Transcript

Transcript

So thank you, I think we're live now. So welcome everyone to our planning committee meeting this evening. My name is Matt culture and council for housing, Kenza green ward and chair of the branch planning committee. In the moment, I'm going to ask everyone participating in this meeting to introduce themselves. And when I do so, please speak directly into microphones that I was following from her and can see and hear you clearly everyone's reminded that the meetings being webcast live and held in public. So please conduct yourself in an appropriate manner. Now the planning committee is a non political quasi judicial committee bound by the national planning policy framework, the London plan, Brent's local plan and supplementary planning guidance. Our decisions are informed by planning considerations tied to these policies, but it's not a pure science in each case we must weigh up the potential harm and benefit to Brent when coming to a view. It's also worth reminding everyone that we are facing a nationwide supply shortage of housing, which has seen us at a housing target that has risen to over 2,300 new homes a year. We also have 3,700 households in priority need on Brent housing waiting list as we speak today. The arrangements for conducting this meeting will be as follows, officers will introduce the application and then any members of the public agents or applicants who are registered to speak will be invited by me to address the committee in turn with questions to follow. Members are reminded to keep their questions to the point and on matters of clarification or planning issues only technical questions or clarification of details will generally be best directed to the officers. Committee members will then discuss and decide on the recommendation on the application. And when we come to a vote on each application, I'll ask all members to confirm they're minded to approve the recommendations by raising their hand. Anybody who abstains or votes against will then be asked to give their valid planning reasons as why they've done so. And if a vote is carried against the recommendation, we may ask for further details and decide whether to defer or make the final decision tonight. If any, if any reason a member is not present for the whole of an item, they will be asked not to vote on that application. So, as I said, particularly for those watching on from home, we may have not seen the planning committee before I'm going to ask all members and then officers participate to introduce themselves. So I'll start on my right with the vice chair. Councillor, seconded by. James, can you tell their governance and scrutiny manager. Councillor, I just want to. Councillor Rita, begging. Councillor Michael Maurice. Councillor, I didn't see them. Okay, thank you. And then I move over to my left to introduce the officers will be supporting us this evening. Thank you, Victoria McDonough, the development management area manager. Nicola Blake, parental planning officer in the North team. Linda Boiter and senior legal officer. Thanks and those on screen, please. David Glover, head of planning and development. We can't hear David. Can you hear me? Yeah, the mute sign isn't up, but we still can't hear anything. Maybe just try, try, try John first and while David tries to fix it. John. Okay, there might be an issue with falling from the screen to cut here anybody on the screen. So we're just going to pause for a second to try and fix that. Can you hear me now? I think we just got a slight problem on screen. I don't think we need anyone on screen to do apologies. We'll just do that and then hopefully it'll be fixed by the time we get to the application where we may need advice from people on screen. So, with that in mind, what apologies is easier. I've received any this evening. I think we're as usual, but can I ask on decorations of interest anyone at this stage, please declare the nature and existence of any relevant, reasonable, peculiar personal interests, and the item to which it relates within it would be like to make a declaration council acronym. Yeah, thank you chair. Yeah, so just wanted to inform everyone that I'm one of the ward Councillors and the application force within my ward. But the key point was to raise was one of residents that approached me as chair. I'm not Wembley central partners, but I thought it did just to the fellow my fellow Councillors to deal with so I'd know direct dealings with him. Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Okay, so we've answered a minute which are the record of the meeting that was held on the 13th of March page one to eight in the pack. It's everybody happy they are a correct record of that meeting. Okay, I'll take that as a centre that those minutes are agreed. And hopefully that bit of businesses mean we've been able to James we have an update on the screen. I'm just trying to get the AV technician backs. I think it might be an issue with the mics. So I've been here and other screens interacting. So hopefully it's been a minute or two to come back. Okay, so we just pause if people want to stretch the legs or whatever for a second. Hopefully it won't take too long and I will be able to move on with the main item. Thank you. Just be me then. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay, great. Thank you. I think we're back live now and we finally fix the audio issues that we have here. We can move on to the main item on the agenda, which is the application at seven X, seven X parade. So please go there. I think Nicola could introduce this report, please. Yeah, thank you, Chair. If we could open up slide three of the stories back, please. Yeah, thank you. So this application relates to the demolition of the exist. Yeah, that one. The existing single story building, which contains small commercial units and a workshop at the rear. The application seats consent for a part seven, part six story building, which would include 41 residential dwellings and a commercial unit, which would front London road. The proposal is cut free and an ancillary gym is proposed at the basement level, a common courtyard and roof terraces would be provided for the immunity space in addition to cycle parking facilities. The slides within the Wembley town center and forms part of the secondary shopping frontage and Wembley growth area. And that's all from me. Thank you. Just for clarification at this point, any questions for officers? No, so we can proceed, I think, to the speakers, we have one rich speaker, Paul Brailsford, so if you could come to the table. First of all, thank you very much for your patience while we've resolved the IT issues. You'll have three minutes to address the committee and that time will begin as soon as you're ready. Please just press the microphone to start. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this application by Dejan Investments Ltd, part of the Freshwater Group of Companies. I'm Paul Brailsford, head of Planning at Freeth Solicitors and agent for this application. The officers report, which recommends that planning permission should be granted, is the culmination of five years hard work through both pre-application discussions and the application process. The final scheme before members this evening is testament to the time commitment from your officers and other consultees throughout. The application site is located within the Wembley growth area and is currently occupied by predominantly single story flat roof building, containing eight small commercial units. It's a very significantly underused urban site in a highly sustainable location. Five of the units are vacant and the leases on the remaining three end in December of this year, presenting an opportunity to redevelop. The site is within a tall building zone and around the site are numerous multi-story developments. The proposal's height at seven stories is acceptable, both in this context and in respect to the character of the wider area. To deal with level changes across the site, the proposal reads as two blocks, one at six stories and the other at seven with recessed up floors. The building is arranged in a U form around a communal courtyard garden with additional private amenity space provided at fifth and sixth floor roof levels. Through the proposed landscaping scheme, the site has an urban greening score of 0.3 and provides a biodiversity net gain. The shape and massing of the building has evolved by reference to BRE guidelines in order to ensure that levels of daylight and sunlight received by residents of the new apartments are appropriate, and that impacts on neighboring properties are minimized, such that they are acceptable in this urban context. The scheme provides 41 apartments with a range of sizes, including 12 three bed family units. All of the units meet nationally described space standards. Three of the proposed residential units comply with building regulations part M4 three and the rest with M4 two. Whilst a detailed financial viability assessment concludes that the scheme cannot deliver any affordable housing that has been agreed with the council's independent advisors. And a late stage review mechanism is to be secured by legal agreement in order to capture any offsite contributions in the event that viability improves through the construction phase. Critically, the proposal will result in the redevelopment of an underutilized site in a highly sustainable location, optimizing housing delivery. There are no outstanding technical objections and the officers report is extremely comprehensive. It is therefore hope that members will resolve to grant planning permission in line with the recommendation. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Baelford and thank you for sticking to time. I've got a couple of questions and I open up to the committee. First of all, the, you know, one of the sort of main concerns around this is the affordable housing or lack thereof. What other options in terms of design, perhaps, or the extra high other things as well. Did you sort of consider that may have increased the viability of the site, you know, you know, sort of how much, you know, alternative areas of you looked at before coming up with a final plan, which obviously has been judged as not viable in this, in this sense. Thank you chair. The design process for this scheme has spread over almost five years. It's quite a constrained site in terms of properties to the, to the rear and the, the building envelope that's been designed has very much been led by sunlight daylight impacts. So it's quite an unusual set shape scheme and it's evolved in that way to ensure that the maximum amount of development can be accommodated on site without an acceptable adverse impacts. In sunlight daylight terms on adjoining sites or indeed residents of the scheme so you'll see it's quite an unusual you shape. There are. In as part of that process, you'll see that in order to provide open space and private amenity space for residents that there's a courtyard garden and to amenity areas at level five and level six. So it's, it's been a balancing act in terms of scale height and massing officers have been integral to that process, concluding that additional height wouldn't be appropriate in this location in terms of its relationship and wider context. So it's, it's had a thorough review through the design exercise with those considerations extending to sunlight daylight that have been heavily influencing the building envelope. Okay, thank you. I'm sure we'll come into into that in more detail later on. Obviously, the other point made is obviously it's building over underused kind of area at the moment in terms of the shot fronts. He said that three renews their leases come to an end in December, like are they all sort of happy to leave are they not planning to renew the lease like what conversations out for those business in terms of them, you know, moving on perhaps finding other sites or what they might plan to do. Thanks chair. I understand the landowners written to those tenants. And I know there have been discussions with officers about ensuring that opportunities to take space in the new scheme are communicated to tenants who are currently within the scheme at the moment as I understand it there is no expression of interest in space within the scheme. Right, okay, thank you. I'm going to go to councilor my mood. Thank you chair. Firstly, can I thank you for bringing this proposal forward we always very pleased when the developers bring proposals like these or others. But what we are not really happy about this proposal is that, like you mentioned earlier on, there is no affordable housing. So that is a very big drawback in our case because we aspire to get as many as possible for the housing because we have a long list of people waiting to be housed. Having said that I just want to ask you, initially you had 38 flats in this proposal, which you have increased by another three. I would have thought that if you were to actually consider this application in our way, you would have made those three units as affordable or social housing if possible. Because initially you also had the basement you could use as car parking, which has also been given to yourselves because you don't have any parking on this site anymore. So, you know, we would actually preferred if we had considered either having those three units as affordable, or perhaps did you not consider going a little bit higher and having more units for yourselves as well as for the residents of Brent. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sure officers will will pick up on that point as well. But so, obviously, the, the desire here was to have car free development, which had been the case from very early discussions with highway officers. When the, the scheme evolved to include those additional three units, the viability was reassessed. And in, I suppose in simple terms, it was still a deficit. So it helped to the viability, but not to a degree that would trigger the requirement for affordable housing. And the Council's independent advisors reviewed the information put in front of them. There were some challenges to some of the assumptions in the usual way. But ultimately both parties agreed that the assessment had been robust, but the additional three units didn't get the scheme sufficiently in the black, so to speak, to trigger affordable housing. And can you tell me what difference did it make to the visibility or the, the amount of deficits you initially had after adding another three units. And I don't have the report open in front of me, but it was a marginal improvement on the position, but not again, not sufficient to trigger agreement between the parties that affordable housing should be provided. I thought this is a very desirable area. It's just off the high street and I'm sure the properties when you come to sell them will be quite expensive. So, even those three units would have been, you know, in millions rather than hundreds of thousands. And the, without going into detail on the viability assessment process, the sales values of the units that fed into that assessment were vetted by the Council's independent advisors. With, with both parties agreeing that they were the correct values to base that assessment on. You'll see from the officers report that there is a late stage review mechanism posed in the proposed to be secured by legal agreement. So, ultimately, as the scheme progresses if build costs go down sales values go up, then that review mechanism will make sure that any change in the viability position is captured. And if viable at that time, it would provide a contribute financial contribution towards offsite provision. So, that there is a second review here that tests the assumptions and what's been agreed with the Council's advisors. Finally, just to ask you my second part of the question was, have you not considered going a slightly higher than the six or seven stories in order to accommodate the affordable. And ultimately, I suppose from a developer perspective, you'd always love to go higher and include more units, but it's a balance, particularly with this scheme that every time the building envelope changed. I'm sure it would be assessed for sunlight daylight impact. So, I think anything over and above the current envelope, and officers will, I'm sure, pick this up was considered to be, I suppose, crossing a line in terms of its impact on adjacent units and ability to include units that were that had adequate levels of sunlight daylight as well. And the effectively the building envelope, and that's before you tonight has had quite a lot of scrutiny from various technical considerations, sunlight, daylight, scale, height, massing, and anything taller was considered to be inappropriate. And that's the, the, the outcome of, I think, two or three pre application submissions and the discussions during the life of this application over about five years. Okay, thank you just any other maps of clarification for this speaker, and council but thank you chair, and thank you for coming tonight for I just want to put a question to you that I normally put to most of developers who come with a financial utility that shows the deficit. And if at the late stage review a payment does become payable, would we be able to use that payment to pay a property on your site for affordable housing. I think as currently drafted and proposed with your offices, it is simply a financial contribution that would be used by the borough to purchase affordable housing within the borough so I suppose in that sense it depends on the council's housing department choose to allocate that spend at the time. But that leads me on to next point which I seem to always make as well. If we can't buy something in your development, and everything else also comes up as a viable deficit in terms of viability. What do we do with that money where do we buy our properties. It's more they comment then because I don't think you can really sort of answer that. So it's just a food for thought kind of thing. This is kind of predicament that ourselves are in. If developers aren't able to offer us that even when we're offering the money, it becomes really hard for us to fulfill our housing quotas. So it's just making that point off the difficulty that we face of the council as well. If I could just come back on that. No, that's that's absolutely understood. And I suppose in terms of number of units. This isn't a large scheme by definition 41 units with with quite a complex complex built envelope, which increases the construction costs but my understanding is that. In your housing colleagues would would be able to perhaps explain this better than I but. Financial contributions are available to help registered providers. We partner with the council to bring forward schemes. And obviously registered providers would be able to apply grant in theory to help as well. So I don't think it's a hopeless cause clearly there are complications in spending. Financial contributions for offsite but it can help deliver schemes elsewhere. I think I'm supposed to help for a reminder of the context of as well, but it's probably not something that they speak and fully address on, but I think I think we understand the point you're making. Okay, just going to take a final question from Council Dix and then we'll move on to officers so Council Dixen. Okay, so thanks again for coming along and for presenting this application. And this is very much a question from someone who is a lay person. My understanding of reading the. The papers were that although we met the targets for external daylight and sunlight. You didn't meet the targets when it came to internal daylight and sunlight, you know, there was a quite a big deficit there when you made them 66%. So I'm thinking, well, if you went higher, and this is a lay person speaking, would you not get better internal. Even though I don't know about the external, but that one would definitely improve, wouldn't it, as you went higher because you wouldn't have the other building. So I'm not sure whether you're saying you don't want to build higher because because you just want to build this much, you know, which is fair enough in a way you are the. You are the developers, it's absolutely, or whether you're saying you, you've been restricted, you know, because we do want you to meet our targets in terms of social housing. And therefore I don't fully understand why we can't build higher, particularly