Agenda item
Alpine House, Honeypot Lane, London, NW9 9RU (Ref. 12/2612)
Decision:
(a) Grant Planning Permission, subject to an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section of this report and referral to the Mayor, or
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Redevelopment of the site with erection of mixed-use scheme to provide 144
residential units (Class C3), 1800sq/m of employment workspace (Class B1),
5 live/work units (Sui generis) and associated parking, amenity space, landscaping and access.
RECOMMENDATION:
(a) Grant Planning Permission, subject an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section of this report and referral to the Mayor, incorporating revisions to Section 106 Heads of Terms, amendments to conditions 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 19 and proposed additional conditions as set out in the supplementary report or
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations
Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission
Rachel McConnell, Area Planning Manager, with reference to the tabled supplementary report, clarified queries raised at the site visit on the following: the proposed number of units; affordable tenure mix; parking numbers and overall amenity space. She continued that the development originally proposed 105 car parking spaces within the site and on street along Westmoreland Road and Honeypot Lane but the number had had to be reduced to 102 spaces to accommodate footways with a minimum of 2metres. Members heard that the London Borough of Harrow had not raised objections to the scheme subject to amendments to the Section 106 Heads of Terms to ensure that funding could be put aside to control the impact of CPZ within the boundaries of Harrow. She added stated that objections raised by QARA Group of Associates (Brent) on parking had been addressed in the main report.
The Area Planning Manager drew members’ attention to the comments made by the GLA and officers’ clarifications as set out in the supplementary. In reiterating the recommendation, she referred to a number of amendments to the Heads of Terms of the Section 106 agreement, conditions 5, 7, 9, 10, 15 and 19 19 and proposed additional conditions as set out in the supplementary report.
Mr Robert Dunwell, Chairman of QARA Group of Associates (Brent) in objecting to the scheme expressed concerns about the fact that not all cars expected to be generated by the development would be accommodated within the site. He also re-stated his objection to the possible introduction of controlled parking zone (CPZ) to the area. He added that with the surrounding streets in both Brent and Harrow being heavily parked, the addition of a possible 77 cars would produce a general parking blight with accompanying impact on safety of pedestrians and motorists. Mr Dunwell therefore requested the Committee to defer the application until the matters raised by QARA had been resolved.
Mr David Ayre, the applicant’s agent stated that the scheme which was a culmination of 12 months’ design work and consultation with officers and interested persons reflected the architectural aspirations and the overriding vision to respond to residential needs. He added that the scheme which provided generous amenity spaces would be a significant improvement to the area would ensure that car parking was contained on site. In his view the scheme would serve as a catalyst for future development in the area.
In response to members’ enquiry on landscaping, Mr Ayre stated that the main thrust would be the provision of communal landscaped communal areas for children and adequate tree planting, working in close association with Brent’s tree consultants.
Rachel McConnell added that in order to mitigate parking overspill, which would equate to approximately 34 cars accommodated on site or by other newly created spaces, waiting restrictions would be reviewed to allow night time parking in Westmoreland Road, in addition to car club and residential cycle parking. These would significantly exceed parking standards. The Head of Area Planning added that there was some limited scope for parking overspill but was unlikely to be a severe problem and on balance considered the scheme acceptable.
DECISION: Planning permission granted as recommended.
Supporting documents: