Officers still recommend approval. Corrib Rest has added conditions and obligations.
1. Site visit - Gladstone Parade
1.1 Members visited the site on Saturday 24
June and viewed the site from the north, east and south. Members raised the
following queries:
How the building line would change
Whether existing occupiers have been offered new tenancies
Trees
Amenity space
1.2 The change in the building line has been
addressed in paragraph 6.2 and 6.3 of the committee report. The building is
currently set back from Edgware Road by 9 metres. The proposed building would
be sited closer to Edgware Road and would be angled rather than straight. The
building would be located 4 metres from the road on the northern side of the
site and 8 metres from the road on the southern side of the site.
1.2 The
applicant has been in contact with the existing tenants of Skippers Choice fish
and chip shop about occupying the proposed A5 use. With regard to the other
existing tenants, all of the existing leases of the current units in the
shopping parade with the exception of the Estate Agents have expired. However
informal negotiations regarding their leases have also been ongoing over the
past few weeks.
1.3 he existing tree is of low quality with an estimated remaining life
expectancy of at least 10 years. In mitigation, the proposals include
replacement tree planting of five trees to the landscaped areas along Edgware
Road as well as new tree planting to the communal garden to the rear of the
property. Further details of this replacement planting would be secured by
condition 14.
1.4 The amount of amenity space has been addressed in paragraph 4.2 of
the committee report (page 72). Residents would have access to a mixture of
their own private balconies and 388sqm of communal roof terraces that combine
to meet Brent DMP19 amenity space requirements.
2. Further representation
A local
resident has provided written comments on the following issues:
2.1 Loss of
retail of community value
As set out in paras 1.1 to 1.5 on pages 70-71 of the
report, the existing units are afforded no policy protection with the exception
of the public house. The public house and an A5 takeaway unit will be
re-provided as part of the proposal. As well as this two A1/A2 units will also
be provided that could accommodate a shop or hairdressers in the new
development.
2.2 Harm to character
The impact of the proposal on the character of the
area is covered in paragraph 6 – Impact on character and design of the
committee report (page 74).
2.3 Parking and traffic
The
issue of parking and traffic has been covered in paragraph 5 of the committee
report. A resident has also raised concerns with potential congestion in the
area. Overspill parking is addressed in para 5.1 (page 73). The volumes of
vehicle trips that are likely to be generated are not significant, particularly
compared with flows on the Edgware Road.
2.4 Daylight and sunlight
The issue of
daylight and sunlight has been covered in paragraph 7.3 of the committee report
(page 75). A resident has raised concerns about overshadowing of the school to
the north of the application site. As is normal practice the school was not
included in the daylight and sunlight report because it is not a residential
building. However notwithstanding this due to the separation distance of the
proposed building of 30m from the school building and 18m from the edge of the
playground it is considered that there would be no materially harmful loss of
light or overshadowing to the pupils and teachers.
2.5 Fire safety
Fire safety is not a planning
consideration however in light of recent events the applicant has submitted a
fire safety briefing outlining measures such as access, heat and smoke alarms,
means of escape and necessary signage and lighting.
2.6 Lack of benefit for the area
The proposal
would result in a net increase of 32 homes to the borough, 10 of which would be
family sized units and 10 of which would be affordable housing. The proposal
will also provide training and employment opportunities for Brent residents
that will again be secured by a legal agreement.
Recommendation: Remains approval
subject to conditions and section 106 legal agreement.
1. Committee site visit -
Corrib Rest
Members
visited the site on 24 of June 2017 and viewed the site from the surrounding
area. Members also viewed the ground floor where the proposed function room
would be located and the first floor where the current function rooms are
located. Members queried:
how people would access the community space;
how the booking system would operate; and
what would constitute a ‘community’ activity.
1.1 People would access the function
room via the ground floor main entrance of the public house located in
Salusbury Road.
1.2 Bookings could be made up to six weeks before an event and would be
made either over the telephone or in writing at least 10 days before the event.
This would be secured as an obligation in a s106 agreement.
1.3 There is no
statutory definition of ‘community’ activities however the draft s106 has
provided a definition of ‘community groups’ that are defined as “groups or
organisations set up for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes that
include a substantial amount of activity or control by members of the public in
a voluntary capacity, or provide organised training in the performing arts
associated with specific cultural groups”.
2. Further representations
2.1 Cllr Duffy
has raised the following concerns:
Use of the term ‘minimum’ in referring to the number of hours the
community would be able to use the function room
Request the hearing be deferred to permit further public debate where
Planning Officers explain the reasoning behind the recommendation. This has
also been raised by a local resident.
2.1.1 The use of the word ‘minimum’
refers to the fact that legally the owner will have to provide priority access
for community groups for 40 hours per week from 12:00 to 22:00 hours Monday to
Thursday. This would not prevent the owner from hiring out the room to
individuals or community groups outside of the set 40 hours: it would be for
the pub operator to determine what would best ensure the viability of their
business.
2.1.2 The committee hearing is the public meeting at which a planning
application is debated. The application has been widely publicised between the
end of February and the report’s publication in mid June.
2.2 Cllr
Denselow has queried the use of a restrictive condition on the occupation of
the proposed flats unless the public house is occupied. Officers recommend a
planning obligation or condition is imposed requiring approval of an effective
marketing plan for the pub and that the applicant uses reasonable endeavours to
ensure the pub is operational before occupation of the flat. Officers consider
this to be reasonable because if the applicant was not able to find a tenant
they would not be able to change the use of the public house without first
obtaining planning permission due to recommended condition 7 and the ACV status
of the
premises.
However Cllr Denselow confirmed that he would still be objecting to the
proposal.
2.3 A local resident raised a query regarding
the amount of notice individuals would have to give before booking the function
room. Please see response in paragraph 1.2.
2.4 A resident has reiterated their concerns
with the accuracy of the Daylight/Sunlight report. This was addressed in
paragraph 6.3 of the committee report however the applicants’ consultant has
provided a further response to the points raised. As a consequence, Officers
remain satisfied that the daylight/sunlight report has been properly prepared
and the impact on neighbouring amenity would be acceptable.
2.5 A resident has raised concerns with the
timing of the building being listed as an Asset of Community Value (ACV). The
asset was listed in July 2015 and the title updated to reflect this in April
2016. This is not a material planning consideration as it does not affect the
status of the ACV listing. It is understood that the delay was due to the
applicant not providing a relevant information.
3. Notifications of committee
3.1 Ward Councillors did not receive the
standard notification letter detailing the committee date. All Ward Councillors
are aware of the meeting and as such have not been prejudiced in any way.
4. Corrections to the report
4.1 The consultation dates in the
‘Consultation’ section of the committee report were incorrectly listed and
should have read that neighbour consultation letters were issued to 68
properties on the 21/02/2017. A site notice was displayed on 24/02/2017. Press
notice advertised on 02/03/2017.
4.2 The number of objections received was
incorrectly listed in the ‘Consultation’ section of the committee report as 149
and should have read 151. All objections were however taken into account during
the assessment of the application.
5. Additional conditions and obligations
5.1 Officers recommend a further planning
obligation be imposed, draft text as follows: Within 3 months of material start
submit to the Council for its approval a marketing plan for the public house
and function room and not to occupy any part of the residential development
unless the marketing plan has been approved and implemented and the public
house and function room marketed in accordance with the approved plan for an
agreed period of time and the applicant uses all reasonable endeavours to
ensure the public house and function room is operational before occupation of
any part of the residential development.
5.2 The applicant has also requested that
they be permitted to place table and chairs on the Salusbury Road frontage.
Officers recommend condition 5 be varied to expressly prohibit the placing of
tables and chairs on Hopefield Avenue frontage and to place no tables or chairs
on the Salusbury Road frontage unless in accordance with a plan covering their
siting and hours of use to be approved by the local planning authority.
Recommendation: Remains approval subject to
conditions and section 106 legal agreement.
