only 3 Blue Badge parking spaces was adequate. Details were also in relation to accessibility and public transport connections. In response, John Fletcher (Team Leader - Development Control, Transport Planning) advised that policy required a minimum of 3% of units to be provided with disabled parking spaces, which had resulted in the provision of 3 designated disabled bays. It was noted that not all disabled residents necessarily owned vehicles. It was explained that a Car Park Management Plan would be secured to govern the allocation and monitoring of parking spaces, including arrangements to respond should demand exceed supply. In relation to accessibility, it was stated that the site had a Public Transport Accessibility Level (P-TAL) rating of 4, representing good accessibility. The development was located within standard walking distance of Wembley Central Station, which provided lift and stair lift access to all platforms, and was also served by 10 bus routes within the immediate vicinity. It was considered that the site's parking space provision supported the proposed car free approach.

In referring to the Mayor of London's target for 80% of trips to be made by walking, cycling or public transport by 2041, members queried whether the development would contribute towards active travel enhancements in the area. In response, John Fletcher (Team Leader - Development Control, Transport Planning) advised that the Transport Assessment predicted only 11% of trips generated by the development would be undertaken by car, thereby aligning with the Mayor's target. Members were further advised that the developer would provide a £20,000 contribution towards active travel improvements.

Members noted that the scheme would provide approximately 24% 3 bedroom accommodation against a policy target of 25% and expressed concern regarding the implications of not achieving the target. In response, Gary Murphy (Principal Planning Officer) advised that whilst officers sought to achieve policy targets wherever possible, this could not always be achieved on every site. It was explained that the provision of family sized accommodation depended upon the scale and form of development being proposed. Through negotiations during the application process, officers had secured an increase in the number of family sized units. Whilst acknowledging a marginal shortfall against policy, it was emphasised that this needed to be balanced against the wider planning benefits and overall housing delivery associated with the scheme.

Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) additionally stated that a number of amendments had been secured throughout the application process, including through public engagement, in order to minimise impacts upon neighbouring residents. Taking all considerations into account, officers had considered that the provision of 24% family sized accommodation represented an acceptable level when balanced against the potential impacts associated with a more intensive form of development and the wider material planning considerations set out within the committee report.

Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) further advised that 4 of the 11 affordable housing units would comprise 3 bedroom homes, representing 36% of the affordable housing provision and therefore a higher concentration of family sized accommodation within the affordable housing element.

Members expressed concern regarding the adequacy of parking provision for future residents and visitors and suggested that insufficient parking would lead to increased pressure on surrounding streets. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) advised that Local Plan parking standards represented maximum standards and that car free developments were expected to form the starting point for proposals in locations with good public transport accessibility. It was explained that the borough had a target to deliver 2,325 homes per year whilst simultaneously seeking to improve air quality, reduce congestion and support healthier and more sustainable travel patterns. It was noted that, even if maximum parking standards were applied, provision would equate to approximately 54 spaces and this would create significant design challenges. Officers were required to balance parking provision against wider considerations including air quality, public realm quality, amenity space, landscaping, tree planting and urban greening. Members were further advised that policy would support only the provision of the 3 disabled parking spaces in this instance. However, the developer had proposed a total of 12 parking spaces, including the 3 disabled bays. Officers considered this to represent an appropriate balance between parking provision and the delivery of a high-quality public realm.

John Fletcher (Team Leader - Development Control, Transport Planning) advised that future residents would not be eligible to obtain parking permits and therefore would not be able to generate overspill parking demand within the CPZ during its operational hours. It was highlighted that car free developments had been delivered across the borough for approximately 25 years without causing widespread congestion. It was considered that providing greater levels of parking would encourage additional traffic, congestion and road safety concerns. The car free approach was therefore regarded as consistent with sustainable development principles and the Mayor of London's transport objectives.

In response to further questions concerning parking space provision for disabled residents, the Chair clarified that Blue Badge holders residing within the development would be eligible to apply for on street disabled parking. It was additionally confirmed that restrictions relating to parking permits would not apply to Blue Badge holders and that they could apply for a personalised disabled parking bay linked to their registered vehicle if required.

John Fletcher (Team Leader - Development Control, Transport Planning) further advised that Condition 34 required the submission of a revised Car Park Management Plan. It was explained that officers did not wish parking spaces to be sold alongside individual dwellings as this would reduce flexibility. Instead, officers favoured the annual allocation of parking spaces based upon need, with priority afforded to those with the greatest requirements, including Blue Badge holders and potentially families occupying larger dwellings.

Members sought further clarification on where delivery drivers would park when servicing the development. In response, John Fletcher (Team Leader - Development Control, Transport Planning) advised that an access road would be available from Fairview Crescent, enabling refuse vehicles and delivery drivers to enter, stop and undertake deliveries. It was further mentioned that the Delivery Management Plan estimated approximately 16 delivery vehicle movements per day, equivalent to 1 or 2 vehicles per hour.

In noting concerns that many residents required access to a vehicle in order to travel to work, members questioned how this would be accommodated. In response, John Fletcher (Team Leader - Development Control, Transport Planning) advised that the development was proposed as a car free scheme and prospective residents would be informed of this prior to occupation. It was suggested that individuals requiring a vehicle, might find alternative developments more suitable. It was noted that other developments within the borough, particularly those in less accessible locations, often provided higher levels of parking provision. It was considered that the proposal was appropriate for residents who did not require a car and who could benefit from the site's strong public transport accessibility.

David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) additionally noted that many smaller developments across the borough included parking provision, although these proposals did not routinely come before Planning Committee because they fell below the threshold requiring consideration by the Planning Committee. It was noted that such developments were often located in less accessible areas, particularly within the northern part of the borough, where parking provision tended to be greater.

As a final query, members sought further clarification regarding the meaning of financial viability and the manner in which it was assessed. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) explained that financial viability involved assessing the value generated for a development, and considering whether the value generated was greater than the cost of developing it. It was additionally explained that this process produced what was known as a residual land value. It was further stated that a range of factors were incorporated into viability assessments, including the Gross Development Value derived from private and affordable housing sales, development costs, contingencies and other financial assumptions. The resulting residual land value was then compared against a benchmark land value, representing the value of the land based upon its existing or appropriate use. This comparison was used to determine whether a development was financially viable and the level of affordable housing that could reasonably be delivered.

DECISION

Voting on the original decision to grant planning application, having considered the application, was as follows (4 in favour of granting planning permission and 4 in favour of refusal). The application was approved on basis of the casting vote from the Chair.

At the conclusion of the item, the Chair agreed to adjourn the meeting for a period of 15 minutes to allow for a short break prior to the consideration of the next item. The meeting reconvened at 8:15pm.

Given the subsequent identification of Councillor I.Ahmed not having been present for the whole debate, following the adjournment of the meeting, and clarification that he would not therefore be able to participate in the vote on the application, the vote was amended as follows (3 in favour of granting planning permission and 4 in favour of refusal).

As a result of the outcome of the discussion and amended vote, the Committee RESOLVED to defer the decision for the following reason(s):

As the majority of Members on the Committee had indicated that they were minded to refuse the application, it was agreed to defer a final decision to a future Committee meeting in order to enable a further report to be provided addressing the indicative reasons outlined as the basis for refusal, including: