Agenda item
First Central, Coronation Road/Lakeside Avenue, Park Royal, NW10 (Ref. 12/2380)
Decision:
Grant consent.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Reserved matters application for the erection of a 9 storey residential building comprising 138 flats (Block C of outline planning permission granted 28 March 2012). Matters to be considered in the reserved matters application are the appearance and landscaping of Block C only.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning consent.
Neil McClellan, Area Planning Manager in reference to the tabled supplementary report informed members about concerns expressed by the owner of the adjoining site, SEGRO, that that residential development on the First Central site may prejudice the future development and operation of its site. Members heard that SEGRO was also concerned that the noise assessment carried out in support of the revised First Central Masterplan did not properly consider the potential noise that could be generated by a future business park operating on the opposite side of Lakeside Way.
In responding to the above the Area Planning Manager stated that both the Council's Environmental Health Office and Catalyst Housing's own consultants were confident that the existing noise mitigation condition attached to the outline planning permission for the First Central Scheme would be sufficient to protect the amenities of future occupiers of block C. Additionally, Catalyst's consultants were currently re-running the noise study to review the potential noise impact from the various development options for SEGRO's site. As the noise study had not been completed at the time of writing the supplementary report he requested that final approval of the reserved matters be delegated to the Head of Area Planning, including a review of the possible noise impact associated with the SEGRO site. He added that although the applicants had not submitted a revised noise report at the time of writing the report, advice from the Environment and Protection Team gave a high level of confidence that this would be adequately addressed.
Mr John Haston speaking on behalf of West Twyford Residents Association (WTRA) objected to the proposed development on the following grounds;
1. More information would be required on the elevational treatment of Block C as the current information was inadequate
2. Residents were not aware of the measures that would be put in place to stop satellite dishes, bikes and washing appearing on balconies.
3. None of the sectional elevations showed the Energy Centre which in his opinion would have to be built in parallel with Block C to provide heat and power for the block if the centre was to be the energy source. Residents also questioned the height and closeness to Block C.
4. The responsibility for proper upkeep of the grassed areas to a standard suitable for all had not been established.
5. Car parking spaces were limited and there was no indication as to the provision of additional spaces for parking overspill for an application of this magnitude.
6. Security concerns expressed by residents in respect of lighting columns, camera positions and security gates had not been shown on the landscaping drawings. Mr Haston added that gated communities felt more secure and created better environment for residents. He circulated photographs in support.
Mr Ben Riddle in objecting to the application on behalf of residents of 1st Central stated that they were not against the principle of development on the site or the need for shared ownership and social housing. However, they were completely against the idea of concentrating the social housing and shared ownership out of sight from the other 3 proposed properties and instead into one corner which was already overpopulated by residents in social housing. He added that this would not only be contrary to Brent’s policy of pepper potting social housing but would also create huge anti-social problems including crime and harassment.
In responding to the issues raised, the Area Planning Manager stated that landscaping and elevational treatment complied with standards and policies. He added that conditions had already been imposed on boundary treatment and the location of the satellite dish. Members also heard that the issue of concentration had been raised and addressed at the outline stage of the application.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended.
Supporting documents: