Agenda item

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

 

·       To allow the ownership certificates relating to the application to be evaluated prior to determination and to clarify whether the scheme would fall within the definition of self-build.

PROPOSAL

 

Demolition of garage block and erection of a new dwellinghouse with associated amenity space, provision for new pedestrian access and cycle and refuse storage and creation of additional hardstanding to allow reconfiguration of the parking layout (amended description).

 

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.

 

Curtis Thompson (Career Grade Planning Officer) introduced the report, advising members that the application sought full planning permission for the demolition of a garage block and erection of a new dwellinghouse with associated amenity space, provision for new pedestrian access and cycle and refuse storage. 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 legal agreement.

 

The Chair thanked Curtis Thompson 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 Satbir Singh (who had registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

 

• Sabir Singh began by expressing that Brent had been his home since 1987. It was explained that, in 2020, he and his wife had purchased their first home, a top floor flat within Thanet Lodge on Mapesbury Road, following almost 10 years of saving. It was noted that their first child had been born shortly after they moved into the property.

 

• Following occupation of the flat, Sabir Singh described that the top floor flats constructed by the freeholder were, in his opinion, of a dangerously substandard nature, and had serious deficiencies relating to fire safety, fire compartmentation and cladding.

 

• Sabir Singh further advised that, in 2025, his mother, who had previously worked for Brent Council for many years, had suffered a stroke whilst living with Alzheimer's. It was explained that his family had subsequently relocated across the borough in order to provide care for her, as they considered that local social care services were unable to provide the level of support required. It was stated that, as a consequence, his flat had been placed on the market and that a purchaser had been secured in September 2025 despite the concerns he had identified regarding the property. However, it was reported that the developer had refused to confirm that the ground rent account was up to date and had also refused consent for the sale to proceed.

 

• Sabir Singh further expressed that his mother had passed away in January 2026 and reported that, shortly afterwards, the developer had informed him that any future sale of the property would require payment of £15,000, which he stated had been described as “compensation” for objections he had submitted in relation to previous development proposals. He further reported that, in February 2026, the developer had stated an intention to go "one by one" through everyone who had ever objected to his plans and "make them suffer". Sabir Singh advised that both conversations had been recorded and referred to the Metropolitan Police, whom he stated had subsequently raised concerns directly with the developer.

 

• The speaker further alleged that, whilst preparing the current development proposal, the developer had reported him and other leaseholders to their mortgage lenders, claiming they were in breach of their obligations and threatening forfeiture proceedings. It was stated that mortgage lenders had confirmed that no such breaches existed and expressed the view that these actions had created an atmosphere of intimidation. Sabir Singh highlighted that, as a result, some leaseholders were now reluctant to submit objections openly and, where objections had been submitted, they were often made anonymously.

 

• Referring to his professional experience working with MPs, journalists and City Hall on housing related matters, Sabir Singh acknowledged the significant need for additional housing within London. However, he urged Members to consider the developer's conduct and the credibility of commitments made in support of the application and expressed the view that granting planning permission would reward the behaviour he had described and could risk undermining public confidence in the Council and its decision-making processes. Reference was also made to the Council's responsibilities under the Local Government Act 1972 and the Representation of the People Act 1983, emphasising the importance of ensuring that individuals were able to participate in public decision making without intimidation.

 

• In concluding his presentation to the Committee, Sabir Singh urged the Committee to refuse the application and to utilise all available powers to hold the developer to account.

 

Following the representation made by Sabir Singh regarding his experiences with the applicant, David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) expressed sympathy regarding the circumstances described. However, he advised that the Committee was required to determine the application based solely on the proposal before it and the relevant planning considerations. It was explained that the Committee could not take into account allegations relating to the behaviour of the applicant, their previous conduct or matters relating to fire safety associated with other developments. Whilst acknowledging the concerns raised, it was confirmed that such matters were not legally capable of being considered in the determination of the application.

 

Paul Weeks (Senior Planning Lawyer) reinforced this advice, explaining that the application was required to be assessed solely on its own merits, having regard to relevant planning policies and material planning considerations. He advised that the matters raised by the objector did not relate to the planning acceptability of the proposed development and therefore could not be taken into account by the Committee. It was reiterated that the Committee was required to focus their consideration on the planning merits of the proposal and its compliance with the relevant planning policy framework.