when you keep quoting sunlight and daylight because I think well, it'll get better if I get higher. A couple of points that hopefully will will will help with that so terms of building higher that's that's a case of scale height and mass that could be overbearing in respective neighboring buildings. Obviously, if you put another 10 stories on there that the higher you go, the better the quality of sunlight daylight into those apartments. However, there are issues with going higher scale, massing is it appropriate in context. The sunlight daylight impacts through overshadowing of adjoining properties. And you don't always solve the problem of getting more light into the proposed units because I appreciate the sunlight daylight report is a very long report and very technical report referring to BRE guidelines, but there are things to be aware of like the the living accommodation very popular. You have the kitchen diner at the back of a wider, more airy living space so it's harder for the daylight to get to the back. So the kitchens tend to go to the back of that arrangement and also that balance of providing a private external amenity space on balcony is the balcony themselves restrict the amount of light coming into the unit. So it's a very difficult balancing act. And what we've tried to do here with offices is is to get that right balance. Sorry, so don't believe any to just one last one from Council Maurice, but then we really probably should be getting on with the officers questions. Very quickly. I'm very concerned about the effect this is going to have on the light available to neighbouring properties. I've been told it's going to be going to suffer quite severely in one or two cases. Can you confirm or tell us what's going on, please. I'm aware that the officers report provides a fairly comprehensive summary of the impacts on all of the adjacent properties. And I think whenever you develop in an urban context, there is from a percentage perspective, there will always be. It's very difficult to achieve 100% compliance with BRE guidelines and they are at the end of the day guidelines. It's not legislative. It's not an absolute. So, I think one of the comments made in the office's report and in the sunlight. Daylight study prepared by rappers is that some of the units in adjacent properties that that are impacted by this scheme. Already have. Sort of relatively low levels of sunlight daylight and comparable to the wider context. It's not unusual. So, whilst there are, there is a number of units that have a level of reduction, which is a little bit higher than the guideline 20%. The what those residents will experience after the development is built is not dissimilar to residents of other units in the local context. So, it's, I suppose, it's a degree of normal in a highly developed urban area. I think that's the, that's the way to look at it if that helps. I think we are sort of getting to the point to really need to explore with officers now, I would suggest. So, I think we'll ask. Mr Brea so to retake your seat, we can move on to those questions with the team, particularly as we have now everyone present and correct on screen. Seems to me there are three key themes which have emerged from members of committee in terms of concerns that they would like to see addressed the first is on affordable housing. The second is on daylight in as in internal to the new units, particularly around their dual aspect, etc. And the third is around the impact on daylight and sunlight on external suggest there was a sort of three areas. So, would anybody maybe like to ask any questions around the first of these, the affordable housing or should we just ask officers to expose them there thinking on it first and then people can respond. So, over to you guys, if you can, you've heard that members are concerned about the lack of affordable housing in it. Obviously, it's a policy compliant in terms of the viability assessment. If you could perhaps say a bit more to explain to the committee and another members of the public, you might be watching along how you can still be policy compliant, obviously, without any any affordable units in there. And what provisions we do have in terms of late stage testing. Thank you chair. So, just to first of all, pick up on the sort of general policy position. And so, French local plan, like London plan, we have a strategic target to deliver 50% of our homes is affordable. But that's a strategic target across all the homes that have been delivered so it's not an individual case by case basis it's just looking at homes being delivered as a whole. But there's an important sort of difference to make there does not let expectation that each scheme should be delivering 50% it's a strategic target. When we look at individual cases we call what's called the refresh the threshold approach. And so that's where you've heard about 35%, so it's a major application, which isn't on sort of industrial sites or sort of council led scheme or public land. Like in this case it's the 35% threshold. And if you were to propose 35% affordable housing by habitable room with the 10 years in spitting line with the local plan, which is your 70% LAR social rent and 30% intermediate, then you wouldn't have to do the accessibility test in, you know, that will be you'd met in a factory to met that threshold, and you'd also then be subject to an early stage review mechanism if you don't deliver the scheme within two years or planning permission being granted. So that's an incentive and sense of the schemes will come forward. And where schemes do not propose to first child approach, they are then subject to viability testing, and the policy sort of sets out there that the detailed viability evidence, you know, is submitted in a standardized and accessible format and it has to then be scrutinized by, you know, the bar and our expert and viability consultants, and as I agreed to the methodologies and assumptions, which is set out in the planning practice guidance and also the affordable housing viability SPD. So that's, you know, and we talked to you about like gross development values and all of the costs etc that we've had, you know, talked about before. In that case, and viability tested schemes, they're subject to then it's, it's an early stage review within the two years and the late stage review mechanism, which is triggered at 75% of any homes being occupied. So going on to this particular scheme. And, as we've talked about briefly before, and originally scheme for 38 homes, we concluded our consultants that the scheme was in deficit of 2.13 million pounds. So then when the new scheme coming at 41 homes, that then reduced to 1.88 million. And this is the summary of why the scheme has gone more viable but still, but you know, in a deficit by adding the three units you've got more density and that improves the schemes residual land value. And there was an increase in the ratio of one beds within the scheme as a whole. And one bed of the highest square foot pound per square foot relative to to to bill costs. And I think the other thing to note in this scheme is it does also contain a policy compliant level of family size homes where you have less values to the family size homes per square foot as well. And the values and the cost where they were indexed by eight months to the updated appraisals. And what that looks at is the base costs went up by 8.6% and the gross development value went up by 10%. So that's between the 31 to the 41 homes, but it took into account, you know, the timescales between the viability submissions as well. But nevertheless, it still concluded that there was a deficit of the 1.88 million pounds. So essentially what that means is that the, you know, at this present time, the schemes are not able to deliver, you know, any affordable housing. And because it's gone for the vibes to tested route. It is then in line with development policies, both within Brent's local plan and the London plan. So just sort of two points on that. I think that's very helpful summary, which explains the situation. So thank you for that. We heard from the developer that it's quite a narrow sort of development window and stuff as well. So you'd say that that sort of contributed to the sort of lack of viability. If it was a wider, more open space, you know, the mate, but maybe more they could do with that sort of you know, part B, the family units is obviously welcome and not being policy compliant. So is the sort of a bit of a tradeoff there between. You know, if you have more family units, the sort of value per square foot is less that might affect the viability, but we need more family size units. So would you sort of say that's a tradeoff? And is that in your view part of the reason why you recommended approval? Yes. So the family size units, you know, it is, it's balancing, you know, the benefits of the scheme against other planning considerations. And obviously we have a strategic need for, you know, one in 25% target of our homes to be family size. And that's across, you know, different 10 years, including private, not just affordable 10 years. And so it has the one in four, which, you know, which is in line with policy. And then in terms of the sites and I guess we're referring to things like height and could it be made taller. You know, in our view, we consider that the developer has, you know, has optimized the site. It's about optimization of the sites. You know, they have, you know, they have optimized it has not been under optimized in the, you know, the delivery of passive the site coming forward. It is a constrained site. It's sort of, you know, the relationship of it has got a building on one side, the passenger center. And then you've got to get the buildings on high road in the service yard. And then you've got the back, which is the sort of service area. It's quite a scenario sort of sites and it's sort of shape and looking at the concepts of what's coming forward. Even though it's within a tall building zone, the emerging concepts here, we have buildings as typically five to eight stories, what a consent from a scheme across the road for eight stories. And then it steps down further along London mode to more traditional housing. So overall, you know, we've taken into the site the concepts and it's surrounding concepts. And the constraints we do consider, you know, that it has has been reasonably optimized. I think you're trying to stay on this topic for the moment before we move on to other issues. Does anybody have any questions they'd like to raise about affordable housing, et cetera. Councillor Dickson. Thank you, Victoria. That was, it is really helpful really always to be reminded of the, you know, of the fact that is the overall strategy, not necessarily 50% from each site. But nonetheless, you know, it's a tall building site. I still haven't heard any reason as to why it couldn't go higher and then we could meet the targets, you know, that the, the, the, you know, like all the other targets, all the other planning considerations that we have. That we've been reading about this one, it comes up just every time and I'm not, I don't think we've optimized with due respect. I just, I haven't heard anything which says it couldn't go higher. I can hear about the roundabout building, but that happens all the time, you know, we're sitting here very often and we've got really tall building and we're a bit concerned about it, but we can see that there's lots of social housing and therefore, given that such a big need, we, we agree to it. So I'm not clear about why it couldn't go higher. I mean, you know, the application that we, you know, that we obviously when we went through with the developer team, you know, we looked at ways to try and balance all of the various considerations that balance and that's looking at something which, you know, it's, it's obviously tall of them, clearly taller than what's there at the moment, and it's, you know, taken into account, as I was saying before, what is going on along that part of, you know, the, of the high road. You know, yes, in fear it is a tall building zone. It doesn't mean to say that a building of, you know, 30 meters above the 10 stories would necessarily would necessarily work, but at the same time. You know, we're, you know, when we looked at everything as a whole, we were taking all of the different considerations into account looking at how the building read in the street scene. You know, when there was the considerations were saying before, you know, particularly with the sort of, you know, the layout of the building and the internal environments, etc. And it was felt that this was sort of like it was, you know, really, really, really a balance, a balance with it. I guess I can hear why you've made that decision. I'm just challenging it as, as somebody who's where we have these targets and also because we are. We were removing all the people who've currently got leases, the leases come into an end, I understand that. We don't know that they don't want the leases to be restored. And we are removing somebody's livelihoods there so it's a big thing that we're doing. And therefore, obviously the developers present, but we as the council, I feel, should maximize our opportunity to meet the standards, the targets and the that we've that we've that we've that we aspire to. If Dave wants to go into anything, but once I was going to say is, you know, when we do have schemes come forward at pre up stage, you know, if we feel that there is opportunities to to really push and say about we think there could be extra height and could that then live in more benefits. We do really sort of emphasize that with developments with our, you know, our design officer at that pre up stage to see if we can sort of, you know, maximize things further and push things further, particularly when there is, you know, significant benefits like affordable housing. I think in this case is really where the balance lies. Did you have anything further to add Dave? I think you've covered all really well, really. And as you say, I mean, you know, we look at every site individually and try to see how we can get the best development for that site. You know, it's we want development to to work well in the street contribute to the sort of the character in the street scene within the area. We want to deliver as many of the benefits that the scheme can deliver, including housing and big element that is affordable housing. And you'll be aware that, you know, we, we deal with, as you're saying, a lot of schemes which are, you know, which are very tall, and a lot of ones schemes which are above, say, for example, you know, our guidance levels in terms of the indicative heights for that area with a lot of the reason for that being to ensure that scheme is viable and it can deliver affordable housing. So, you know, it is something we definitely do try to secure in schemes. This one is, I think, when you start to go down London Road, the context along here changes very quickly, you know, you don't go too far down here until you're down to the two story housing. And it's not, it's not a sort of very tall area. We don't have a cluster of tall buildings here. You know, there are the ones closer to the square in the station, but going down London Road. And, you know, it feels when you walk down there and you're looking at the design and the character and so forth, it does feel that there's sort of five to eight story date and which has been emerging along here fits better in terms of, you know, creating a good place. On top of that, I mean, as was Rose earlier, I mean, you know, trying to balance those, there's impacts associated with development that we see all the time with the benefits, you know, it is always a difficult one to balance and, you know, we do see a lot of schemes where there's a degree of impact in order to deliver the benefits, but, you know, we have to look at each scheme individually and, you know, when looking at this one we felt that actually this was a good balance between the level of impact. And, you know, delivering housing on the site and trying to deliver a skin would be viable. But yeah, in this case, the viability showing that that means it can't afford to provide any affordable housing. Okay, so there are various, you know, we've, I think we've had a sort of full explanation there there, you know, it would be entitled to you how you weigh this in terms of the sort of harm and benefit of the scheme overall, but is there anything actually further information you need rather than just sort of on this affordability issue. So I've got to cancel my mood, but I think obviously without a lot of information already. Thank you chair. We just want to go into this a little bit because I'm slightly confused. I would say that earlier on you said there was a deficit of 2.12 million, whereas the three units brought it down to 1.88 million, which is just about 200,000 pound difference. Now, on those basis, if we were to say that that 1.59 million has to be wiped off before the late stage review can produce anything positive in terms of contributions. So that seems very unlikely to happen. So I think this is going to be a failure, late stage kind of hope, because if it's 1.9 million to start with as a deficit, how can you actually hope to achieve anything, you know, from the late stage review. That's one thing. Secondly, I understand that the developer brings forward a proposal and they have a feasibility study prepared, and our advisors would actually look at it, and either agree with it or find out something like that. Have you ever thought of actually having a second opinion on our advisors agreement with the developers feasibility study. Thank you. Yeah, with the first one. Yeah, I mean, with late stage reviews, you know, I mean, when you get to the review stages, particularly late stage, it is actually based on sort of real construction costs, real cell values, et cetera. But there's real fit tangible figures it can be based on at the moment it's all, you know, hypothetical you obviously do a very good guest guest metal and, you know, our viability officers do, you know, on, you know, the market and their expert knowledge. But the actual true figures and cost, et cetera, then will come out at that point. I mean, yes, I mean, for this scheme to start to get into a point where you could get, you know, you are probably looking. And I was reading in the sensitivity testing, probably about a 7.5% increase in cell values. And then you've got about 7.5 increasing construction costs and the way the market is now I, you know, it's a bit of a crystal ball. You just don't know where things are going to go. Things are getting, you know, not so positive. But I guess the thing is, there's still that in case things, you know, miracle change in the world and things start to get a lot more positive. There is that still that, you know, that ability and, you know, when you, and then when you do that it's up to, you know, it's up to your, it kind of goes back to the strategic position and so it's up to your sort of hypothetical what would have been 50% affordable housing. When you kind of cap the, you know, the amount so it's, you know, it's not just, that's obviously work. I mean, it'd be very, very unlikely to get to that point because then things are completely changed. But I guess it really just depends on what happens with the factors so they are then variable. So really that's the kind of changes that we would need to start to see any, any, anything, but it doesn't mean to say that's not going to happen. But obviously that's way out of all of our, our, you know, our controls and what happens in the markets. And then with the, you know, with the, you know, the, you know, the, you know, the, the, you know, the viability. I mean, you know, we, we, you know, we went for schemes that are a French scheme, you know, with, you know, the people that we do a point to do it for us say, you know, that is their expert sort of, you know, build. Things like, you know, construction costs, for example, they may have like, you know, a quantity surveyors within their team that may analyze that as well. So there's sort of experts to teach people within that. And obviously, when a scheme is also referred to the GLA, then the GLA's viability team would also scrutinize it, as well as Brent, as Brent's team. And anything further on this issue? No. Okay. So I think I'll move on to the second issue identified, which