1. Insufficient provision of
affordable housing
There is no evidence to
substantiate the refusal of the application based on the insufficient provision
of Affordable Housing as it has been demonstrated through the consideration of
technical information by industry leading experts acting on behalf of the
council that the proposal would deliver the maximum reasonable amount of
Affordable Housing in line with the relevant policies. Without such evidence,
the Council is unlikely to be able to defend the refusal of planning permission
at appeal on these grounds and is likely to be subject to the award of costs
against the council for unreasonable behaviour.
Notwithstanding this, if
Members are minded to refuse planning permission due to the insufficient
provision of affordable housing, then a reason for refusal has been drafted as
follows:
The proposal would fail to
deliver the maximum level of affordable housing that is deliverable within the scheme
and therefore would not make an appropriate contribution to identified local
housing need within the Borough. This would be contrary to Policy BH5 of the
Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policies H4, H5 and H6 of the London Plan
(2021).
2. Insufficient parking
provision on-site and the impact of congestion on surrounding streets
Following the July Committee
meeting, the applicant has proposed minor site layout changes which result in the
provision of one additional on-site parking space, taking the total provision
to 13 spaces. The additional parking space is not required to ensure that
overspill parking does not occur (as this is mitigated through the parking
permit restriction that would be secured). However, it does represent an
increase that is in direct response to Members’ parking concerns with, and this
increase can be supported when balanced against the
policy requirements set out
above to move towards more sustainable modes of travel and for car-free development
to be the starting point for all development in accessible locations.
A reason for refusal of
planning consent must be contrary to a policy and result in identified harm.
The proposal is in line with adopted London Plan policy T6.1, meeting minimum
requirements for blue badge parking and being below the maximum parking
standards. The site is in an accessible location with good access to public
transport options, where Brent policy BT2 sets out that car-free development
should be the starting point. With only 13 car parking spaces proposed on-site,
the development would not be expected to lead to unacceptable congestion on the
road network generally from trip generation and technical information to
support this has been submitted to the council and reviewed by the Council’s
own experts. To address the potential for increased parking demand on
surrounding roads (and associated congestion), a parking permit restriction
will be secured which is in accordance with Brent policy BT2 (b). A Car Park
Management Plan would be secured through condition to ensure that car parking
spaces are leased rather than sold which is a requirement of London Plan Policy
T6.1 (B).
As such, the proposal is not
contrary to the planning policies which relate to parking and congestion and would
not result in material harm in relation to parking and congestion. The Council
is unlikely to be able to defend the refusal of planning permission on these
grounds and at appeal would likely to be subject to the award of costs against
the council for unreasonable behaviour.
Notwithstanding the above,
if Members are minded to refuse permission due to the insufficient provision of
parking and the impacts of the development on congestion on the local streets
then a draft reason for refusal is as follows:
The proposed development
fails to provide an adequate level of on-site parking and insufficient evidence
has been submitted to demonstrate that the resulting parking demand would not
lead to overspill parking stress and congestion on surrounding streets. This
would be to the detriment of the safe and efficient operation of the highway
network, contrary to policies T6 and T6.1 of the London Plan (2021) and
policies BT1 and BT2 of the Brent Local Plan.
3. Lack of community space
It is not feasible to
provide community uses on all sites, with larger developments better suited to
enable thedelivery of such facilities. A new community facility is being
delivered with Brent Wembley Housing Zone development on the corner of the
Wembley High Road and Cecil Avenue.
Acknowledging the concern
raised by Members it is proposed that the scope of the s106 Heads of Terms be broadened,
so that the play space contribution of £50,000 could also be utilised for
enhancements to nearby existing community facilities, if that was deemed a more
appropriate use for the contribution at the relevant time.
The proposal is not
considered to be contrary to adopted policy in relation to the provision of
community facilities, nor is it considered that the proposal will result in
material harm, and with no specific requirement for the provision of a
community facility within this site, the council is unlikely to be able to
defend a reason for refusal on this basis and at appeal may result in the award
of costs for unreasonable behaviour.
Nevertheless, should members
choose to refuse permission on this basis, a draft reason for refusal is as follows:
The proposed development, by
reason of the absence of community facilities, would fail to meet social infrastructure
requirements by securing provision for needs arising from the development in
relation to the provision of community facilities. This would be contrary to
Policy BP7 of the Brent Local Plan.
4. Lack of on-site play
space for older children
Considering the improved
on-site play offer proposed and the remaining reduced shortfall for the 12+ age
group that would be experienced by future occupiers, alongside the mitigation
to be secured through the Heads of Terms, Officers remain of the view, that on
balance, the play strategy is considered to be acceptable.
In view of the mitigation
that has been agreed by the applicant, which as referred to above is to provide
a contribution of £50,000 to address the identified deficiency in play space
provision, Officers do not consider there to be reasonable grounds for refusal
based upon lack of on-site play space for older children, which could be
successfully defended at appeal.
Notwithstanding the above,
if Members are minded to refuse permission due to the insufficient provision of
play and recreational facilities, a draft reason for refusal is as follows:
The proposal would fail to
provide an adequate quantity of on-site play space for children aged 12 years
and over, resulting in an identified shortfall. The lack of sufficient on-site
play and informal recreation would fail to adequately meet the needs of future
occupiers, particularly older children. In the absence of sufficient on-site provision,
the proposal would be contrary to policies S4 and D6 of the London Plan (2021)
and policy BH13 of the Brent Local Plan.
5. Insufficient provision of
family sized housing
The scheme presented to
Members in July 2026 proposed that 26 of the 108 dwellings would be family
sized (with at least 3 bedrooms). It was acknowledged in the main Committee
report that this would represent a marginal shortfall (1 home) below the Local
Plan BH6 policy target of 1 in 4 new homes to be family sized.
Notwithstanding this
marginal shortfall the development, it was considered that the proposal would
provide a meaningful contribution of much needed family sized homes (including
family sized affordable homes). For these reasons, the proposed development was
considered acceptable in respect of family sized housing provision.
Following the July Committee
meeting the applicant has proposed an increase in family sized housing provision
to directly address Members’ concerns. An additional family sized 3-bedroom dwelling
is proposed at ground floor level within block A, by converting a 1-bedroom
affordable dwelling into a 3-bedroom affordable dwelling through the relocation
of a bicycle store, which will result in the overall provision of family homes
being 27 of the 108, meeting the 1 in 4 policy target. As referenced above,
almost half of the affordable homes (45%) would now be family sized also, which
is positive given the significant need for family sized affordable homes. The
increased level of family housing proposed is fully in accordance with Local
Plan policy BH6. As such, officers do not consider there to be any reasonable
grounds to refuse the application owing to the provision of family housing
proposed.
6. Harm to neighbouring
amenity due to the loss of daylight
Following the July Committee
meeting the applicant has sought to further demonstrate the relationship between
the proposed townhouses, namely unit 101, and 15 Fairview Avenue, in response
to Members’ concerns that the proposal would cause harm to neighbouring
amenity.
An illustrative section
analysis of this proposed relationship has been provided which shows that the
boundary fence provides a degree of screening to the existing kitchen (side
facing) window to 15 Fairview Avenue. It shows that the first floor and second
floor windows of the proposed home that are directly opposite the kitchen
window of No. 15 are bathroom windows and would be obscure glazed (which can be
secured by condition), and that the bedroom
windows of the new houses
would be at an angle to the kitchen window. The illustrative plan shows the smaller
pane of each bedroom window is to be obscurely glazed which would further
reduce the overlooking and loss of privacy (again this can be secured by
condition). The same obscure glazing strategy is also proposed to the rear
façade of unit 100.
One member was minded to
vote to refuse permission due to the impact of the proposal on the light
received by the kitchen window of No. 15. As discussed above, the proposal will
have an impact on the amount of daylight that is received within the kitchen of
No. 15, and that impact will be noticeable. However, the No Sky Line assessment
shows that the levels of reduction are 6 % beyond the threshold set out within
the BRE guidance.
While the impacts are
acknowledged, it is considered that they are considerably outweighed by the
benefits of the development that are set out within paragraphs 358-373 of the
committee report and include the provision of a significant number of new
homes, with one in four of those homes being family sized and 11 of the homes
being proposed as affordable homes.
Notwithstanding the above,
if Members are minded to refuse permission, a draft reason for refusal is as follows:
The proposed development, by
reason of its siting and proximity to the side facing kitchen window of 15 Fairview
Avenue would result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of
occupiers of this property.
7. Impact on non-designated
heritage asset and character to the streetscene
Any historic association
with the Barham Family, who originally donated the land to build the Old
Wembley Hospital or the Copland Sisters, who funded the establishment of the
hospital through the Copland Charity, is not legible when one views the site.
The Council’s Heritage Officer has judged that these historic associations on
their own do not represent an element of heritage significance special enough
to justify retention.
In summary, the proposals
would accord with relevant paragraphs of the Framework, including 203 and 216, and
policies BHC1 of the Local Plan and HC1 of the London Plan. Overall, the
harm/total loss of the Non Designated Heritage Asset(NDHA) could be overcome by
public benefits delivered on the site. It is important that the lost buildings,
which played an important role in the area’s history, are recorded. This has
been done in part through the agreed Level 2 Building Recording and a condition
is recommended that that an interpretation panel and/or plaque be placed on
site to explain the former role the hospital played in the community (including
its founding via a local charity and its use during the Second World War).
Impact on the character of
the streetscene
Where building heights then
step up to four/five/six-storeys, in terms of scale, this responds
appropriately to the larger civic buildings. In terms of character, the
proposed multi-tonal bricks are reflective of the surrounding residential
context. Facades are broken down and well-articulated, including the feature brickwork
detailing. Architectural inspiration for the scheme has been derived from the
surrounding Metroland context, as well as the listed Wembley Fire Station,
located nearby, built in an art-deco style. This inspiration is clear to see
across the proposed scheme, and demonstrates the level of regard that has been
had to the surrounding context.
In summary, the character of
the proposed development represents a considered and appropriate response to
the surrounding context. Officers consider the overall approach in terms of
design and appearance to be appropriate in light of the site’s specific
characteristics, and in design terms the requirements of Local Plan policy BD1
are satisfied.
Nevertheless, if, having
regard to the discussion above, the Planning Committee are minded to refuse the
application due to the concerns raised, then a draft reason for refusal is as
follows:
The proposed development by
reason of the demolition and loss of the existing non-designated heritage asset
and the form, appearance and character of the proposed development would fail
to preserve or appropriately respond to the significance of the heritage asset,
resulting in heritage harm to Brent’s historic environment. Furthermore, the
proposed development would fail to respect the
prevailing character of development in the area, resulting in harm. The
proposal therefore conflicts with policies HC1 and D3 of the London Plan
(2021), policies BD1 and BHC1 of the Local Plan, and heritage and design
objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), which seek to
conserve heritage assets and secure high-quality design that responds
positively to local character and context.