 

In considering the response, Satbir Singh sought further clarification, noting that part of the Committee's role was to facilitate fair participation and consultation and questioned how concerns relating to alleged intimidation of members of his leasehold community, whom he stated had been discouraged from participating in the planning process, could be addressed if they could not be considered by the Committee. In response, the Chair advised that the Committee was convened solely to consider the planning application before it. Whilst acknowledging the concerns raised, the Chair suggested that alternative legal advice should be sought in relation to those matters. It was further advised that, should Satbir Singh wish to pursue the matter, he could subsequently approach officers or the Council's planning lawyers for guidance. However, the Committee was unable to consider or discuss the alleged actions of the developer as they did not constitute material planning considerations. David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) further emphasised that the Committee was required to only consider matters which it was legally entitled to take into account.

 

The Chair then thanked Sabir Singh 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:

 

• Members were keen to seek details regarding the specific concerns that residents had raised in relation to the application. In response, Satbir Singh advised that residents considered the proposal to represent an example of overdevelopment. It was explained that Thanet Lodge comprised more than 40 apartments and was situated on a constrained site with limited land available to the rear and side of the building. It was stated that part of the surrounding land had already been separated from the wider site in connection with the construction of the developer's own dwelling. It was noted that the proposed dwelling would be located behind the refuse and recycling area serving the residential block. It was further stated that vehicle access to the rear of the building was approximately 2 to 3 meters in width and that the proposal would involve replacing the existing garages located adjacent to this access route with a new dwelling. In his view, the proposed dwelling would be positioned immediately adjacent to, and directly facing, the existing apartment building. Satbir Singh further advised that residents had concerns regarding the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, particularly given its location within a conservation area. Concerns had also been raised regarding the removal of trees within the garden area associated with the building. It was explained that the garden currently provided amenity space for the residents of more than 40 apartments within the development. It was further mentioned that approximately 5 or 6 parking spaces were located to the rear of the building, 4 of which formed part of individual leasehold interests. It was stated that these parking arrangements would be removed or altered as part of the proposed development. Concerns were expressed that the proposal created a conflict between the proposed development and existing leasehold property rights, as it would involve alterations affecting parking spaces held under leasehold ownership and would encroach upon the communal garden area. In concluding his response, Satbir Singh acknowledged the need for additional housing in the borough but expressed the opinion that this proposal did not represent an appropriate solution to meeting housing need.

 

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

 

• Speaking in relation to the application, Councillor Hack, as local Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and urged members to refuse planning permission. In his view, the proposal did not constitute a modest redevelopment but instead represented an overdevelopment of a constrained back land site. It was considered that the scheme would result in significant harm to neighbouring residents, the surrounding environment and the character and appearance of the Brondesbury Park Conservation Area.

 

• Councillor Hack expressed that the proposal would replace an open and landscaped area with an intrusive residential development which, in his opinion, was entirely out of keeping with its surroundings. It was noted that the spacious rear gardens within the area formed an important characteristic of the Brondesbury Park Conservation Area and contended that the proposal would erode that character. This was considered to be contrary to Brent Local Plan Policy BHC1 and London Plan Policy D3.

 

• Councillor Hack further advised that residents of Thanet Lodge would experience a material loss of residential amenity should the application be approved. It was stated that the proposal would replace an existing low level and unobtrusive structure with a significantly larger and more dominant building. In his view, this would result in increased overlooking, a loss of privacy, reduced levels of daylight and a greater sense of enclosure for neighbouring occupiers.

 

• Concern was also expressed regarding the loss of garden space and vegetation within the site. Councillor Hack additionally raised concerns regarding leaseholder rights, noting that the proposal would result in the loss of existing garages and associated parking spaces which, he advised, formed part of long-established legal arrangements affecting residents.

 

• Councillor Hack informed the Committee that a number of residents had wished to attend and address the meeting but had felt unable to do so due to concerns regarding intimidation by the freeholder.

 

• Councillor Hack further expressed that the application should not be considered in isolation and referred to what he described as a concerning history of planning and building compliance matters associated with the wider site. It was stated that, around 2019, the freeholder had undertaken development works and that residents had subsequently reported subsidence and cracking within Thanet Lodge.

 

• Reference was also made to concerns that elements of a previously approved planning permission had not been implemented as approved. These concerns included the omission of an approved green roof, failure to undertake approved landscaping works, development extending beyond the approved garden boundary and the erection of structures within communal gardens without planning permission. Councillor Hack considered these matters relevant as they raised legitimate concerns regarding confidence in compliance with planning conditions attached to any future consent.

 

• As a local Ward Councillor, Councillor Hack expressed serious concern regarding what he viewed as a recurring pattern of non compliance with planning requirements and a disregard for the interests of local residents. He advised that Members were being asked not merely to approve an additional dwelling but to permit further development on a constrained site within a Conservation Area despite, in his view, the significant impacts on residential amenity, green space, biodiversity, parking arrangements, drainage and the historic character of the area.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Hack 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:

 

• Members expressed deep concern regarding allegations of bullying, intimidation and aggressive behaviour that had been referred to during the discussion and questioned whether there were any codes of conduct or standards expected of applicants participating in the planning process which were intended to prevent such behaviour. In response, Councillor Hack expressed that the concerns raised had been reported both to the Council and to the Metropolitan Police. Councillor Hack stated that more than 20 individuals had wished to attend the meeting, including both leaseholders and tenants of Thanet Lodge, in order to speak about a range of issues affecting the development and described the situation as concerning. He further highlighted concerns regarding potential drainage impacts and other material matters which, in his view, could arise as a direct consequence of the proposed development. Additional concerns were raised regarding policy compliance and affordability and it was suggested that the proposal would enable further actions by an individual whom he considered had demonstrated disregard not only towards local residents but also towards the Council. Councillor Hack added that, in his view, freeholders had a responsibility to treat residents with respect and to operate in accordance with the frameworks established under national legislation.

 

• Members asked Councillor Hack to describe the characteristics of the surrounding area. In response, Councillor Hack advised that the Brondesbury Park Conservation Area had largely been established during the late 19th century and was characterised predominantly by substantial residential properties. It was stated that an important feature of the conservation area was the presence of land and green space, which contributed significantly to its character and appearance. He further advised that, in his view, the application should not be considered in isolation and referred to what he believed to be evidence that previous development and associated conditions had failed to enhance the conservation area. The opinion was expressed that the current proposal would not provide any enhancement to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and would fail to preserve the historic qualities of an area which had been established during the late 1800s.

 

• Further concerns were expressed that, where a consultation process had allegedly been affected by bullying and intimidation, and representations had been made to that effect by 2 speakers, the integrity of the consultation process as a whole could be regarded as compromised. In response, Paul Weeks (Senior Planning Lawyer) advised that there were statutory requirements governing consultation on planning applications and that, provided those requirements had been met, the correct legal process had been followed. It was explained that it was not the role of the Planning Committee to make findings or judgements on the allegations that had been raised and that the Committee was not the appropriate forum in which to investigate such matters. He further advised that, insofar as he was aware, the consultation process had included the publication of site notices and other statutory notifications, thereby providing interested parties with the opportunity to submit representations. Whilst acknowledging that it could be a serious matter if individuals had been prevented from responding, it was noted that the Committee could not determine with certainty whether this had occurred.

 

Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) provided further clarification that the initial consultation had been undertaken in April, during which 66 addresses had been consulted. This had included all properties within Thanet Lodge together with neighbouring properties adjoining and surrounding the site. It was noted that 2 further rounds of consultation had subsequently been carried out. The first, undertaken in December 2025, related to proposed amendments involving the enlargement of the parking area. A subsequent consultation exercise had then been undertaken on substantially the same plans in order to clarify the description of development and specifically to include the proposed extension of the hardstanding area, which constituted development and therefore needed to be captured within the application description. Members were informed that press notices and site notices had also been displayed and that the consultation process had been undertaken in accordance with all statutory requirements. Referring to the committee report, Victoria McDonagh advised that a total of 20 objections had been received, some of which comprised multiple submissions from the same respondent. Of those objections, 7 had been submitted without an address being provided. It was confirmed that those objections had nevertheless been taken into account as part of the planning process. Victoria McDonagh further advised that an application of this nature would only be referred to Planning Committee where 8 or more objections had been received from individuals residing within Brent or from businesses operating within the borough, with postal addresses provided. It was confirmed that more than 8 valid objections meeting those criteria had been received, thereby triggering referral of the application to the Planning Committee for determination.

 

The Chair thanked Councillor Hack for responding to the Committee’s questions and then moved on to consider a further request to speak which had been received from Michael Burroughs (who had registered to speak as the applicant’s agent).

 

Prior to the agent’s presentation to the Committee, David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) sought clarification from the applicant's representative in relation to comments made by an objector concerning parking spaces located within the application site. In referring to claims that certain residents held leasehold interests in parking spaces situated within the application area, it was questioned whether any party other than the applicant held a lease of 7 years or more over any part of the site. In response, Michael Burroughs, on behalf of the applicant, advised that his understanding was that there were 4 penthouse apartments and 4 associated parking spaces within the site. He further advised that the parking spaces were let on rental agreements for periods of less than 7 years.

 

Moving on, the Chair invited Michael Burroughs to address the Committee, during which the following points were highlighted:

 

• Michael Burroughs began by first responding to concerns that had been raised regarding objections and allegations of intimidation. He advised that 22 objections were recorded on the Council's website in relation to the application. In his view, this represented a significant level of engagement when considered against the approximately 60 consultation notifications that had been issued. It was noted, however, that not all objections appeared to be publicly available on the Council's website and expressed concern regarding this matter. It was stated that local authorities should operate transparently in the way decisions were reached and suggested that, where objections were being considered by the Council but were not available for public inspection or review by the applicant, this raised concerns regarding transparency.

 

• The applicant’s agent further advised that planning permission could not be refused on the basis of the character or conduct of an applicant and that the Committee was required to determine the application on its planning merits.

 

• Michael Burroughs then outlined what he considered to be 3 key reasons in support of the proposal. Firstly, he advised that there was an outstanding planning permission for the redevelopment of the existing garages on the site by way of a single storey flat roof building. As a consequence, he considered that the principle of residential redevelopment on the site had already been established and accepted. Secondly, Michael Burroughs advised that, in the event the current application was refused, and an appeal was pursued unsuccessfully, the applicant would likely seek to build a flat roof building. It was noted that the surrounding area was predominantly characterised by buildings with pitched roofs and that flat roof buildings were relatively uncommon. Thirdly, Michael Burroughs referred to the officer recommendation, noting that the Case Officer had undertaken a detailed assessment of the application and had recommended approval. In concluding his presentation to the Committee, Michael Burroughs stated that he considered the officer's analysis to be thorough and endorsed the conclusions reached within the committee report in full.

 

The Chair thanked Michael Burroughs 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:

 

• Member requested clarification regarding the proposed bin storage arrangements and asked for an explanation of the self-build development element of the proposal, including how self-build provisions related to development requirements and the applicant's intentions in that regard. Members also noted that the required Urban Greening Factor score of 0.4 had not been achieved and sought comments from the applicant’s agent on this matter. In response, Michael Burroughs advised that the bin stores were proposed in exactly the same location as within the previously approved scheme. It was stated that the Council had approved the bin store arrangements in that position previously and there was no reason to indicate that they should not be approved again. In relation to self-build development, it was explained that the concept was initially introduced in connection with SCIL. It was noted that a self-builder was defined as an individual who intended to live in the dwelling they had constructed for a period of 3 years. Such individuals were classified as self-builders and were eligible for exemption from SCIL charges. It was further noted that this would be relevant to the current proposal, as a SCIL exemption would apply in this case. It was also mentioned that an application for the exemption could only be made once planning permission had been granted. Michael Burroughs further explained that self-builders were also exempt from Biodiversity Net Gain requirements. It was stated that this affected the requirement for ecological reporting. It was added that, in this instance, the site was also exempt from Biodiversity Net Gain requirements because it constituted a small site. It was additionally noted that the site already benefited from consent for redevelopment and members were advised that, should Biodiversity Net Gain become a significant issue, reference could be made to the previously approved consent and associated design. Regarding the Urban Greening Factor, Michael Burroughs stated that planning policies recognised the difficulties associated with achieving urban greening targets on small sites and that a degree of flexibility was envisaged in such circumstances. He advised that the Urban Greening Factor for the proposal fell only marginally below the required score of 0.4. Michael Burroughs expressed the view that the particular circumstances of the site represented a good effort towards achieving the required level of urban greening. It was also noted that the site was currently predominantly concrete in nature, with little or no existing greenery, and stated that the development would result in the site becoming significantly greener than its current condition.

 

• Members requested a response to allegations of bullying and intimidation during the consultation process. In response, Michael Burroughs stated that he was unable to comment on the validity of the allegations, as he was not involved in the circumstances surrounding the consultation process. He advised that the Council had issued 60 consultation notifications and had received slightly more than 20 responses. It was stated that there was no evidence within those responses to indicate that residents had been subjected to bullying. Members were further advised that the objections he had reviewed were typical planning objections and that none of them alleged bullying or intimidation.

 

• Views were sought on whether the agent considered the proposal, involving the redevelopment of a one-bedroom dwelling into a 3-bedroom dwelling, to constitute overdevelopment of the site. In response, Michael Burroughs stated that he did not consider the proposal to represent overdevelopment and advised that the scheme made full use of a developable site and that this approach was consistent with planning policy requirements.

 

The Chair thanked Michael Burroughs 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:

 

• Clarification was first sought regarding the self-build development criteria and how the proposal satisfied the exemption from Biodiversity Net Gain requirements. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) explained that self-build and custom build development referred to a dwelling that was constructed for the applicant's own occupation. It was noted that the dwelling could be physically built by a third party on behalf of the applicant and that there was no requirement for the applicant to undertake the construction work themselves. However, the dwelling must be intended for the applicant's own occupation and there was a 3-year period during which it could not be sold or occupied by another person. Victoria McDonagh further advised that there were a number of circumstances in which developments could be exempt from Biodiversity Net Gain requirements. One particular circumstance was the application of the de minimis test, where less than 25 sqm of habitat would be affected. Members were advised that in this case, the site plan extended into part of the car parking area and communal garden, where a tree was located. Whilst the submitted plans indicated that the tree would be retained, concerns had been raised by the Council's Tree Officer regarding the risk of damage to the tree during construction works due to the differing ground levels between the car park and garden areas. Victoria McDonagh advised that the Tree Officer had indicated, in principle, that the removal of the tree would be acceptable subject to appropriate replacement planting. It was explained that a tree represented approximately 41 sqm of habitat and, therefore, if the tree were affected, Biodiversity Net Gain requirements would be triggered if the development were not proceeding as a self-build scheme. The Committee was advised that, in similar circumstances, the Council had secured legal agreements requiring applicants to establish the biodiversity baseline value of a site. In the event that the development was not delivered as a self-build scheme, a requirement would then arise for Biodiversity Net Gain to be provided through offsite habitat credits. It was stated that this approach enabled the Council to secure the necessary mitigation. It was further explained that officers were required to assess the proposal on the basis that it would proceed as a self-build development and, on that basis, it met the applicable exemption.

 

• Members questioned  whether the design of the proposed dwelling would be in keeping with the Victorian style properties within the road or whether it would differ from the existing character of the area. In response, Curtis Thompson (Career Grade Planning Officer) advised that the proposal incorporated materials commonly found within the conservation area, including coping stones and red clay materials. It was noted that the appearance of the existing garages was currently unsightly and made no positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. It was stated that officers considered the scale and materials proposed for the dwelling would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation area and that the scheme would deliver public benefits through the provision of a new family sized dwelling. Overall, officers considered the proposal to be sympathetic to the character of the area and compliant with relevant conservation objectives.

 

Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) additionally noted that the Heritage Officer had been consulted on the proposal and had concluded that the development would preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area. It was further stated that the existing garages were of a more contemporary form of construction and were not considered to be of special interest. As a result, they did not contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area and there was no heritage objection to their removal. The Committee were informed that amendments had been sought by the Heritage Officer during the course of the application process, including revisions to the fenestration and materials in order to ensure greater compatibility with the surrounding area. It was clarified that these amendments had been made and the Heritage Officer was satisfied with the proposal from a heritage perspective.

