Issue - decisions

With reference to the tabled supplementary information, the Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks drew members’ attention to the list of additional objections received from the following; Brian Coleman (London Assembly Member for Barnet & Camden), Councillor Dunwell (Queensbury Ward), Preston Amenities Protection Association (PAPA) and the British Waterways Board.  The objections included the following: negative impact of the proposal on local residents and infrastructure of the Welsh Harp area, loss of valuable Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), traffic congestion in and around the junction of Birchen Grove and Blackbird Hill particularly on Wembley Event days.  He also drew members’ attention to the list of objections from Brent School Without Walls which had been restated in the tabled supplementary. 

The Head of Area Planning then clarified the reasons for recommending an amendment to reason 1 for refusal as set out in the tabled supplementary to reflect the intentions of The London Plan policy 3D.9.  He also recommended an additional reason for refusal as set out in the supplementary report to reflect the lack of a signed legal agreement between the applicant and the Council.

Councillor Navin Shah (Harrow Council and Assembly Member) in welcoming the recommendation for refusal stated that the application which constituted an unacceptable form of development on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) failed to comply with The London Plan policies.  Being in close proximity to a Site of Specific Special interest, the proposal would adversely impact on the wildlife and the quality of life of local residents.  Councillor Shah considered the quality of the development to be of substandard nature which he added would fail to provide adequate garden space and thus adversely affect the residential amenity for future occupiers of the development.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Singh, a ward member stated that he had been approached by local residents in connection with this application.  Councillor Singh started by saying that the site of the proposed development being located on MOL would be in breach of UDP and LDF policies particularly in an area such as Brent which was deficient in public open and green spaces.  The proposal would endanger a variety of wildlife and breeding birds in an area which was listed as a site of special scientific interest by the Nature Conservancy Council.  Councillor Singh added that the development would have a detrimental impact on the residents of Birchen Grove and adjoining roads in terms of increased traffic (as they tried to exit from and egress into Birchen Grove), noise and pollution.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor John, declared that she was a local resident and although not approached by residents, she had received a correspondence from the applicant in connection with this application.  Councillor John endorsed the reasons put forward by the previous speakers and additionally expressed her full support for the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Lorber, Leader of the Council stated that he had been approached by local residents in connection with this application.  In endorsing the officer’s recommendation for refusal, a view which he said was also supported by the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly, Councillor Lorber reiterated the need to protect the MOL which would send a strong message to local residents about the high value that the Council placed on its MOL. 

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Van Colle, Lead member for Environment Planning & Culture stated that he had been approached by local residents and the applicant in connection with this application. Councillor Van Colle also endorsed the recommendation for refusal adding that the application to build on MOL was misconceived, in his view, and contrary to Brent’s LDF policies to preserve the MOL as well as to encourage the current use of the site.

In response to Councillor Powney’s enquiry on the officer’s opinion on traffic management, the Head of Highways and Transportation Phil Rankmore stated that the pattern of use of vehicles alone could not be a valid reason for refusal.  He advised that members would need to show a level of connectivity of walking and cycling and an intensive use of vehicles.  He also confirmed that the revised layout showed adequate turning arrangements for coaches in terms of access to and from the site.

In his closing remarks, the Chair endorsed the sentiments expressed by the objectors both at the meeting and during consultation particularly the comments submitted by the London Wildlife Trust which summed up the detrimental impact of the proposed development.