is sort of the internal quality of the new unit. So there's been some questions there around the daylight that they have internally that lack of dual aspect. I think obviously there's this point about balconies, where as the trade off, you didn't have balconies, you'd have more light, but then you wouldn't have outdoor space. So there's a trade off and decision that's been made there. Maybe you just have some opening comments that I'll open up to the committee. You might have further questions on that topic. So the internal daylight of the actual units is assessed using the area guidance, and we use something called the spatial daylight autonomy. So the test calculates the luminance from the daylight at each point on the assessment grid within each internal room. I think hourly intervals from each typical year. So, for example, the target luminance for bedrooms is 100 lux for living rooms is 150 lux and for kitchens, it's 200 lux. So ideally these levels should be met across and achieved across 50% of the working plane of a daylit space space, for at least half those possible daylight hours now and some instances it's not always met. So, for example, when a room is deeper, as is the case in some of these in this proposal itself, the report highlights that it does become more difficult to achieve light in the back portions of these rooms, which is why some of the kitchens are cited towards these areas. So to offset this, it's often the case of the kitchen being placed there is given artificial task lighting. So, when we take that into account, adding the additional lighting artificial task lighting can you just explain what that what it is. Yeah, it's just the lighting that appears in the kitchen just to add additional light into those spaces that might otherwise be sheltered from light coming from outside, so like underneath your cabinets and things like that. So, when we take that into account, we consider that 150 lux is more reasonable. So, yeah, do you want me to place it back, members for further questioning. Thank you being myself for introduction, but no other members of the community had concerns about the internal daylight, etc. So would anybody like to follow up on any points about on that topic. Sorry, you need the microphone. So it's correct that. We don't meet the targets for the internal, and one of the reasons is that. It's about these okay, okay, the living kitchen areas. And they're also, it also seems that the bedrooms are significantly darker, but it is 66% that we don't meet. Sorry, 66% meet. So that means a 44% that we don't meet those. Sorry, 34 beg your pardon you 34. That's correct, isn't it. Yeah, I just, I'm going to expand. I was just going to go back to the sort of the policy basis first. We're going to it. So, London Plan Policy D six. So it says, obviously, you know, the client for housing to be of high quality design and provide adequately sized rooms, comfortable and functional layouts fit for purpose. And so it seems to us you should maximize the provision of dual aspect dwellings where you know where you can, you know, and try and avoid the need for single aspects. But it recognizes that single aspect can be an appropriate design solution. If it's, you know, addressed seeking to optimize the site capacity for a design load approach, then there is that recognition that in some cases, you know, you can have a high number. I, you know, the ideal, you know, ideally seeking to maximize dual aspect where you can, but the policy does recognize that, you know, on a constrained site on this site, you know, when you're bounded by the two, you know, the boundaries. I decide you wouldn't then get your windows going that way because of overlooking or you'll be looking straight into a wall. And then, you know, you've got like the sort of service yards and stuff. So above the, the shops and stuff. So with the way that the site is. There is some plans maybe to bring up, but I don't know if we'll be able to read them, but I'm going to try and sort of run food and as best as I can. Just to sort of talk about it and more if we can bring the slides up, it's towards the end of the slide back. Thank you. We're probably going to really struggle to read this. But essentially what's it's done is just as once we bring them up. Further, sorry. Yeah, I'm going to try and explain it's going to be a bit hard to read. So just bear me while I go, while I go through this so. And obviously the BRE is a guidance document. It's not a policy. So it's sort of sets out that it's not mandatory. And it's a guide that's sort of an inch. It's seen and not to be seen as an instrument of planning policy. And the outcome, one of the results, they should be applied flexibly as natural light is only one of the factors in the design layout. And that's also reinforced within the MPPF, which talks about a sort of, you know, flexible approach, particularly when you're looking at sort of optimizing sort of. Like capacity and sort of delivery of homes when looking at daylight and sunlight. As Nicholas said, the target is 50% of a work in plane of a room to be the day letting she talked about the lots levels as well. So there are a number that that do fail. And as we've talked about before, the 76 out of 115 rooms meets the guidance. So that's again, sorry. So 76 of the 115 rooms sort of meet meet the guidance. I think it's important to note in the ones that meet quite a few of them are way above the sort of the 50% target, 50% target. So some of them like even on the ground floor, some of the bedrooms have 91% of the room and as you go higher, 100% of the rooms. So, you know, whether and some of the deductions that we're seeing are very marginally below it. So in the 40s, so you wouldn't really notice there be much of a sort of reduction in the daylight compared to the guidance because it's only a very marginally below that. Yes, there are some isolated work does go down sort of lower, you know, in the low sort of teens, or even, you know, into the, in a couple of cases into the single figures, for example, on the first floor. But in them cases, there are either rooms which are living kitchen dining areas with a very deep rooms, and they've also got balconies as well. So that sort of further reduces the daylight or in the bedrooms, they've got really big balconies above them. And although it's more of a sensitivity testing, what Nicholas said before, and the agents was, and the balconies do have, you know, can have an impact on the level of sort of natural light that comes into the room in the daylight. And I suppose, you know, the way that we look at it is, it's obviously the clear benefit to have external immunity spaces and the benefit that that provides. So we sort of weigh the benefits of the immunity space against the impact it would then have on the daylight and sunlight. And then you do take them balconies. Oh, the results do sort of go up, you know, quite, you know, significantly. So, only 10 rooms then fail and in the, we talk about, you know, the percentage of the room before the 50%. And if they still continue to fail are very close to achieving the 50%. And there's only really a couple of rooms and let's try to read my notes. You know, some of them, they go, you know, they go from, there's a, you know, a good 10% increase in them, and most of them are very close to 50 and the ones that are not, if I can read them, is we have a look there or there's my notes. Yeah, I can't read there. 38. Yeah. I mean, if I didn't have 30s, it's only one, which is lower, which is at 21, but that's gone from 10%. So they all have improved sort of quite substantially to nearly the majority of the rooms being, you know, either at the, at the exceeding the guidance or being, you know, very close to it. You know, that's important to think we fully importance of providing the benefits of outdoor amenity space, but recognize that the impact that it has explained some technical points. No, thank you. I think that's a sort of helpful summary, and candidates and is that to have any follow ups? Anybody else on sorry, sorry, she did just know, just know that it's an another point. We will allow anyone to ask another point, but just try to keep it to map to get them in here. Any questions on the internal daylight. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. Victoria, now you were mentioning the 71 rooms out 115. How many of those that are non compliant for within the family houses so the two or three bedroom properties. Yep, I will try and count them now. So, on the sort of ground floor, make sure I've got the right room. I think this is ground floor. No, that's first. Yeah. So on the ground floor at the top wings, let's say the top bit of the room there, that one. So the living room is at 29%. But you can see it's a really sort of deep room in there. But when you remove the balconies above it, that goes up to 49%. So it's 1% under the target. The bedroom next to it exceeds 76. The bedroom next to it's 49 as it is at the moment, but also the balcony move it goes be exceeds, you know, it goes up meets targets. And then the other bedroom is at 29. So that's the smallest one ever. Once again, that increases to 36. We have the same with the on the other side. The bedrooms other than the one at the bottom meet the requirements. The living room, which is very deep is that's like the lowest room there at 10%. But that goes up to 21. But that's the one. Probably the worst affected one, even with the balcony. And these are family. Yeah. And then when we go up on the upper floors, the other family units that will then meet the policy. That then meets at the top and the first floor with the balconies. So there's a couple of rooms there, but the biggest are going up. So they're getting better as you go up the floors. And then, you know, and at the bottom units there. And then as you go up higher up on the top floor, it already complies with guidance. The living room does the bedrooms do, but the living room doesn't have the bottom unit. If you got the floor, but that goes up to 40% without hyperversically without a balcony. And then above that. At the moment, they all, you know, they, that family unit does meet it on the third floor. The living room in the bottom one is short. But if you