 

At this point in the proceedings, the Committee agreed to apply the guillotine procedure under Standing Order 62(c) in order to extend the meeting by a further 30 minutes to enable continued consideration of the planning application and the remaining business on the agenda.

 

• Returning to the allegations of intimidation and bullying raised by a number of speakers, members requested confirmation as to whether the Council had been made aware of these matters. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) confirmed that such matters had been raised and advised that the issues related to the behaviour of the applicant and did not constitute material planning considerations. It was noted that this position had been set out within the committee report.

 

• Referring to the receipt of 20 objections members questioned how many responses had been submitted in support of the proposal. In response, Curtis Thompson (Career Grade Planning Officer) advised that no responses of support had been received. Following up, members queried how many objections had been received in relation to the application, to which Curtis Thompson confirmed that 20 objections had been received, as detailed within the committee report. Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) added that all representations received in relation to planning applications were considered as part of the decision-making process, provided they raised material planning considerations. It was advised that applications were required by law to be assessed against the planning policies contained within the Development Plan. The Committee heard that a high number of objections would not, in itself, justify refusal of an application where the proposal was otherwise considered acceptable against policy requirements. Equally, a significant volume of support would not justify approval of a proposal that conflicted with the Development Plan or gave rise to identified planning harm.

 

• Clarification was sought by members on why the loss of green space arising from the proposed development had been considered acceptable. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) advised that the extension to the car parking area would result in a minor encroachment into the communal amenity space, amounting to approximately 1% of that area. She further advised that the area currently occupied by the garages would be enhanced through new landscaping to the front and rear of the proposed dwelling. The loss of amenity space had therefore been weighed against the benefit of providing a new family sized dwelling.

 

• With reference to the increase in accommodation from a 2 bedroom scheme previously approved to a proposed 3 bedroom dwelling, members questioned whether the development would be out of keeping with the conservation area. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) advised that planning permission had been granted in 2024 for a 2 bedroom house and that the current proposal sought permission for a 3 bedroom dwelling. The Committee was informed that the proposal complied with the space standards contained within the London Plan and would provide a private garden exceeding 50sqm. She further advised that, in terms of density and site usage, the proposal fully complied with the relevant space standards and was not considered to constitute overdevelopment.

 

• Further questions were raised on how many trees would be lost as a consequence of the development if it were to go ahead. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) clarified that only one tree would be affected. It was stated that there was a likelihood that the tree would be severely damaged during development and would therefore require removal. However, a planning condition would secure the planting of 2 replacement trees to compensate for the loss. All remaining trees on the site would be retained.

 

• David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) advised that, whilst the Committee discussion had been taking place, officers had been undertaking further investigation regarding ownership interests within the application site. It was explained that planning legislation required applicants to complete the appropriate ownership certificate, declaring whether they owned all of the land within the application site, whether there were additional owners, or whether the identities or addresses of other owners were unknown. It was noted that applicants were not required to demonstrate ownership at the point of submission but were legally required to complete the correct ownership certificate. As concerns had arisen following a statement by a previous speaker who had referred to leasehold interests within the application site. David Glover informed the Committee that officers had subsequently accessed Land Registry information and that this had raised doubts regarding the ownership certificates submitted with the application. It was noted that Certificate A had been completed, indicating that the applicant owned all land within the application site. However, in light of the existence of leasehold interests and references to other named parties, David Glover advised that there was uncertainty as to whether the correct ownership certificate had been submitted. It was therefore recommended that consideration of the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Planning Committee in order to verify that the appropriate ownership certificates had been completed.

 

• Further to this, a Member stated that they had reviewed the relevant legislation concerning self-build developments and noted that the definition referred to individuals or associations qualifying for self-build status. The Member further stated that their understanding was that the freeholder in this instance was Java Properties International Limited, based in Finchley Road, and requested that officers also seek clarification as to whether a company could qualify as a self-build applicant for the purposes of the legislation.

 

Having considered the application, the Committee RESOLVED to defer the decision for the following reason(s):

 

• To allow the ownership certificates relating to the application to be evaluated prior to determination and to clarify whether the scheme would fall within the definition of self-build.