MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

Tuesday, 3rd June 2008 at 7.00 pm

PRESENT: Councillor Kansagra (Chair), Councillor Singh (Vice-Chair) and

Councillors Anwar, Baker, Butt, Cummins, Hashmi, R Moher and C J Patel
(alternate for Hirani).

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillor Hirani.

Councillors Arnold, Blackman, Dunwell, John, Malik, Mistry, Moloney, Van Colle
and Wharton also attended the meeting.

1. Declarations of Personal and Prejudicial Interests

None at this meeting.

2. Minutes of Previous Meeting held on 29th April 2008

RESOLVED:-

that the minutes of the meeting held on 29th April 2008 be considered at
the next meeting

3. Requests for Site Visits

None at this meeting.

4. Planning Applications

RESOLVED:-

that the Committee’s decisions/observations on the following applications

for planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(as amended), as set out in the decisions below, be adopted. The
conditions for approval, the reasons for imposing them and the grounds
for refusal are contained in the report from the Director of Planning and in
the supplementary information circulated at the meeting.

ITEM APPLICATION APPLICATION AND PROPOSED

NO NO DEVELOPMENT
(1) (2)
APPLICATIONS DEFERRED FROM THE LAST MEETING

0/01 07/3232 19 Brook Avenue, Wembley, HA9 8PH

Part retention of works and alterations to form modified part

single-storey and two-storey side and part single-storey and two-
storey rear extension and alterations to roof to provide rear
dormer extension and one roof-light to the front, side and rear roof
slopes and works to front elevation of dwelling house

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

The Planning Manager informed the Committee that the current application was
a re-submission of the last planning application ref: 05/0186 that was refused by
the Planning Inspector on appeal due to the impact of the two storey rear
extension given its overall height, width and depth on the living condition of the
residents at Nos. 18 and 20, with particular regard to outlook, contrary to UDP
policies BE9 and H21. The Inspector in the appeal decision also made it clear
that the other existing additions including rear dormer, single storey rear
extension and side extension would be acceptable subject to the modifications
proposed within the current application and as set out in the main report. This
current application included all the modifications proposed by the last application
but with additional modifications to the two storey rear extension intended to
overcome the Inspector’s reason for dismissing the appeal against the last
decision. Additionally, the application proposed a 2.5m deep two-storey rear
extension, a reduction of 0.5m in the depth was in line with that of the original
planning consent granted in 2000 and an attempt to overcome the Inspector’s
main reason for dismissing the appeal application ref: 05/0186. In his view, the
proposed change would result in a sufficient reduction in the volume of the two-
storey rear extension which, along with the other changes referred to above
would comply with the Council’s policies and supplementary planning guidance
relating to domestic extensions. The Planning Manager added that the Council
would continue to pursue prosecution for non compliance of the outstanding
Enforcement Notice on the property until agreed works were carried out to the
satisfaction and standards of the Council.

Miss Saunders in objecting to the proposal stated that despite any reported
modifications, the specifications and dimensions of the property was excessive
and that the modifications did not address the concerns of residents. She added
that the gap between the property and the adjoining property was inadequate so
as to create a terracing effect, loss of sunlight and to dampness inside the
property. She urged the Committee to refuse the current application and pursue
the Enforcement Notice served on the property for non-compliance.

Mr Mohammed Al-Thri speaking in a similar vein submitted that the applicant had
not made any significant change to address the concerns expressed by the
Planning Inspector and the local residents since the last meeting when the
application was refused. He added that the Council’s Health & Safety Unit had
found the rear garden unacceptably dangerous and by his failure to follow the
correct regulation the drainage system was found to be poor and constituted a
health risk. He added that the overwhelming structure of the unauthorised
development confirmed residents’ suspicion that it would not be for use as a
single family dwelling unit.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice,

Councillor Blackman a ward member stated that he had been approached by
the objectors and threatened by the applicant. He referred to the history of the
property, the catalogue of refusals, the unauthorised development carried out at
the property and the retrospective planning permissions to regularise the
development. Councillor Blackman submitted that the scale, outlook and the
impact of the development on the adjoining properties were sufficient to warrant
a refusal of the current application. He added that adequate reasons had been
stated in the consultation column of the main report to further support a refusal.
2
_____________________
Planning Committee – 3 June 2008
In the discussion that followed, Councillor Cummins expressed concerns about
the terracing effect and indicated that he would be minded to refuse the current
application for that reason. The Chair, Councillor Kansagra noted that the
current proposal retained that height which the Planning Inspector considered
unacceptable. He added that from the rear view, there was no extension in the
area that was similar to the one proposed and which was not compliant with the
Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) requirements. Councillor
Hashmi dissented from the views expressed above.

In response to an enquiry by Councillor R Moher, the Head of Area Planning

clarified that the proposal incorporated an acceptable reduced dormer window.
He added that the scale of the development generally complied with SPG5 and
the 2:1 guidance. He reminded the Committee that the site was not within an
Area of Distinctive Residential Character (ADRC).
Members however voted to refuse the application contrary to the officer’s
recommendation with the following statement of reasons: the development was
excessive in height, scale and bulk with adverse impact on adjoining properties.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, voting on the
officers’ recommendation for approval of this application was recorded as follows;

FOR: Councillors Butt, Hashmi and R Moher (3)

AGAINST: Councillors Kansagra, Anwar, Baker, Cummins,

C J Patel and Singh (6)

ABSTENTION: None (0)

DECISION: Planning permission refused on grounds of excessive scale, height, bulk

and adverse impact on adjoining properties.

0/02 07/3782 First Floor Flat, 15 Buller Road, London, NW10 5BS

Alterations to existing rear dormer of first-floor flat.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

This application was deferred at the last meeting when members indicated that
they were minded to grant planning permission contrary to the officer’s
recommendation. The report discussed the implications of the members’
decision and although it maintained the original recommendation for refusal, the
report proposed planning conditions as set out if members were still minded to
grant planning permission.

In re-affirming their decision to grant planning permission subject to conditions in

the report, members expressed a view that the provision of the Juliet balcony
would address any likelihood of overlooking.

DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

3
_____________________
Planning Committee – 3 June 2008
0/03 08/0034 34 Kingswood Avenue, London, NW6 6LR

Creation of basement level with rear lightwell to dwellinghouse.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Councillor Cummins circulated a paper on subterranean developments from

Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea for information. He noted that Queens
Park Residents’ Association had not raised objections to the revised scheme.

DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

NORTHERN AREA

1/01 08/1035 543 Kenton Road, Harrow, HA3 0UF

Erection of a part single-storey, part two-storey side and rear

extension with two windows at ground-floor level on the flank wall
of the dwellinghouse.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

1/02 08/0799 Wembley Park Sports Ground, Bridge Road, Wembley, HA9

Erection of single-storey temporary building comprising a new

primary and secondary school, with provision of new hardstanding
and car-parking and associated landscaping on site adjacent to
Forty Avenue (as accompanied by reports: Flood Risk
Assessment & Surface Water Drainage Strategy; Sustainable
Development Checklist; Consultation on Key Aspects of the
Proposed Wembley Park Academy; Phase 1 Habitat Survey and
Protected Species Assessment; Desk Study and Preliminary
Ground Investigation; Design and Access Statement; Feasibility
Study; Transport Statement; Site Noise Survey and Acoustic
Feasibility Study; Archaeological Deskbased Assessment;
Arboricultural Report).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant a temporary planning permission subject to

conditions.

At the start of the consideration of this report the Chair in exercising his discretion
under the Council’s Constitution stated that he would allow more than 2 objectors
and in so doing would have regard to those who represented groups of people.
He added that as the site was within Barnhill ward, only those members for that
ward would also be allowed to speak on the application. The Chair did not allow
Councillor Dunwell member for Queensbury ward and who claimed to represent
Forty Avenue traders to speak on this application.

4
_____________________
Planning Committee – 3 June 2008
The Planning Manager informed the Committee that a widespread consultation
was carried out which included 1,329 addresses, Clerks and Chairs of School
Governing bodies and Preston Manor High School due to its proximity with the
site. In respect of traffic congestion and safety he submitted that the bus stop
would be relocated to increase the parking area outside the proposed entrance
and that revised drawings had been received showing how a mini roundabout
would be incorporated into the site thus allowing parents to pull off the highway
completely to pick up and set down. The Planning Manager informed members
that issues about landscaping would be addressed by the imposition of the
proposed condition 5 and that as a result of a tree survey carried out on behalf of
the applicant, the arrangements were found to be satisfactory. He assured the
users of the sports facilities that the number of pitches would remain unchanged.
He noted the concerns about flood risk and clarified that the following flood risk
assessment prepared by Capita Symonds the Environment Agency had
confirmed their satisfaction and had therefore withdrawn their earlier objections.

In respect of any concerns the committee or others may have over a decision
here pre-empting a decision on the permanent Academy buildings he referred to
advice by the Borough Solicitor which emphasised the need to view the proposed
temporary buildings wholly separately from any proposals for a permanent
Academy. . The Planning Manager clarified that if the application was refused
then the Council would have to provide 60 reception places at Wembley Manor
Primary School in 2008/09 academic year in order to cater for those parents who
applied to the new school for their children. He added that the governors at
Wembley Manor School had objected to this fall back position and that planning
permission for this option would be required. In reiterating the recommendation
for temporary planning permission, he referred to the amendments to the
proposed conditions as set out in the supplementary information circulated at the
meeting

Sir Alan Davies Head Teacher of Copland Community School in objecting to the
application stated that the proposed site was in a busy main road and being
close to Preston Manor High School with over 1,000 pupils, would cause
immense traffic congestion to vehicular traffic in the area. He added that the
proposed provision of education in temporary structures as portakabins would
not be the ideal environment for reception class children. Sir Allan suggested
that there were 2 other alternative sites suitable for an academy could be
considered without the above problems and loss of greenery. He also stated that
the consultation with interested parties was carried out during the Easter holidays
when many people were away and therefore were unable to respond to it. Sir
Allan urged the Committee to defer the application.

Mr Roger Bone speaking in objection on behalf of the Wembley Park Action

Group stated that the proposed site for the school would exacerbate the
imbalance of provision of educational facilities between the North and South
areas of the Borough. He added that most of the children from the South of the
Borough would have to travel approximately 3 kilometres to the new school thus
making it rather inaccessible contrary to the officer’s report and the guidance
within S11 of the UDP. He urged the Council consider relocating the new school
to the South of the Borough in order to address the shortfall in school places. He
continued that the social and environmental issues of the proposal which were
5
_____________________
Planning Committee – 3 June 2008
inconsistent with sustainability policies had not been adequately addressed in the
report.

Mr Hank Roberts representing the Brent National Union of Teachers (NUT)

stated that as 60% of the pupils attending Copland Community School, which
had a capacity of 1,900 pupils, were travelling from the South of the Borough
there was no need for the new school to be located on the proposed site
(situated in the North of the Borough). He continued that the proposed site would
accentuate the historical imbalance in the provision of education in the Borough.
In addition to that the Governors of Wembley Manor Primary School had
expressed their objection to their school being identified under the fall back
clause. Mr Roberts also claimed that the statutory consultation was not complied
with for a school that would result in the loss of employment.

Mr John Woods referred to a petition he had previously presented to the

Council’s Executive calling for an inquiry into this application. He claimed that as
the independent traffic survey was carried out on a non school day, it was
possible to assess the full traffic impact of the school on the Wembley Park area
and therefore could not be representative of the situation. He added that the
detrimental traffic impact of the proposed school on the area would not be
addressed by the provision of 11 car parking spaces on the site which he
considered was wholly inadequate.

Mr Robert Lanwarne the Project Manager stated that the report comprehensively
assessed the full impact of the school on the proposed site. He added that a
widespread consultation was carried out over a period of time to ensure that all
interested parties were informed about the proposal. Mr Lanwarne added that
the regeneration of the Wembley area coupled with population growth meant that
the Council was required to respond to the needs and demands for the provision
of educational facilities. The site was identified as the most suitable for the
school. He added that the sports pitches and other sporting activities would
continue to be provided.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice,

Councillor Van Colle, a ward member stated that he had been approached by
objectors including Barnhill Residents’ Association. Councillor Van Colle
expressed concerns about the application in terms of the temporary structure of
the school buildings, loss of open space, traffic and congestion that would be
caused. He added that a considerable degree of traffic problems at the entrance
into and egress from the school would be caused because as a primary school
parents were likely to drive their young children to and from the school. In urging
members to refuse the application, Councillor Van Colle enquired whether any
provision had been made for the children living on Chalkhill Estate who used the
sports grounds.

Mr Chris Randall the applicant stated that the quality of the buildings for the
proposed school would provide good quality education for the children. He
continued that under the School Travel Plan, ARK Academy (applicant) would
work with the parents to ensure that the traffic impact of the proposed school was
minimised. Mr Randall stated that the sports pitches would be maintained and
managed by the Council’s Parks Services.
6
_____________________
Planning Committee – 3 June 2008
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice,
Councillor Wharton, the Executive Lead Member for Children & Families stated
that he had had a number of meetings with the applicants and also with the
objectors. In setting the background to his presentation Councillor Wharton
stated that the demand for school places in Brent had been rising each year and
there was a shortfall of secondary school places. . This had resulted in some 200
pupils being placed in “over spilled” schools. He stated that with rising birth rates
in the borough the Council was required to take steps to address the situation
and although in September 2007 4 additional facilities were opened, these were
inadequate to resolve the situation, hence the current proposal to open a new
school. He added that by the year 2016, additional 2,400 secondary school
places would be required of which the Wembley Park site would provide only 900
places. He continued that a bid had been submitted to Central Government for
additional facilities to be provided in the Borough including south of the Borough.

In referring to the submission on behalf of the Wembley Park Action Group,

Councillor Wharton said that the Council had a legal responsibility to provide
education and in so doing had looked at the alternative sites including the Ducker
site which was a metropolitan open space and Brentfield Road site which was
not a possibility due to the resources and time that would be required.

In responding to the issues raised by the objectors, the Head of Area Planning
reported that the Director of Transportation had concluded that the mini
roundabout proposed within the scheme would be adequate for smaller coaches
(not London buses) that would go into and out of the site. In addition, there were
proposals to relocate the bus stop on the north side and further improvements to
the pedestrian refuge and parking arrangements. The sum total of the above
would allow the proposed school to cope with ensuing traffic. He added that the
educational arguments had already been rehearsed with a clear direction given
by the Executive on the need for a school on the site. The Head of Area
Planning continued that as the sports pitches would be open to the public access
to the facilities would not be denied. He added that while the site specific
allocation within the Local Development Framework (LDF) had been withdrawn,
the site was still supported in planning terms.

During the discussion that followed, the Chair stated that he could not see the
urgency in the need for a temporary school on the proposed site taking into
consideration the traffic and congestion that would result. He added that
consideration of the alternative sites suggested was not within the Committee’s
remit and that there were no site specific uses for the current site. In expressing
an opposing viewpoint, Councillor R Moher submitted that there was an urgent
need to address the shortfall in school places particularly as the Governing body
of Wembley Manor School objected to the idea of accommodating 60 children at
their school next September. Councillor Anwar noted that traffic congestion was
common in the wider London area.

DECISION: Temporary planning permission granted subject to conditions.

7
_____________________
Planning Committee – 3 June 2008
1/03 08/0825 John Billam Pavilion, Woodcock Hill, Harrow, HA3 0PQ

Planning permission is sought for the variation of three conditions

limiting the hours of use and restricting the maximum attendance
at the John Billiam community building imposed by planning
permission 06/3398 dated 14/02/2007 (as per email from
applicant dated 06/05/08).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

DECISION: Deferred as explained within the Supplementary Information

1/04 08/0383 281 Preston Road, Harrow, HA3 0QQ

Demolition of existing building and erection of 5 storey building to

create 14 self contained flats comprising, 1 x 1 bed, 12 x 2 bed
and 1 x 3 bedroom units with associated landscaping and car
parking to rear of site.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission.

The Planning Manager informed the Committee that the agent withdrew the
application and had expressed his wish to arrange a pre-application interview
with the case officer.

DECISION: Application withdrawn. Members confirmed that they would have refused
the application on the basis of the information available.

SOUTHERN AREA

2/01 08/0983 Atlantic Electronics, 295-297 High Road, London, NW10 2JY

Demolition of existing two-storey building and attached single-

storey rear warehouse and erection of a 6-storey building with
retail space on ground floor and a total of 21 self-contained flats
on upper floors consisting of 2 three-bedroom maisonettes, 5
three-bedroom flats, 8 two-bedroom flats, 4 one-bedroom flats
and 2 studio flats, with formation of disabled parking space, 21
cycle bays, refuse and recycle storage and associated
landscaping

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission.

Members were informed that the applicant withdrew the application by electronic
mail on 2nd June 2008.

DECISION: Application withdrawn. Members confirmed that they would have refused
the application on the basis of the information available.

8
_____________________
Planning Committee – 3 June 2008
2/02 08/0798 1 Leigh Gardens, London, NW10 5HN

Single storey rear extension to dwellinghouse

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

The Head of Area Planning informed the Committee that although the proposal
would be larger than current policy under the SPG would envisage, the difference
was not significant enough to warrant refusal.

Mr Anwar objected to the application on grounds of loss of light, loss of

residential amenity and obstruction to the joint access shared by 132A and 132B
Chamberlayne Road. He added that the proposal would also compromise his
security.

DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

2/03 08/0770 12B Berens Road, London, NW10 5DT

Erection of rear dormer window with juliet balcony, installation of 1

rear rooflight and repositioning of 1 rear window to first-floor flat.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

2/04 08/0937 95 Chamberlayne Road, London, NW10 3ND

Two-storey rear extension at basement and ground-floor level to

shop

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

2/05 08/0209 Layalyna, 241 Kilburn High Road, London, NW6 7JN

Change of use from shop & Internet cafe (Use Class A1) to
restaurant (Use Class A3) and internal installation of an extractor
duct within the existing chimney breast.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

WESTERN AREA

3/01 08/0826 LAND SURROUNDING WEMBLEY STADIUM, Royal Route,

Wembley, HA9

9
_____________________
Planning Committee – 3 June 2008
 The erection of a part 9-/part 11-storey building comprising 251
residential units (15 x studio flats, 74 x one-bedroom flats, 153 x
two-bedroom flats, 9 x three-bedroom flats). Of these residential
units, 15 x studio, 40 x one-bedroom and 97 x two-bedroom flats
are for private accommodation; 24 x one-bedroom and 26 x two-
bedroom flats are for intermediate accommodation; and 10 x one-
bedroom, 30 x two-bedroom and 9 x three-bedroom flats are for
social rented accommodation.. In addition, the building is
proposed to contain 7441m² of Class A1 designer outlet retail,
6774m² of Class D2 leisure floorspace in the form of a 10-screen
cinema, 408m² of Class A3/A4/A5 food and drink, basement
parking for 115 cars, 251 cycle-parking spaces, and landscaping
works, on the land bounded by Stadium Way, Royal Route and
Wembley Park Boulevard (site of the former Exhibition Halls)
forming part of the Quintain Stage 1 permission (ref: 03/3200).

(The application is submitted as reserved matters detail pursuant

to condition 2 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (siting, design, appearance, means
of access and landscaping), and details pursuant to conditions 6
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (scheme parameters), 26 (configuration and
extent of provision of communal and/or private residential open
space), 60 (disabled access), 61(underground parking) 63
(sunlight/daylight studies) and 64 (wind tunnel testing) for Plot
W07 only (as shown on Parameter Plan 4 and bounded by Royal
Route, Wembley Park Boulevard and Stadium Way) of outline
planning permission reference 03/3200 dated 29 September 2004

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

With reference to the supplementary information, the Planning Manager drew

members’ attention to an amended description and typographical error in the
highways section of the remark section of the report which should read 115 car
parking spaces. He added that a letter requesting minor amendments to the
approved development at plot WO5 in respect of use classes A1, A3, A4, A5 and
C3 had been accepted by the Council. These approved minor amendments
would ensure that the combined floor spaces of all the Reserved Matters
Applications to date including this application were within the maximum floor
areas set out in the parameter plans of the original stage 1 application for each
type of use.

Mr Nigel Hawkey on behalf of the applicant stated that plot WO7 would be the
heart of entertainment with 10 screen 200 seat cinemas and mixed use with
residential units arranged around landscaped courtyard. He added that the
efficient design layout would provide high quality retail and leisure outlets and
provide a real opportunity to create a more vibrant complex.

DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

10
_____________________
Planning Committee – 3 June 2008
3/02 08/0827 York House, Empire Way, Wembley, HA9 0PA

Erection of 2-storey side and single-storey rear extensions with

canopy, reconfiguration of existing car park, installation of new
vehicle crossover to Stadium Way, removal of existing vehicle
crossover to Empire Way, and change of use of the ground floor
and first floor to include the provision of 2180m² retail (Use Class
A1) floorspace and and 836m² of food and drink (Use Class
A3/A4/A5) floor space, with the restaurant/cafe and some of the
retail floor space being sited at ground-floor level to the side of
York House

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission granted subject to the

completion of a Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the
director of Environmental Services to agree the exact terms thereof on advice of the
Borough Solicitor.

In his introduction, the Planning Manager drew members’ attention to amended

conditions on the advice of the Borough Solicitor and an additional condition to
address the risk of flooding on the advice of the Environment Agency as set out
in the supplementary information. He also referred to further conditions on the
recommendation of the Director of Transportation on cycle storage, travel plan
and an amendment to condition 3 on landscaping. The Planning Manager added
that there are ongoing discussions between the Planning Authority and the
applicant on sustainability with regards to off-setting 20% of on-site carbon
emissions through the provision of on-site renewables or the provision off-site
through an in-lieu payment to the Council.

Mr Nigel Hawkey for the applicant stated that the proposal would provide a 14
storey building for retail and office use and a reconfigured 185 car parking
spaces to the front of the building. He continued that there were on-going
discussions on acceptable sustainability measures between the applicant and the
Council adding that the range of conditions recommended would ensure an
acceptable form of development.

In welcoming the application members expressed a wish for the building to be

repainted in a visually pleasing colour to be agreed with the officers.

DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to the completion of a Section 106

or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the director of Environmental
Services to agree the exact terms thereof on advice of the Borough Solicitor.

3/03 08/0392 51 Acton Lane, London, NW10 8UX

Change of use of the dwelling house to a medical centre (Use

Class D1) on the ground floor and a self-contained maisonette
(Use Class C3) on 1st and 2nd floors.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

11
_____________________
Planning Committee – 3 June 2008
In updating the Committee, the Planning Manager said that since the report was
published, there had been a further 24 (in total 239) consultation responses in
support of the application. The reasons given for supporting the application were
similar to those given in the earlier responses that the local community would
benefit from an additional surgery and most respondents believed that there was
a need for a black female doctor in the area. In reiterating the recommendation
for approval, the Planning Manager submitted that the application complied with
Council policies.

Mr Camaroo an objector stated the proposed change of use would result in loss
of residential housing stock contrary to the Borough’s UDP policy that required
the Council to resist loss of housing stock in view of its growing number of
homeless families in excess of 2000. He added that the property was too small
for an acceptable change of use to a mix of uses for medical and residential in
addition to an unacceptable shared entrance for both uses. He continues that as
parking facilities at the property would be inadequate, the proposed change of
use would exacerbate the traffic problems in the area.

Mr J Desai a local pharmacist speaking on behalf of the applicant objected to the

proposed change of use of the property on the grounds that it was inappropriate
He added that as a dilapidated building it was not suitable for medical and
residential uses. Mr Desai continued that the report did not adequately look into
the impact of the change of use on adjoining occupiers.

Mr Phil Sealy speaking in support of the application stated that the objections
raised by the previous speakers had been fully addressed in the Committee
report. He emphasised that the building was not dilapidated as alleged by some
of the objectors and pointed out that the proposal would lead to good health
promotion.

Ms Ruth Kumathi the applicant’s agent submitted that the proposal which had
adequate access to public transport facilities would not lead to loss of residential
housing stock. She added that contrary to some claims, the property was not
dilapidated and that the change of use would successfully operate alongside Dr.
Patel’s surgery, in the provision of health care facilities. She continued that the
medical facility would improve the provision of health facilities and thus address
some of the socio-economic fabric of Brent.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice,

Councillor Moloney, (not a member for that ward) confirmed that he was a
patient of Dr Patel (a local GP) and had been approached by a number of
residents. Councillor Moloney stated that there was no need for another medical
facility in the area particularly as there would be a state of the art medical centre
in the Hillside area. He continued that the proposal was inappropriate for the site
due to current problems with car parking facilities. He added that there were
several empty shops in the area to which the applicant could relocate the
proposed medical centre. Councillor Moloney also informed the Committee that
the Primary Care Trust (PCT) had withdrawn its support for the medical practice.

During discussion, Councillor R Moher expressed her support for the application
adding that it was reasonable for some female patients to want to be seen by a
12
_____________________
Planning Committee – 3 June 2008
female doctor. Councillor Kansagra stated that the application could be
detrimental to a secondary shopping parade reiterating the point about the loss of
large family dwelling and the availability of premises in primary shopping centres
to which the applicant could relocate

In responding to the issues raised, the Planning Manager submitted that the
application which would incorporate a ramped access for use by disable patients
complied with highways and parking requirements. He added that similar
facilities had been approved in the borough.

DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions..

3/04 08/0577 264 East Lane, Wembley, HA0 3LQ

Change of use of ground-floor of dwelling house (Use Class C3)

to a complementary health centre (Use Class D1) with the first
floor to become a self-contained residential flat (Use Class C3)
and provision of car-parking spaces, with associated landscaping
to site (revised description) as amended by plans received
22/05/08 and emails of 15/05/08 and 22/05/08

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Councillors Kansagra and Baker stated that the proposed change of use would
result in loss of residential accommodation and a secondary shopping parade.

DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

3/05 07/2932 RE-DEVELOPMENT, STONEBRIDGE ESTATE, Stonebridge

Estate, London, NW10

Outline planning permission for the demolition of existing schools

and buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide two new
replacement primary schools and other educational
accommodation, 245 residential units, new public open space,
relocated adventure play area, alterations to road infrastructure,
car parking and landscaping. Matters to be determined: Access,
Layout, Scale.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission granted subject to the

completion of a Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the
director of Environmental Services to agree the exact terms thereof on advice of the
Borough Solicitor.

In his introduction, the Planning Manger informed the Committee that the
amended layout of block B had overcome the initial objection to the application
raised by the GLA. The revised layout would result in the consolidation of the
basement parking areas under block B and the square with a decrease in the
number of basement parking spaces to 175 and an increase to 220 of on-street
parking spaces. He continued that although the revisions result in an increase in

13
_____________________
Planning Committee – 3 June 2008
the loss of open space, there would be significant improvements to the quality
and safety of that space which outweighed the loss of open space.

In respect of the section 106 agreement he clarified that the majority of the site
was under the ownership of the Council and cannot be subject to a Section 106
agreement except for the current Our Lady of Lourdes School site which was in
the ownership of the Diocese of Westminster and accordingly would be subject to
a Section 106 agreement to secure the measures associated with these
elements of the land, upon which the two schools and Pupil referral unit were to
be re-provided. This Section 106 agreement would need to be signed prior to the
formal grant of planning permission. He reported a recommendation by Legal
Services that a Section 106 agreement be entered into for the residential
elements of the site simultaneously with the transfer of the associated land for
residential development. The agreement would not be signed until the
associated elements of the site were sold to an external party.

The Planning Manager also clarified queries about density of the outline planning
application. He stated that the revised design and access statement and the
revisions to the proposal and reconfiguration of the spaces would result in a
reduction in the residential density of the proposal to 495 HR/Ha. In addition, the
residential units proposed within this application would be sited in immediate
proximity to public open space and other community facilities, providing large
amounts of external space for use by future residents. He drew the Committee’s
attention to a number of amendments to the conditions and an additional
condition as set out in the supplementary information.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice,

Councillor John, a ward member stated that she was also on the Governing
Body of Stonebridge Primary School. Councillor John said that the local schools
were enthusiastic about the outline planning application and urged the
Committee to endorse the office’s recommendation for approval
In welcoming the report, Councillor Cummins stated that there was every need to
ensure a proper control of the underground car park and suggested that a
condition could be imposed to address that. The Head of Area Planning
suggested that this could be addressed via a management plan as part of the
conditions and suggested that it was delegated to officers to agree the terms.

DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to the completion of a Section 106

or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the director of Environmental
Services to agree the exact terms thereof on advice of the Borough Solicitor.

3/06 07/1875 24 Stapenhill Road, Wembley, HA0 3JJ

Single storey side and rear extension with 1 rear and 3 side roof
lights.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to conditions.

DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to conditions.

14
_____________________
Planning Committee – 3 June 2008
5. Date of Next Meeting

It was noted that the next meeting of the Planning Committee would take
place on Tuesday, 24th June 2008 and the site visit would take place the
preceding Saturday, 21st June 2008 at 9.30 am when the coach leaves
from Brent House.

Note:
At 9.05pm the meeting was adjourned for 5 minutes.

The meeting ended at 10.28pm.

S KANSAGRA
Chair

S:\COMMITTEES\MINUTES\Council\Planning\3 June 08.doc

15
_____________________
Planning Committee – 3 June 2008