discounted the balcony, it does meet it. And then it's the same as you kind of go up with any upper floors. And then when you get higher up and they'll see a wall. And probably more 100% they are. So it's then sort of. So the family homes, are they just located on grand, sorry, first, second, and third? No, they're located the whole way up the building. Yeah. Yeah. And the, the light in the 10% for disabled units. How many of those rooms are. I don't know. Accessible. Yeah. Which one do you know anyone think that's on your head? Yeah, I don't know the ones on top of my head. It, I think there's two located on the ground floor, but from beyond that, I don't know, but those details will be secured further. Yeah. The main reasons I sort of bring those issues up is we have a growing. Health issue with children with autism, you know, ADHD, invention deficit. And light levels and these kind of situations do have an impact on that. So that was my reason for trying to understand that, but do we have a figure from those rooms? So how many rooms out of those family homes are below the limit rather than. I mean, I can count them up. So if you want to be one, two, three. Yep. What I'm trying to work out really, what I'm trying to get at here is are the majority of the 3545 rooms in family housing and the disabled units. That's what I'm trying to figure out. No, they're not just in family housing. They are spread to the other smaller homes as well. It's in different locations of answers, not just the family housing that is spread out. And it's just a confined confirm what the wheelchair homes are. It's obviously is, you know, five, it's, it's quite for five units. It doesn't have to be in a particular sort of size of, you know, of unit. It's just the building control. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But as I was saying, you know, as you go up the floors, it does, it does sort of increase, but it is, it's mixed around. It's not just on the family units. Yep. And some of the rooms within the family units, not the living kitchen dormers cause of the deepness of the room. Are they, are they duplex the, um, the floor, they single floor? A single floor, but because you come right back, you know, when you're trying to get the light through, if it's a big window, you might get 40%. But it's 40% of a really big room. Yeah. Yeah. So that's why it's very, then difficult to get the 50%. But even in the family rooms that are bedrooms, you know, based on the scheme, not, you know, as it is now, where they do meet the, the VIV guidance. So it's not flat. When all of them's in them fail the guidance. Yeah. You know, the bedrooms. They were adding them up. It seemed like a fair number of the family properties had, um. You know, we're going to double figures into rooms within the family housings. Yeah, they are. There is a number of rooms within, yeah, within within the family housing, but it's not all rooms in, you know, it's not. Yeah, it's not, but there's, um, there is quite a substantial number. If you compare that to the one and two bedroom and the living area in terms of percentages. I mean, that is quite a few in the ones and two beds. I'm just sort of counting them now six, seven, you know, yeah, as you go. Well, in terms of overall property wise, there's, there's more within a three bedroom than there is within a two bedroom. That's what. Yeah, I mean, it's still not one and two bedrooms and the rest are in the very. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I don't think there's any way for this topic. So I'm going to move on to the next one and then people will be able to raise whatever they want as well. I mean, the final one identified was sort of external daylight was mentioned by the committee as in the overlook and shadow impossibly of neighboring properties. How's it the rear, that kind of thing. And just can you just have a word on, just say a word on the policy and why we think it's compliant in, in this regard. Yeah, so, um, yeah, with the daylight and sunlight for the, um, neighboring properties, um, it sort of did conclude a sort of high compliance level. So that's when we look at what we call the sort of vertical sky components and the daylight distribution. So it's different sort of criteria than a useful internal. Um, so after that, it's, you know, is a high level of compliance. So the vertical sky component, 95% of windows would comply with guidance. So they don't need to be tested further. Um, the daylight distribution 97% and then the sunlight is 98%. So, um, I know that it was. Um, a number of objectives concerned about the impacts to manicort and the apartments at Wembley Central, in that case, they all met the B.R.E. guidance, so I have got, I can bring a plan up as well to show the windows. Um, the lowest production there was 0.8, three times their existing value. So if you're not, if you're below 0.8, then they end up and be that you might start having an impact on your daylight, but it wouldn't be any noticeable impact because it's above 0.8. So there's some pictures there, you can see it. So they're the windows and as you can see the site there with the builders around it. Um, the red is the, um, what, sorry. Yeah, the windows. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And that could, they do each window, they do. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so the main failures were at four, four, seven, four, five, three high road. So the three story buildings along the high road. Um, they also looked at the ground floor, but the ground floor's got commercial uses of it's like a service yard because there was debate, could that be useful amenity space, but it's probably limited value for residents to use the service yard as amenity spaces. Um, is that the one that's consented? No, no, the, the, the, you know, the buildings on the high road, the flats are on the upper floors. Um, so there was, yeah, that's right. Yeah. Yeah. So there is a reduction there. The lowest is at 0.6. And then it goes up to sort of 0.79. So some are very minor reduction. Some are slightly, you know, I'm more noticeable, but I've been looking at that urban sort of concepts where there is some anticipated sort of changes in, you know, in height. And an upset the moment they sort of overlook a very low rise building. There is going to be some degree or sort of impact that we consider it to be made in tolerable levels. Okay. Thank you. So I know that was an issue that was raised, but I think that's quite a comprehensive overview is anyone on that particular topic of any follow up. Um, Councillor Dix, I think you did. No, I think that's, that's what I was wondering with my notes. It's on paragraph 81. You do say that the results of the shadowing to the gardens and office spaces. Show that the test don't meet the BRE recommendations in three places, but these were on the ground floor. Um, they did test them, but I think they recognize that he probably a service yards for the ground floor. So it's just being more cautious. It was. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Um, so I think we, we could three sort of headline points are raised. If any further points and different topics members would like to raise something to go to Council Acron first. And sorry, we can't take any other further comments from other people once we've moved on to this stage of the discussion. Yeah, thanks, Chair. Um, I just want to touch on a couple of points. The first part was regarding commercial. The original area has also mainly was all commercial use as such. The development proposal now is to have a much smaller area for commercial use and then remaining to be obviously the house, the houses itself. So does it meet the compliance regarding the area for commercial within policy for commercial compared to what originally had here. Thank you. And so this is just two policies sort of strands to look at. Um, the first one is policy be for which talks about secondary shopping fundages and sort of promoting sort of, um, sort of a viable ones for sort of workspace, residential use is so that's more of an emphasis. Positive emphasis on sort of promoting as a mix of uses within secondary shopping fundages. Um, so that means you can then have your sort of, you know, active funds, just a commercial on the ground floor rather than residential. But sort of less sensitive and you give that sort of connections to the high streets and your sort of active fundages and everything. But also allows an opportunity to be able to sort of mix that in with new residential homes in a sustainable location. Um, you know, obviously which probably high road is. And then I guess the next sort of policy is, um, in the BH two. So let's talk about in town centers where there is existing non residential floor space. So there is a requirement for, you know, anticipation at the same amount and use class is provided, but it recognizes that doesn't provide you with a site allocation. Um, or if there is, if there is no need or is possible and, you know, they can also be if the loss is outweighed by the benefits by the placement with residential floor space. So in this case, having lots of the constraints of the site, because it's difficult. If you had a larger commercial unit, you would then have the challenges of sort of servicing because it's very difficult to get around the back. And at the moment, the units along the front is a small in size, so they can be readily serve this more from London Road. So the elements at the back that the formal workshop is very constrained. So, you know, the view of our policy team is that's very unlikely that that would be, um, marketable for any sort of future prospects in that type of use because of the, you know, the constraints of the site. So by having the smaller units on the front, there is a, a reduction in in floor space, but when we sort of, you know, wade that up against the, you know, the benefits of the scheme with the, with the fact with the homes, and the fact that there is still elements of commercial, which will contribute to the secondary shopping fundage, and a sort of appropriate size taken into account them services. We, you know, we felt that that was as, you know, was acceptable in this instance. Yeah, so the reason why I'm asking that was, you see, the area itself is obviously like you mentioned, it's not off the high road itself. There is a requirement. There is a demand for commercial as trying to build the area. The simple point that I'm trying to get is, at the moment, is it policy, is it within guidelines or policy? Is it has it has it met the target within the policy of the required commercial force base that should be provided. So it is, no, it hasn't met the requirement, because it's not a like for like replacement, but obviously we've looked at this scheme as a whole of development plan the whole and, you know, the second question. And again, this started from the beginning when we talked to the developers, and it mentioned that it was part of fresh water groups that the obviously the land owners. But looking into is it not dejan investments that actually are the holders are the actual land is dejan investment. And what sort of background research have we done. I've just done a very quick looking to dejan investments is quite a lot of concerns and issues regarding that particular company itself. It was part of the special group's work was any reason why dejan investment wasn't mentioned. Just as general sort of principle, we look at the planning application that it is and say, you know, if this was built as designed as put in front of us, you know, are we sort of happy with that stuff as well we don't. Not really in a position to sort of judge based on anything really, you know, who did sort of developers or who may or may not do the work or who's behind it because often actually you'll get permission or transfer someone else who will do the development, etc. But it's not a valid planning consideration really in that, in that regard, which is probably why it's not been mentioned. Actually, the reason why I asked that was when we started the conversation is started off with the mention of fresh water works and of course for fresh water group. There was no mention to actual the land, and it actually on the land itself it's it's stage and investment. So that's the reason why I'm just asking that question it was, it referred to part of fresh water group itself but not dejan investment. That's what I was just trying to understand was the reason, was that missed as part of why didn't mention dejan investment because actually even on our own land registry is dejan investment it's not fresh water groups. I mean, yeah, as the chair said it's not really a planning in a material consideration. We have to obviously when an application comes in, you know, the applicants required to serve no sin with, with our server free hold or lease on interest in the land so lease on is when there's 700 years left. So it can't say that left to run. And with any section 106 or parties that have an interest in the land are required to be sort of signed up to the section 106. And obviously that would be scrutinized by our legal team and they will do all the due diligence with land registry tracks at that time. Perhaps I asked this to come in. Thank you. Thanks very much Victoria. I'll second that so once we are in the process of drafting the section 106 agreement. We will look at the land registry documents up to date documents they can't be less than one month old so there'll be the actual registered proprietor of the land will be a party to the agreement so that, you know, I'm not sure what the actual question is but in terms of, you know, who the developer is and who will be a party to the agreement that will be covered off once we actually at the stage of drafting. And that's fine. I'm just regarding that particularly shows. I just want to understand how we in within Brent are any other other developed developments that we've had from this particular development was their first development within Brent. Would you know that at all. No, I have it. I don't recall having a development from them before. Okay. Any other members of the committee on other topics they'd like to raise at this point. I'll go to council but then please. Thank you very much. Yeah, just to sum it up slightly and some things that I've noted down. So we're not policy compliant on commercial retail and not compliant on the urban green green factor and also not compliant in regards to the amount of light coming into the rooms. These the fourth and fifth things that I've seen here that we're not policy compliant on. There's been some sort of mitigation or other avenues taken to try and mitigate for that so the personal immune to space. We've got mental and mental space and the viability and late late late stage. Especially in regards to the urban green factor. You know, where conversations held with the developer in regards taking offsite contribution for trees, even though we are sparse on London Road and the report makes a mention of that. And have we, you know, and there's two three pits that I know off that I trip over in London Road that are empty and have no trees because of physical development. And this recently being filled with tarmac so what conversations did we have in regards and uplifting the urban green factor for offsite contribution on that particular side. And yeah, I'll see. Yeah, what we got for that first. I was just going to say, going back to the point she raised before so with the commercial the policies, you know, as I was saying, the site is allocated or planned permission for alternative use. Then you've got no need for it or reasonable prospect being used or obvious use being provided. And then the other one I was, you know, an exceptional case is lost as outweighed by the benefits of replacement with residential floor space so, you know, that is a. You know, obviously when you're coming to a decisions committee, you know, weighing up them benefits or the residential. So that, you know, that then links it back to the policy with the commercial floor space so I should have made that clear so apologies there. But there was no details provided on the current leases or whether they were willing or conversations were being held with the current lease also we don't really know if the current retail premises are actually sought after and needed and are required to be re provided. And I think the report makes mention of that as well that it wasn't much deal given in terms of the leases on that. I mean, I mean, I mean, you know, it says the same type I mean that's your sort of class. So it's the same, same, you know, use class. You know, and like sort of workspace where we have more of a policy emphasis on looking to sort of, particularly in like employment sites, if they can be re provided or, you know, have a business is there isn't so much there isn't that sort of. And that's not set out within, you know, the planning policies that's just about the use class and the floor space more than the actual user. So it's the, it's the same sort of use class but it's more, it's a, you know, a town center you so if it's a retail user is that, you know, or, you know, the option if they, you know, could go back into it will allow them to do that in terms of the of the use class button. So what I'm trying to get that there is that normally we have in strategic sites where we have to re provide the exactly the same amount of floor space for that particular use class. And now obviously here, and I think two of the entrances to the blocks, and are what would have been the second and fourth retail units that were within the row. And it seems like the capability from the model that's produced is three units with two entrances for the two separate blocks. So we're losing floor space and we're losing units. Yeah, I did on to the other things that I mentioned, and it's lacking in policy in quite a few different areas. But there's been no recompense or attempt to try and mitigate those with I'm talking specifically here about green, green factor. And normally in developments of medium size to large size, we normally see elements of Brent works or some sort of work experience or opportunities for our residents. And I also see no cycle charging facilities within the development or mention of those I know it's not a policy requirement, but obviously what then happens is people take them up to their house into their flats to charge and becomes a fire hazard. So it's, it's something that does need to be addressed and I would ask the officers to have further discussions with the developer later, and also in regards car club. Any, there is nothing here for our Brent residents, and that is a positive that I can find apart from market rent, which our residents would not be able to afford these who must probably be other people who are buying them. So, and that leads on to my last last question, are these properties, or do we know if the developers and given us an inkling, whether these are likely to be for sale rent or lease. No, I mean, I mean, I've been, but I've been tested as a sale housing, and there is just, I think, very fun second, an indication of, obviously this is as I stress this is assumed for the viability purposes so it's not the, you know, the actual sales costs. But suppose the value of a other one bed home I know before council move is talking about figures would be around sort of 389,000 pounds, and then obviously it goes up to 4942 bed three person. Five, you know, five, five 44 and a two bed four person and your three bears, and six person is up to sort of six hundred six hundred and twenty six thousand but I know we were talking before about, you know, is it going to be in the millions of one bed will be about 300 and just under 390 but obviously that's for viability that's not, you know, we haven't got any actual haven't been sold or anything yet. In the scheme of this side, would we not consider asking for any Brent works student apprentice placements or anything of that nature. And the policy for that is, it's 50 homes and above. So we wouldn't be in, in, in, you know, in the quality policy we could, and I believe we've done it for another scheme where we sort of settling sort of encourage the applicant to get in contact with, you know, Brent, Brent works. So there is some opportunities and try and get them in contact we did a hotel site in St George's row so we added some sort of informative there so we could look to do that because that was a similar sort of case because it was below, below the threshold. I would be grateful if you could, and also if you could look into the cycle charging element. This is, I think it's 72 spaces here and you know if one or two of them goes up, and they are all. It's something that I think we as a council need to look at in sort of improving our policies as well possibly and on that side. And also in regards the, you know, the point 1% in the urban green factor I know it doesn't sound a lot, but the target isn't a lot either 0.4 and 0.1 you're talking 25% deficit. So when you place that into context, it's a quarter of this. Yeah, and so I really would like to see some further changes either because I know it says a blue, there's a blue wall as well. And the flood and drainage assessment, there's no, you've got a taller building, which is having a runoff, and there's no figures for the runoff, in terms of leaders, but there is for. I was looking at it on the other, I've lost track of mine on that one, but there was no runoff figures for what would be coming off. It's downhill, and it's going down towards housing. Now, obviously previously that would have gone on to the flat roofs, onto the guttering into the drains. It's a total different ballgame here now, and the other thing that I know is the perimeter around the building so not the bit that's facing London Road. The bit that goes around the actual footprint of the site, and what type of sort of floor is it cement is it pebble. Could that not be sustainable stones or something, you know, something that would increase the urban green factor because there's no on the plans there doesn't say whether it's grass, whether it's cement, whether there's any drains there. And obviously I think that will come up later on with the landscaping plans, but these are potential aspects. I think the urban green factor can be increased in with minimal effort, kind of thing, it will cost hopefully. So, with the condition on the urban green end, to sort of amend it to sort of maximize it in line with the 0.4 target. So we obviously got that for a condition, so opportunities to improve that to get closer to 0.4. We can add that in. Yeah. So, but you have quite a list there. Is there any sort of further requirements, you know, changes, etc, that you want to sort of. Yeah, sure. Okay. Thank you. Could you explain to me the quality neutral and quality positive. So, I think you say that our target is to be air quality positive, and this is air quality neutral. Yes. So in the growth areas, there's an requirement for major developments to be air quality positives. So when the scheme first come in, it was outside the growth areas. It's air quality neutral. Sorry. And the scheme, it was air quality neutral, but it had it included car parking in the basement at that time. So the way that you do air quality, you have your building emissions, which is, in this case, it's air source heat pump. So it's electric. So there's no emissions from the building in terms of carbon dioxide and boilers. And now it's car free. So there'd be no sort of transport emissions from that. So it may be that the scheme is air quality positive, but I haven't got that report to confirm it. But when you're looking at what you'd be doing to achieve that, it's very low levels of car parking. It's no emissions from building. It's them two emissions. It's also we would be securing the conditions on its non vote mobile machinery during construction and sort of the dust. Management and mitigation within line with the GLS SPG as part of a condition. So, you know, it's definitely would have improved from its original, which was air quality neutral. But without having a figure, I couldn't say 100% it's air quality positive, but it's doing the things you'd want to do to be a quality positive. OK, but you've forgiven my query with that because I can see and then a little bit further down. It says that the land is contaminated. But I've got every confidence that you've got a plan to make sure that it'll be OK, whereas it does say it's air quality neutral, whereas what you're saying to me now, which fully appreciate is that possibly it could be a quality positive. Difficult to, you know, make it. Yeah, no, I mean, yeah, the quality report was based on, as I was saying, with the car parking spaces as well. So now that's gone. And, you know, yeah, shame, it's not updated in the papers. That's all I'm saying. And then we contaminated land that will be through our environmental health officers. So the applicant would have to do a site investigation, but you do that once you demolish the building so you can check the land and. And it's obviously a limitation. I think it's a good, very good point, can't stick to nothing. We've got a good answer on that. So thanks for raising that issue. And I'm going to go to cancer sealant issue. Thank you. Thank you chair to the office of Victoria. Just wondering, is there exist a current building is will be redeveloped. So what is that? As you said, there's a car parking arrangement has going, have you done the parking survey. Oh, for the, oh, and how are you going to manage the new residents going to get the permit or how are you going to mitigate that that issues. Thank you. Oh, let John John pin on this one. Thanks. Yes, I can see them. Yeah, the car, the scheme is intended to be car free. So residents won't be entitled to any parking permits to park in the local CPZ. Unless I got a disabled badge in which case they will be able to. So therefore, it shouldn't be any parking impact. Just to just clarify, I think the transport transport links are obviously rate is very good. There's cheap stations, bus routes, and all of the streets nearby covered by CPZ. So in those circumstances, if we, you know, don't allow it, we shouldn't allow any of the residents to have a car parking and it shouldn't really be an issue for other residents, because there should be, you know, there'll be no way they could park without getting caught and ticketed. Thank you. In my understanding at the moment, the properties further developing to the scheme. So how do you differentiate the existing residents and the future residents. That would be through, we'll have the conditions on construction management plan and construction logistics plan. So that's to minimize disruption. But obviously, any sort of statute in use is covered through the environmental sort of pollution at. So noise nuisance and stuff like that for existing residents. But the purpose of sort of a CMS is to try and sort of minimize disruption in a, you know, the CLP so they can agree sort of appropriate routes that are highways officers for construction traffic. Yeah, I mean, we look at the development and see whether we think it is, you know, beneficial or harmful to make a decision on sort of wise sort of designed other parts of the council, you know, out with this committee handle the building regulations control around noise nuisance etc. And so it's not, it's not really one of our decision making points. Okay, I think pretty much everybody has now had a chance to input on this. I just wondered if there's any other final comments anyone would like to make on any issue. No. Okay. So on a basis, everybody's happy to move to to the vote. Okay. So if you're in favor of the recommendation, which is to proceed, could you raise your hand at this point? That's one, so one, two, three, four. Sorry, everyone just raised the hand very clearly so we know exactly. So that is one, two, three, four, five. Okay, anybody voting against. That's three. So that has just carried by four to three, but I would need to clarify for the minutes. People's planning reasons for voting against accounts that I'm going to come to you first, please. Yeah, thank you chair. I think the key points, I understand regarding the lack of affordable housing, but obviously non compliance with the urban green factor below target and also the internal BRE levels. Obviously, again, falling below targets. I think all those and considering the lack of affordable housing, which I understand is the viability, but those are the key reasons for my objection. No, I think I think that's very well explained. Thank you, Councillor Dickson. Why do you microphone, please? Even, even not loud enough, not loud enough, yet a very similar actually to my colleague there that I feel it's not cop policy compliant. Both with the internal light with the failing to meet some of the BRE guidelines. It's non compliant with the urban green factor. There is a breach of privacy in some of the neighborhood buildings. It's not. It's not a lot, but it is in breach of it. I'm hesitant about the equality because I am convinced by what Victoria, one of the officers said, but generally I feel that there's, and I'm not confident, not saying they're not, but I'm not confident about that we're doing the right thing by the commercial. The people who are in there at the moment, I don't feel confident that that's been fully explored and I'm not confident that we are maximizing our opportunities for affordable housing by accepting this development. Thank you. Also, Julie noted, Councillor Marie, please. The same as Councillor Dix and with the lack of affordable housing, the light situation, all of which doesn't bode well with me. Okay, thank you. I think that was a very chance application and people, you know, very carefully. I mean, we've been going out, well, well more than an hour and a half really did go through and way up. I don't know if anyone could say that the committee made a decision on the who for or quickly there as well. So, I'd just like to appreciate it. Just say, thank you everyone for the time and scrutiny they gave to the application. And it was a very sort of close one. I'm sure for everybody, but has, has been passed by four to three. So, you know, has been granted permission. I'm not received any other urgent business so can just again thank everyone for their time this evening and walking you back on Tuesday 11th of June, TBC at the moment, following our annual Council meeting next week, but that is the likely date and we'll look forward to seeing you. [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO]