Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to our planning committee meeting the first of the new municipal year. My name is my Culture and Councillor in Halzden and Kenzel Green and also Chair of the Planning Committee. We know that for every one of our meetings, we have new people who have not joined the planning committee meeting before, both in the public audience and watching along at home. So I'm going to go through who everyone is, what role they play and how we take our decisions for the benefit of, the benefit of the audience, particularly those watching online. But first of all, can I also ask everyone who's participated this evening to please speak clearly and directly into the microphone so that those following from home can see and hear you clearly. Everyone is reminded that that meeting is not only held in public but webcast live so it's important that everybody conducts themselves in appropriate manner. Now, the planning committee is a non-political quasi-judicial committee bound by the National Planning Policy Framework, London Plan, Brent's Local Plan and supplementary planning guidance. So our decisions are informed by planning considerations tied to these policies but it is never a pure science in each case who must weigh up the potential benefit and harm when coming to a view. It's also worth reminding everyone that we are facing a nationwide shortage of housing that has seen a housing target that has risen to over 2,300 new homes in Brent each year. Also right now today we have 3,700 households in a priority need sitting on our housing waiting list. Now the arrangements for conducting the meeting will be as follows for each of the two items officers will introduce the application. Then any members of the public, applicants, agents who have registered to speak in advance will be invited by me to address the committee in turn with questions to follow. Now members are reminded that these questions are best kept at a point and on matters of clarification, more technical issues will be best addressed with the officers later on. Committee members will then discuss and decide on the recommendation for each application. And thank you to everyone who has come along to watch the proceedings in person this evening. You're very welcome but can I please ask that you remain seated in quiet during the proceedings. We can't take questions or comments from the public seating area. Now for members, when you vote in each application, initially ask all members to confirm they are minded to approve the recommendation by raising their hand. Anyone who votes against abstains will be asked to give the specific planning reasons why they have done so. And if a vote is carried against the recommendation, we will ask officers to comment on the validity of the planning reasons for doing so and may seek a vote on deferral if required. If for any reason that a member is not present for the whole of any item, they will not be allowed to vote on that application. So now we're going to ask, particularly as to say, for the benefit of those who have not viewed a planning committee before, everyone who's involved in the process to introduce themselves so you understand clearly who we are and what our role is. So I'm going to start on my right with the vice chair. Hi. Good evening. Councillor SRI, about vice chair. Hello. I'm happy I work in covenants and I'll be taking the minutes. Councillor Nourhinder, but you are from Northé Baguard. Councillor Rita Bagan. Councillor Eliot Schappell. Councillor Listicton. Councillor Robert Johnson from Barnhill. Councillor Jen Di Patel from Queensbury. Okay. Thank you. And then over to my left. David Glover, Head of Planning and Development. Victoria McDonough, Development Management Service Manager. James Maskell, Senior Planning Officer. So I'm some of that in planning, going over to Sydney. And we have some people joining us on the screen as well. So if I could go to John and then Kelly, please. John Bowman, Principal Development and Management Highways Officer. And Kelly Eton, Head of Parks and Green Infrastructure. Thank you. So I think that's everybody who needs to introduce themselves. We can proceed with the agenda. So first of all, we have apologies for absence and clarification of alternative members. So we received one apology from Councillor Ajmal and Councillor Baguard is substituting. So thank you very much for taking part this evening. Secondly, declaration of interest. So at this point, members are invited to declare the nature and existence of any relevant, disposable, pecuniary or prejudicial interest and the items to which they relate would anybody have anything to declare at this stage of the meeting? Councillor but. Yep. I've met with the applicant from the Stravish Boxing Club at the boxing club for Brent Health. That is. Thank you. Thank you. And if anybody else? Okay. So move on to item three, which is minutes of the previous meeting. Now, Malware, we've had some changes with the new municipal year. So now everyone would have been at the previous meeting. But for those who were, are we happy with this is the correct record? Yep. Yep. Okay. So that is agreed. So we can now move on to the main applications for decision. The first, it begins at page 15 in the pack, which is the King Edward VII Park. So James, if you could reduce his item, please. Thank you, Chair. So this item relates to the current sites of the existing pavilion building within King Edward VII Park. It's located against the pathway that leads through the centre of the park. The application itself proposes the demolition of the existing two-story building on site and the erection of a replacement single-story pavilion building for use by Stonebridge Boxing Club. Internally, the building would include a gym and physio facilities, changing rooms and showers, an ancillary office space and a small cafe. The proposal would include provision for eight bicycle stands, two concrete and timber benches and a replacement soft landscaping. I would draw member's attention to the supplementary report, which we published yesterday. This sets out that an additional representation was received since the publishing of the committee report and the comments made within this are addressed. In summary, office's recommendation to members remains as grant consent subject to the condition set out in the committee report and draw decision notice. Thank you. That's all for me. Okay. Thank you. We just have one speaker on this item, the applicant, Mr. Ali, I believe. If you'd be able to come forward and take your seat. Thanks. We'll put three minutes on screen, which you'll be able to speak to. If you can use the button to turn on the microphone before you begin your remarks, please. Thank you very much. This is more intimidating than an unboxing ring. I'm just going to let you guys know. Basically, I just wanted to give you guys an overview of what Stonebridge Boxing Club is and what we're all about. We started in 2009 on Wind Chelsea Road, in Cassinger House, and we were there till 2018. From there, we moved to Yojima House, and we were there till 2023. Then we moved from Yojima House to another building on Wembley High Road, where we were given a building by Regal to stay there rent free. Then from there, we were moved again to another building that Regal rented out for us on 8 Watkins Road. Again, in September, we move again. We've been continuously moving throughout the whole process, but in that whole time, we've maintained our membership and it's always grown. We've always kept whatever we've said we're going to do. We've always done. People recognize Stonebridge Boxing Club and know what we do. We mainly cater for kids from the ages of six, all the way up to adults, 78 years old. We have clients coming in. We have over 600 members and maybe 300, 350 active members that come regular every single week. Our main thing is obviously to take the kids off the street, get them help and fit and make sure that they have some purpose in life with their food and with their directions and where they're going. We've worked hard to get to this point and we appreciate everything that everybody's done to get us to this point. We've had support from John Lyons, from London Marathon, from Sports England. We've worked with some big organizations that recognize what we do. More than anything else, we need a permanent home. We need a place where we can sit down and then actually do what we want to do, which is to help the community. Boxing is a framework of what we do, but health and fitness is our main thing. If that would, we're happy for yoga to happen at our gym, pilates, classes to happen at our spin bikes to happen at our gym. We're happy to all, we're happy for the people in the park, cricket teams, football teams, tennis teams, wherever they are, we're more than happy for them to have come using our changing facilities and our gyms. We just want to be able to bring life to King Edward's Park and not to say that there isn't life there, there definitely is life there, but there's also an element of King Edward's Park, which attracts to that pavilion some bad stuff and maybe you've heard of it, maybe you haven't heard of it, but we hope that once we're hopefully into that pavilion place, that we can change that look and give something of a better, healthier look to that King Edward's Park. Okay, thank you and thank you for sticking to time. I've got quite questions for you and then we can ask other members of the committee to come in as appropriate. First of all, there is some extent permission already existing on this site and you've obviously talked about many of the places you've moved around. What sort of steps you have in place to ensure that if we do grant permission tonight, you're actually able to sort of deliver that and we don't end up with a sort of project finishing halfway through or anything like that. Initially, when we did get planning permission, we used the existing building to build off of, so we were keeping the existing building and we're moving on to that. When we did the costings for it came up to 2.7 million, it was just way too much for us to and it was a very complicated build because of the way that the old building was built. It meant the foundations were totally different levels and there would be so much. It would have just been a nightmare. It would have been a kind of worms to start off with. So that's the reason that that got stopped. We then went back and looked at what was more achievable, what was more affordable and that's where we came with our project in terms of where we are right now. We've got a very good, Minnell, one of our fundraisers here is very active in fundraising. We've applied for or in the process of applying it because obviously the elections happen now, so that's stopped now. But we've going for a very big fund which we've got support from the organization to apply for that fund and we've got London Marathon that are happy to pave towards it. We've got sports England same as well and another numerous other organizations that will help. Whereas we had a build cost of about 2 million there enough. The actual build cost for this building comes in around £700,000 so it's considerably less than it was if we had built it the way that we were originally trying to build it. So we've been very active always in fundraising. We know the organizations. The organizations know us. Like I said, we've been there since 2009 so we have that record and people are very keen to back the project. Okay, thank you. And then my other question is just some concerns are raised about the amount of trips that would generate and extra cars and that kind of thing. Can I just ask you how, you know, with the people who use your gyms, it generally people come on public transport, bikes, etc. And there's anything you'd have in place or encourage them to travel sustainably rather than, you know, bringing more cars to the park and about area can be quite a traffic hotspot. So just what steps you might undertake to just encourage people to use sustainable transport? Yeah, obviously we want the same as you. We want as less traffic around the area as possible. So we will push our users as much as we can to take public transport. We've got to have the bike rec there as well. So we push them to do that. There is obviously we will come across situations where there were young kids, six years old, because we take kids from six plus that they may come with their parents and they may come by cars or whatever. But other than that, mostly we will push as much as we can the adults to use public transport, come by trains, bus and bike as much as possible. Okay, thank you. That's all from me. Any other members of the committee? Councillor BAGAN then Councillor Bajra. Hi, I just want to ask, I mean, in terms of you saying you're moving a lot and you're always moving from one venue to another, how do you retain your membership? Because, you know, with all the moves and young people, how do you encourage them to keep on coming to you? And what's the fees you're charging? So if we just work back from the fees we charge, we charge 45 pounds a month for children that come there three times a week, right? So it's Monday, Wednesday, Friday. And then for adults, we charge 55 pounds a month. They come six days a week. So it's basically with the adults, it works out around two pound a session. And with the children, it can work out to about three, four pounds a session. We do charge them six pound a session if they want to pay as you go. But then when you do the monthly, then it works much less to do the monthly than it would be to do as pay as you go. In terms of retaining our things, so we're quite a well-known boxing club in itself, just at the recent championships. We had seven enter. We won three goals and two silvers. We came forth in London and the surrounding counties. So in terms of, so we have quite a good reputation when it comes to people retaining membership. We've got people that have been with us since Wind Chelsea Road, and they've stuck all the way through. It's our coaches, our training methods, our discipline and everything that we do. And like I said, whatever we put on the can is what we do. Yeah, hi, good evening. First of all, your charge is 45 pound and 55 pound. With my opinion, this is too high, such kind of club, yeah, because other places they charge much lower than that price. And my question to you is, do you have any discount people living in that area for these people? So in regards to the fees, actually ours is the lowest in London, just to let you know that 55 pound a month, if you consider that most people will charge 10 to 15 pounds a session, we're charging two pound a session. Is that a gym or is it a box? So it's not you're just not using the gym, you're actually coming into a class. Yeah. So there's an instructor there that will help you that would teach you so the adult classes are hour and a half. And the junior classes are an hour each. But then also you have to consider that there are extra classes that they come to during the weekends and the weekdays. And they're also taken to shows and boxing shows and fights, for example, where they compete. So ours are actually the lowest in London. So any discount for them? So around, we've just had a deal with Quintane, who the building developers were near Watkins Road, where we've reduced it to 50 pounds from 55 pounds. Just to let you know, the reason we had to raise it was because we had met across the threshold of VAT. I think it is. So we've never had that level of VAT. Suddenly, we crossed that threshold and we had to start charging. So all we've done is charged to 20%, which the VAT man obviously is asking us for. But other than that, the kids were 35 pounds and the adults were 45 pounds. Thanks. I think this was an interesting context, which is not really planning consideration to sort of fees that are charged. So we've maybe just moved on. If anyone has any other topics they want to raise? Yeah, I have one. So back to you. The park have less lights there. It's dark. And our concern is safety concern people visiting their evening lane. What are you going to do there? So obviously we definitely, this was phase one to get this hopefully done. Then from that, that's when we go out looking for funding for as much lighting as possible. Obviously, we don't want to surround the park with lights. There's neighbors and surrounding people. So we want to be able to do something that's moderate and light but safe as well. But this definitely something that we've, the moment we saw the site, we understood that there are going to be concerns and safety issues there that we have to address. Okay. Another thing, you have to bench outside, concrete bench, I think. I fear that there will be people drinking sitting there and sleeping maybe on these benches. What are you going to do about that? In terms of that type of behavior, I mean, you're going to have to take my word about this, but when it comes to boxing clubs, you won't have those type of people surrounding that area. People generally don't like to, now if they come there at night time, when we're not there, then that's obviously a situation that we can't control. But during the daytime, that's not going to happen. Can't you put benches which you can move evening inside? If that's what the planning wants us to do, that's what we will do. I think so. This should be there. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Just two quick questions. You said that you're trying to raise as much funds as possible. Have you got a benchmark of how much you've already raised for the development? So that nobody is going to give us anything until we've got planning. Yeah. But potentially, we have around one of the fundings that we've applied for, and we've got a good feedback from it, and they've encouraged us to go for it, is around 600k. The other one that we've got is London Marathon is about 250k. Then there's obviously other things that we will go for. There's fundraising, there's gym shows, there's all those type of things that we would do, but we're very positive that there will be large donations coming through as well. My second question is about the conservation. You've got to be disturbing wildlife. Have you done any surveys in terms of protected species and what's being the recommendation from it? So as a layperson, I wouldn't be able to answer that, honestly. Okay. I'll put it to the officers. They should be able to answer it. Yeah. And just to know, I think some of these more technical issues will address the officers later. Any further members of the committee? Councillor Patel, I'll give the last question to you. Just quickly, no fire safety details were submitted. What are you doing about that fire exit? Obviously, it's good. It's new building. How are you going to take all that? Yeah. I guess that's not architectural. I think that's probably going to question for officers in the next section if that's okay. Yeah. Okay. So I think it was probably yeah, Councillor but. Sorry, Mr Ali, just one question. I was I don't know whether you know, Brent's got a sort of carbon neutral strategy to be carbon neutral by 2030. And this would effectively be one of Brent's buildings within Brent's parks. So you're replacing a structure and what I was hoping to ask yourself if we could ask you to engage with some of the grants people to possibly get solar panels installed at this building. So I believe there are some carbon funds available to understand that you're a charity as well. So it's something that I was wanting to bring up with yourself and would you be sort of receptive towards that? 100%. It's a fair point. I mean, if you look at other sports centers, Willston Sports Center in in the park there is just installing solar panels to beat its pool at the moment, isn't it? So it's much more sustainable and cheaper way to do it in the long term. Yeah. Great. Okay. Thank you. I'll let you take a seat and end it around. You can go back now. We'll carry on with the next that bit. Okay. So we don't have any other registered speakers on this item. So we're going to move on to questions for officers. I'll just couple I want to ask and then I'll open it up to the rest of the committee in those areas as well. I think the one question I wanted to ask, I think there's plenty of others that my colleagues will bring in. But in terms of accessibility of the site, because, you know, we won't just be useful for boxing as many other kind of organizations and groups who may want to access it. I think it's mentioned in the report about existing paths and that in the park are presumed to be sort of adequate for that. I mean, I just checked what testing we've done on that and how we're sort of reassured that it would still be an accessible tip to everyone who may want to come along for whatever reason. Yes. Obviously, the video itself is located right by the main pathway that goes to the park and that is accessed from another number of entrances around the park. It may be worth hearing from Kelly from our park service on how those paths are equipped to allow for accessibility. Thank you. So, we've recently undertaken a survey of the infrastructure of the pathways in King Edwards and some pathway repairs have been undertaken in the areas that were most vulnerable and had damage. So, we recognise that those areas that have the heaviest footfall have actually recently been repaired. The pathways are not designed really for vehicular access. They are designed for access on foot. We do recognise that some vehicles go through because there is a school and the only access to that school is also through the park. So, there are vehicles that go through and there are grounds maintenance vehicles that need to access the park as well. So, the pathways have the ability to take on vehicular traffic but not an excessive vehicular traffic. So, we wouldn't expect to see vehicles driving in the park and parking anywhere near the pavilion. So, it would just be for footfall and the pathways themselves in their current condition are more than adequate cope with the fallfall that's in the park and probably in excess just because we've undertaken some recent repairs as well. Yeah, thank you. I think that's helpful in accessibility. As one of the questions I want to ask about noise, look at paragraph 41 in the report that refers to, obviously, I think 100 metres is the closest homes and the type of internal plant that's used can be noisy. There's quite a lot of technical numbers, BS standards with eight chains of numbers afterwards and that as well and the conclusion is considered to be acceptable. But as a sort of layperson, I really don't have any idea what those numbers mean. So, if I could have a sort of explanation so we can sort of understand what it'll practically mean for neighbours, that would be very helpful. Yeah, of course, thank you. So, the noise assessment looks into two noise sources that may arise as a result of the building being built. So, during operation, there would be plants installed in the building for the associated cafe use. And so, to assess plant noise, that noise survey looks into the expected noise levels and those details were measured against the building control standards, which is one of those codes that you would have seen in the report. And so, the findings were noted to meet those standards and they were reviewed by our environmental health nuisance control team and considered to be acceptable with regards to the nearest sort of noise sensitive receptors. And then the second code is sort of the second arm of noise output, which is operational output. And so, the noise assessment provided goes on to detail how the construction of the buildings of the walls would be in compliance with a separate set of building control standards, which, you know, let's do the acoustic ventilation and things like that, to ensure that operational output would be maintained to acceptable levels, which are prescribed within that building control standards. And again, that was reviewed by our nuisance control team and noted to be acceptable with regard to sort of the nearest noise sensitive receptors, which are quite far away. And so, so effectively it's those two arms of output, which are assessed against two different standards. Yeah, thanks. And just practically, that means, you know, you won't be affected if you sort of live nearby or be sort of within the kind of standards we'd expect. Yes, yeah, it complies with standards, yeah. Okay, thanks. A couple of the issues I've got in mind, but I'll see if other colleagues want to come in now and maybe come back to that later. Sorry, excuse me, Councillor JOHNSTON first. Yeah, the question I'll raise regarding the conservation issue, do you want me to repeat the question again? Yes, please, let me know. Okay, so, it has any surveys been carried out to cover all protective species in the park? If so, what recommendations have been made, and has it been included in this planning application? Yeah, of course. So, a preliminary ecology appraisal was undertaken and submitted with the application. What this document looks into is the existing ecology within the park on the application site itself, where the building is to be located and concludes and sort of looks towards the conclusion of how a biodiversity net gain may be achieved. So, it does note that there are, there is some low level ecology on the site, but through sort of an appropriate landscaping scheme, high quality landscaping, provision of wildlife boxes, sort of the right species being provided by a biodiversity net gain could be achieved on site. It does also talk about sort of the potential for nesting birds and bats within the building, and notes that it is, it's not likely for them to be present, but it recommends that the relevant surveys are taken out during construction to ensure that, you know, if they are found, then the appropriate measures are taken to ensure disruption is minimised, and we would secure the recommendations of that report via condition to the application. Well, I'm not sure if foxes are a protected species, but I am aware that some foxes do habitat around that area. No, they're not protected species. Thanks. I mean, I just think to follow up on Councillor JOHNSTON said you said, I think you said biodiversity could be achieved, the report says may be achieved, like they seem very certain sort of phrases to use, like what we sort of talk in 70% chance, like what do we actually sort of mean, because we wouldn't want to sort of build this and have a net last. Yeah, and of course, yeah, I mean, I think one of the key findings of the report is that the existing ecology on site is low level, and that's so through the measures undertaken, that would achieve a net gain. You know, it's not a special sort of ecological site. It's not designated as a special ecological site. So I think, you know, given that the existing situation is relatively low level, that's where the confidence comes from, that BNG could be secured through the landscape in condition. It's going to add, so the main sort of habitat is more modified grassland. So when the grass is mowed quite regularly, and then as we talked about in the report about, you know, the trees and these sort of high value trees being retained and were secure in the, with the four trees that have been lost, net replacements, and it's looking up with the condition when you're looking at more sort of what is more like wildlife friendly sort of options for the planting that's proposed, and adding things like your sort of, whether it's your sort of bed boxes or back boxes or sort of bee, but some things like that. It helps do the overall enhancements. The final symptom notice is it was reviewed by our ecologist, and they were satisfied with the findings as well, and the conditions put forward. Okay, thanks. Sorry, Councillor JOHNSTON, back to you. Yeah, coming back to the preliminary report, is there going to be a full report done, maybe right prior to demolition? There will be a fact re-emergence one. At the moment, it's unlikely that the building has any boost in bats, but it is recommended that one is done ahead of the building being demolished. Is that everything, Councillor JOHNSTON? Yeah, thank you. Who would like to come in next on this item? Councillor Patella, I think he's keen. Quickly, the question asked early on regarding the fire safety, the fire statement was submitted with the application. We're going to make sure that approval is granted through the building regression. From what the developers have said that there will be 350 active members in that building, so it'll make sure there's enough fire exit and safety. Yeah, so I think the key thing to reference with that is that on this application site, and as we've spoken to earlier about, there was a previous planning consent, and that was granted in 2022, and under that application, a fire safety assessment was submitted and approved. So that statement sort of had regard to a London Plan policy D12, which is the policy that we use to assess fire safety and was considered acceptable against the standards. So with regard to the current application, not having an assessment submitted, it is noted that a couple of points under a policy D12 can be addressed at building control stage because they do sort of have regard to the building material used. With regard to other sort of points that can't be addressed at building control stage, such as evacuation points and things like that, what we noted was that the principles of the current application are very similar to the extant consent, the previous consent, the internal footprint of the building is the same. The number of users would be very similar. And so the principles that made the previous application acceptable with regards to fire safety, the location of potential evacuation points were considered to run through to this application as well, and we considered it acceptable on that basis. Just to add to that, fire safety is still covered through building rooms and the details of the design and the construction is always agreed through buildingregs. The purpose of fire safety statement, it looks at sort of things from the general, it's the principles at that sort of early stages through planning. So the actual details are much more finalised in building control stage. But you look at, you know, have you got places to have sort of safe evacuation? I've seen this case, you know, you've got the park around you and the pathway, so there was place, you know, safe places for people to go and it's sort of a single story, so it's ground level. The other thing is about access to firefighters and engines, with the pathways, you know, as Kelly has seen before, there's a lot of heavily trafficked, there is the option for fire tenders who be able to get in and get within proximity to the building and with the fire hydrants on Park Lane as well. So the details do get secured by buildingregs, but based on them sort of general sort of principles and what was very similar to what was the extent, consent, you know, we consider that, you know, that the proposal, we wouldn't see any reasons for, you know, why the matters couldn't then be fully addressed for buildingregs. Okay, thank you. Can I ask the battery next, please? I just want to ask, before it was said that you can't take heavy vitals inside, someone, I think, from the park, so if there's a fire, if there any, they can go there? Well, I mean, a fire would be a very, I'm like, yeah, I let Kelly jump into that, but, you know, it would be a very unlikely event. Extenuating circumstances, Councillor and a fire engine or ambulance or police vehicles, would all be able to access the park with no issue. If there was damage caused, we'd just arrange for reinstatement following that, but our first priority would be to allow for a fire engine to get in and extinguish any fire in any emergency. That wouldn't be a problem. Sorry, the two things which I asked before, safety issue for the visitors due to lighting, less lighting, how we can, who can assure that there will be enough lighting. I mean, the planning application, we have got a condition on lighting, but it's focusing on what we call the area around the building itself, which is the red edge site plan, so that's what we can control through the planning conditions. The wider access to sort of lighting in the park and safety considerations, that would be something that would need to be discussed between the applicant and the park service and our property team about arrangements for wider lighting in the park, obviously, because it's a park and you have to be, you know, you've got regard to ecology and stuff, so it has to be appropriate and sensitive type of lighting. You know, we've also got a condition that we're unable to engage with the police, the designing crime secure by design officers for measures that they're doing, so, you know, how they've liaison with them, so that's another condition that they, you know, they have to engage with the secure by designing the Metropolitan Police, but perhaps Kelly could pick up on wider lighting beyond the immediate grounds of the application site. Thank you. So just in summary, in general, we don't light our parks. There are exceptions for parks that have existing lighting, but as the head of parks, my role is to ensure that there is a balance between the need of people and the need of ecology and that there are sufficient dark spaces within our parks to protect those habitats and those mammals and insects that need dark spaces. So we don't have funding for the park service for additional lighting to be placed along the footway from any of the entrances towards the middle of the pavilion. So if there were to be lighting required, we would need to understand how that were to be funded, how that were to be maintained, which is always a key consideration when implementing new infrastructure. And as Victoria mentioned previously, how that lighting is sensitively installed so that it doesn't disturb residential properties, and that it also doesn't disturb habitats. So there would be key considerations for us, but finance, maintenance, and sensitivity to ecology and the surrounding properties are going to be the key factors in relation to any discussions around lighting. Sorry, don't we want to scale now funding for that if you need more lights? So from a parks perspective, there are no opportunities for or very limited opportunities for us to do that only through capital funding. And that's a little difficult at the moment in terms of the applications and the conditions for funding through capital. So it may be something that you want to seek a condition from the applicant, I'm not sure. Just to say this as well, if we do recall like there is extant permission already in place for the principle of replacing this pavilion with another which has to be a sort of material consideration we have. I think the sort of wider sort of lighting issue, some sort of walled council might sort of campaign for in that any area, but the principle that this can sort of be developed as that is sort of partially set already in there and it's not a huge way away from the entrance and stuff to the park. So I think personally others may disagree. I'm not as worried about that the lighting situation is a reason to not go forward with this. Sorry, another. Council thinks and I think it just wants to come in quickly if she can then we'll come back to you Council. So I'm a bit reassured that it's not too far from the entrance because at the moment it's dark and there's antisocial behaviour and now we're going to have a pavilion that's open and light. So there'll be an increase in light in the park. Isn't that correct? And and and the football so they'll you know and I think we can do the other bits but actually my point my question which is separate to that. I was just going to go back I thought just you made that point we'll come back to you for questions but we'll go back to Council to Badra I think I'll spare the questions. So another antisocial behaviour I mean there should be some mitigation about that that there should not be antisocial behaviour on because they're many people there yeah much more than now until late I don't know until one time is open until late night I think yeah. I think it's not particularly a late night one but I think Councillor Dickson's point is at the minute it's a derelict building with no overlooking no people around no lighting on no CCTV cameras actually replacing it with a modern building that has all those features is actually likely to reduce antisocial behaviour not increase it I think that's the basically the fundamental point yeah and it will increase light yeah. Councillor Dickson do you want to come back with some further questions? Yes although on my screen because I didn't get a paper copy this year this week but that's a different issue. I was just interested in the paragraph 59 around it it comes under the flooding but it says that I just wondered why no green roof I was thinking about what Sakeb Councillor but was saying earlier that we want to make it as carbon neutral and you know it is in the park and we're taking a bit more space than the than the the first permission so everything that we can do to promote biodiversity and acknowledge that we're taking a little bit of the park it would be good so I wonder why I fully understand how green roof will help but I think I can logistically and I know they're saying that they're going to put some permeable gravel in but just can you just enlighten me as to why we didn't go for a green roof? I mean yeah I mean the application itself is being a single story development a different design to the to the extant consent it does propose more soft landscaping at ground level than the extant consent so yeah it whilst the overall hard-standing would be slightly reduced it's slightly increased sorry it was considered a minor increasing comparison to the previous application sort of the loss of that green roof was considered to be offset by the increase in increased soft landscaping provision around the building itself that's it yeah sort of answers it but could have the self-proofing and the green roof maybe I was just going to say one of the things that was important with design and ability building was the robustness of it you know trying to find a solution in design terms that obviously was acceptable in the context of the park but it was important particularly for you know for a park setting and risk of vandalism and stuff like that that you had materials that were more robust and I guess if there's things like we're feeding that it's easy to clean as it doesn't get damaged so that was why there was a careful consideration about the type of materials that could be used within the building so yeah that was that was another consideration that we had to take into account um council chair on x please thank you chair um with the community use agreement um I mean how do can you just explain a bit like how do you visit that working what sort of groups um what sort of access and and else also how many groups like do we have do we know we're interested already yeah so we did speak to the applicant on this during the course of the application and they informed us that they had been in contact with a football club just at the outset to sort of see how interested they would be in hiring the changing rooms and using the facilities and from the evidence provided to us we saw the email conversation and it showed that there was interest also speaking to the applicants as well and as Ali highlighted earlier they are keen to sort of open it up to wider sports organizations aside from the football club that they spoke to so that there are a number of organizations through the community use agreement that would benefit if they're interested um from that um and and the community use agreement itself the condition requires sort of details of hours of access details of higher rates um and things like that which which would really you know provide us with full detail of that but from the outset um you know we'd be provided with strong evidence that um there would be interest from community groups thank you cheers i think councilor dixon wanted to come back in um i just i suppose i'm just thinking about residents concerns um around a building in a park and i just wonder what the role of um fields in trust have to do with that are they a process which would reassure us that um every care has been taken to um protect the biodiversity and respect the fact that it's a park yeah so fields in trust they're a trustee of the park um and they're not a statutory authority for planning applications um it's something that would be discussed between the applicant and fields in trust through at least agreement um outside of the planning application um so yeah we didn't they weren't consulted as part of the application um but but that framework that happens outside so yeah um so in the event that you you know you do grant consent tonight there still has to be a separate consent from fields in trust um and perhaps i mean kelly can give a bit more about the kind of things that they promote um because obviously they've been working with parks on that so we have a deed with field in trust for king edwards park and the purpose of that deed is to essentially protect the park um from development and to ensure that the park continues to be used for the benefit of the local community um to encourage sporting activities and to increase biodiversity so that is the main function of our agreement so um they would be very interested to have the discussion about the pavilion news because it's not you know we're not building homes on in the middle of the park we're seeking to utilize the space for the benefit of the local community um and impact the local community as widely as possible whilst at the same time seeking to increase biodiversity in in that park so that is their main steer they are there to protect that park um from being developed in the wrong way that doesn't have the interests of the park are hot right i didn't i wasn't aware of the organization so that's that's very reassuring thank you and presumably they they looked at the extant permission as well so that that's what principle is already sort of established okay um i just wanted to ask you if you finish council next i just wanted to just uh check on um this year round trees because obviously um the the the the new proposal requires the removal of four of trees uh but overall it's viewed as a betterment of the extant permission that just sort of seems like slight contradiction so just maybe to to go on that i mean is the sort of principle that as long as we have trees somewhere in the park it's okay or is it could we got to have them as close as possible to the actual site which is under development yeah so so with the extant consent uh obviously that was the partial demolition of the existing building and its extension um and so the issue well it was it was noted in that application that part of the extension would have been located within the root protection areas of the existing band of trees to the south of the pavilion building um but because they're extending rather than demolishing and rebuilding it was sort of difficult to get around that impact um so one of the things about this application was that it with the rebuilding it provided a chance to move away from those root protection areas and avoid any impact on those trees um so with this proposal it was moved two meters further north uh than the extant consent outside of the root protection areas of those trees to the south um but yeah unfortunately so i mean it did it would result in in the loss of four trees um but this sort of provides a chance to provide better quality trees in the park or one of the trees was noted to be dead um and so the planting of a new tree uh would would be beneficial um in replacement of that um and also um so with the replacement tree planting it would be secured via two separate conditions um one of them would be for an agreement to be entered into with the park service for the trees to be provided uh elsewhere in the park uh where the park service sort of see there to be value for them um so so that can be of benefit to the wider park um and it was also to ensure that there will be no impact from any new trees on on the um the basketball courts to the north the sites um but yeah so even though there was the loss of four trees it sort of provides a an opportunity to replace them with better quality and it moves the building away from the existing trees to the south okay thank you that's very clear um council bell please comment this point yep thank you very much um got a few different areas um that one who sort of get some quick queries queries responded to um so i think first one i'll go to john um if you wouldn't mind um i think it's paragraph 34 um in the report there's a mention of a car park um in the northwestern corner of kinghead with the seventh park that could be used um is that the car park that's on saint's ons road that's been closed for x amount of years it it was that car park uh the reason why this comment was made without uh further investigation into it was that because the site is in the pizza for car park and it's not necessary um you know it the London Plan standards are for operational and disabled parking only as the maximum allowances so general visitor car parking is not required would exceed maximum allowances but it was just a way of saying well if there is a car if people do drive then there's this car park but if a new car park was created that would be an excess of maximum allowances and so we wouldn't allow it yeah because on that basis i mean um majority of car parks uh within parks are ringo operated and obviously this would be in the when we stayed in the event day's home and what i'm fearful of is this being used um as a money-making scheme by others um if we're not in full control of the car park yeah obviously the marking of the bays and the management off of the said car park um i think the reason we closed it um was due to social behavior um issues that we had in that particular area and the accidents um of vehicles coming out off the park um because we used to have bushes and shrubs that were fairly prominent in that area i remember using that park as a teenager myself um so is that car park no longer part of the plans in this application um yeah no it's i mean essentially you know it doesn't rely on the car park so in no car parking it is acceptable in planning terms yeah because you know there wasn't a need for parking general parking um the reason i ask is um if it is going to be part of the plans then i think that there needs to be conditions on this if it's not part of it i'd like it to be noted and removed from this um at whatever stage um that's that's fine so um yeah no it's not within the plans because the plans the the village plan which is literally just around the pavilion building so there was no car parking sort of proposed that would have just generated extra cost for the council in creating the park car park doing the surveys lighting electric um so yeah as long as that's not part of the plan because if it was then we did conditions to ensure the cost for that were met um accordingly um and obviously event day parking zones um the other um part in relation to the servicing requirements um i want to touch on was the um the mention of the vehicle um possibly coming into service the calf um and there's some talks of um so the method used here john is this from the extant permission um that you uh the excerpt that's in this i think it's paragraph 39 it is yes and that's how the extant permission was approved on that basis super and in regards the it's i don't know if that would be john now i think it might even be kelly here um the servicing off the um waste so um because i think initially it was large bins and there were concerns that the large bins couldn't be dragged uphill um and then obviously cross grassland but now we've gone for smaller bins um what kind of um usage or or um demand are we expecting um for these kind of deliveries in in a public park there um so are we anticipating one or two um service visits in a week at one a week um that kind of thing um is that part of the trip generation report that we have as well it is yes and that would be the estimated number of service vehicle trips one or two a week yeah super i've got a couple of on the legal side of that i don't know if anybody else has got any transport yep um so on the sort of legal side of it um i did um sort of raise a query earlier i just want some clarity and i'm sure we went over this on the extant permission for the site at the time um but i just want to verify um whether it's a concern that we should be discussing or um taking sort into account when making a decision and that's in regards the um the usage of the building the lease um and the reuse so um in the uh not hoping for but in the unfortunate event if a summer's boxing club cease to exist um what would happen with that building um is this um something that um can be conditioned for um the other um thing that i wanted to ask the legal side of it as well is um if permission is granted tonight um normally then that allows the applicant to submit a commencement notice and commence with um the development now obviously this is a council land and a council building um and funds have yet to be raised um i do not want to see um the council or the park in a situation where um the building has been demolished to begin or stop the timer on the three uh development cycle um so is there a possibility that we can have a precondition um that um demolishment can only take place once funding has been secured or a contract or a way forward has been agreed with the council yeah i'll go into some of the planning points first and um i'll pick up on uh some of the information we have from property and a Solomon can add to it if that's okay so um essentially so from a planning perspective um giving it to like a sort of indoor sort of gym recreation of obviously with community benefits um we have conditioned it as a personal consent for the stone bridge boxing club rather than the general sort of gym area because of the community access and the associated benefits to be able to support the proposal in planning terms um obviously if they didn't use it any more than you would need to sort of apply for a new user in planning terms to vary that condition um i mean obviously just talking hyper basically the building it's a single story there is ways that you know you could adapt it to a different user um you know they're obviously internal partitions but there's nothing sort of fundamental in their design if you know for other sort of appropriate park uses but that's just talking hyper basically with the reuse of the building um so obviously you know we're planning we consider the planning application in line with planning policies um and you know the ownership side for must would be serving notice on the owner which is uh burnt council which has been done from that that the guy from a planning perspective um one person from property they was you know they advised there's currently no lease in place and the proposal was to enter into agreement to to lease with stone bridge boxing club um in once a planning permission has been obtained and the consultation with fills and trust has also taken place because that would have to be in agreement and subject to that then property would enter into a lease um i think at the moment they're intending to have around a 20 new years 20 year lease with rights to renew at the end of the term and rent obviously retains the ownership of the of the land and and and the building um and it's you know it's it's let you know it's on a lease um bars and the applicant having the you know the freehold um so yeah i mean we would still retain the the ownership and in regards to the demolition i mean the demolition of the building in isolation you know would would be um you know we discussed it in the report it hasn't got any architectural significance we can see at the moment you know one could argue that it does have more of a sort of harmful set into this setting of the locally listed park so from a planning perspective there wouldn't be an objection to the you know to to the loss of the building um as we discussed in the report um but you know obviously they have to have all these consents in in in place before you know before they can go ahead and implement it but it's some separate consents but perhaps it's not i mean it's got anything to add to that um if you just clarify what legal question you wish to be answered so it was just around um who will own the new building so as i understand it's a big lease to be granted yeah but it's it's council land in trust but um who would be the owner of the building um i know that so the lease it wouldn't would be for the land or for the structure because we're not building the structure um would it seem somewhat trying to say is there a separation between the two so in the least we're in the land yeah so all leases is a right to occupy space effectively um the building itself still rests with a free holder um and within a lease agreement include terms and so far as whose response of maintaining it that's more in line of your question and if for example um summary boxing club had a 20 year lease um the the least um Victoria said would be specific to them um so much boxing club or would that just be the application because what i'm figuring out here is whether that lease is transferable um i mean the the reality is whatever um obligations or whatever kind of um whatever negotiations take place between respective um landlord and tenant that's usually confined within the terms of the lease yeah um it isn't as i understand it we're not um i i don't know i've not seen a call i've not seen a drop yeah yeah and i just want to try to find out whether it's it's something that's um a concern that we should take because this exception circumstance where the council are the owners um normally it wouldn't you know um make a difference whatsoever as a committee but wearing the two hats um yeah i understand just um i think um david you want to sort of come in and then maybe there's this further consultation you need to do to be able to answer some of this yeah in terms in terms of um what the property team advises whether the provisions of the lease that they would write in that the um when the lease is surrendered at any point then the um the building well the the council would retain the land in any respect but the lease would the building would return to the council be um become the ownership of the council as well that that's that's exactly what i was wondering the building itself would be surrendered back to the council as well but but yeah it's just um when if i could have just a two-minute recess just have a quick chat with um solen redlet just um sort of a legal matter okay um yeah absolutely i'll just allow everyone if they want um you know two three minutes for a comfort break and we'll just come back and continue so uh this is probably your best time if you need you you [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] I'm not sure if we've actually clarified the issue about once the building is developed and should Stonebridge Boxing Club were to leave who would retain the ownership of that building. I'm not sure that we answered that question. I think that's reassuring. Okay, I don't see any further contributions that people want to make at this point, so is everyone happy to move forward to the decision? Okay, so can I ask those who are minded to approve the recommendation to raise their hand at this point? Okay, thank you, so that is passed unanimously. Congratulations, and we look forward to next James the girl from Brent. Okay, as we had that mini break a minute ago, we'll just proceed straight on to item five now, which relates to 26 Salmon Street James. Are you ready to introduce this item, please? [BLANKAUDIO] Thank you. So this next item relates to the site at number 26, Salmon Street. It's a currently a two story dwelling house located on the corner of Salmon Street and Queenswalk. So the application itself proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling house on site and the erection of a part three and four story building. The four story elements would be located to the central portion of the site with the three story elements being located to the eastern and southern portions. The building is proposed to contain 13 new residential with four of these being family sized. The proposal also includes provision for seven car parking spaces accessed from Queenswalk, which includes one disabled parking space, 24 cycle parking spaces, refuse storage and private and communal immunity space. Officers recommendation to members remains is to grant consent subject to the section 106 heads of terms and conditions set out in the committee report and draft decision notice. Thank you. Thanks just for clarification is pointing is any follow up on that presentation? No. Okay, so we can move on to we have a few speakers registered to speak on this item. Do you need a bow and objector is the first person I have either. As you may have seen before you have three minutes on screen if you can turn your microphone on the time or begin as soon as you begin your remarks. Day Councilors and planning committee members, firstly, thank you for the recent upgrades to the payments and virtues on southern street. These improvements are greatly appreciated and have enhanced our area. However, I must voice my strong objection to the proposed development of 13 flats at the corner of Queenswalk and southern street. This project is not an upgrade, but a survey done great for our community. It will burden us with increased traffic, parking issues, noise and pollution, all of which will significantly impact our quality of life. We may not be planning and development experts, but we are experts living in some of the street and Queenswalk. Critical concerns, size and impact, diverting and exporting the entrance to Queenswalk highlights that this project is already too large for sound mystery, adding over 30 residents and their vehicle will create significant parking hazards. Unpleasant smells, constant noise, this disrupts our community solely for developers financial gain, unanimous opposition. Despite planning notice being distributed just before Christmas, 100% of the response from residents were objections. The unanimous opposition from those who live vote and pay council tax here should be paramount in your decision making process. While our concerns being ignored in favor for developers, profits, privacy and light, the proposed building will overshadow our homes is not in keeping with the street and it's massive. It will drastically reduce natural light and infringe on our privacy. This is not merely about comfort, but our wellbeing reduced sunlight can have severe health implications, which should not be overlooked. Congestion and parking, our streets already struggles with parking and parking due to nearby school, adding 13 flats mean over 26 additional vehicles worse than in congestion and creating parking nightmare. The development will exaggerate and already in horrible situation. Finally, safety and property value increased and congestion will strain local infrastructure and services making our neighborhood less safe. Additionally, living next to a highly densely developed will lower property values and permanently damage the character desirable to our area alternative proposal. I propose building three to four tanhouses instead of 13 flats. This is more suitable for neighborhoods, character and address most concerns, a little bit not as profitable. Highly densely developed like Christian or court have already been problematic, leading to short term Airbnb rentals increase anti social disturbance. I urge the planning committee to prioritize the wellbeing of existing residents over short term financial gains, preserving and neighborhoods, character ensuring safety and maintaining adequate parking and sunlight for all residents should be your priority. Why has this proposal? Sorry, you just have come to time if you could just wrap up on this sentence, please. Thank you for your time and attention. Please do not ignore our residence wishes. Thank you. Just a couple of follow up questions. I think there's a lot of things you raise about overlooking density and stuff as well, which we will explore in detail when we get to that. Just two things you raised. I just wanted to question. First of all, you mentioned 13 flats without 26 cars and sort of repeat that, but is there any evidence for that? Because the survey show, I mean, more people in Brent don't own a car than do own a car than this particular area. Most households have the average car per household is not 0.6 cars per household in this area. Therefore, where did you get the 26? I mean, I've been living for Salmon Street over 25 years. Every driveway has normally less than three, four cars. I don't know where you got the report from, sir. Okay. Well, we'll question that with the officers. And then also you mentioned the new property would create a problem smells. Is there any reason to believe that? Yes. So I'm sure you were aware of question or quote that just got approved a couple of years ago. And obviously got rejected a few times a couple of years. And now obviously, at first you try to sell the properties, which wasn't a success. And they turn it into a BMB. So nighttime events, football events, short term stays come, so anti social behaviors, people outside drunk, drinking, smoking cannabis. Shall I carry on? That makes sense. You're just in context. It didn't, you know, now you're given the context. I do have enough time. So I had to narrow it down. Yeah, no, that's what we have follow up questions. Any of the members of the committee like that's going to finish follow up. Yeah, Council but. Thank you for your time, Mr. Well, thank you without giving your address. You can if you want to. Are you an immediate name? I live on the next door, sir. Right next door. And you said in your sort of statement that. It's the size of this place and the 13, but you would welcome some, you know, a new townhouses. Okay. So my question to all of you, I don't know who I'm going to address it to, but when this is going to stop because it started from Christian or court, it's going to start on this next door to my house. I've got a school legs to me, but I don't mind kids. I mean, they've extended the back, not a problem. Kids come here to study young kids, not a problem, even summertime, they have school, not a problem. But when's it going to end? So, I mean, I'm going to do it. Then I think, you know, to my point, I know we've got the understand that. And when the chair started off today's meeting, he started off with the introduction of, you know, the, the need of housing within Brent. But also we have to, you know, balance that with policy. So this is why you're, this application has come to committee because there's been, you know, a certain amount of complaints or supports for it. So that's what we'll be looking at rest assured. We will look into this in great detail. But just to come back, so you're not, you're not opposed to development per se, or it's just the scale and density of course, I mean, development is going to happen. Whether I say, you're so no, something is going to happen. Yeah, it's happening all over London. That's fine. I'm going to shut down on that. It's not going to happen. Of course it's going to happen. But. No, thank you. Okay, thanks. Don't see any further questions. So we, if you could retake your seat mistake, well, thank you very much for your time and participated in this evening. We have one other object to try and get them out. If you could come forward and you'll have three minutes, just like every other speaker. Good evening, everyone. It is without prejudice is with great disappointment that developers wish to construct an eyesore and this beautiful street of salmon street. If any of you have visited the street, you will then realize how beautiful it is. But I've been here for salmon street for 38 years coming up to 39. It's a very high wide street built by Mr. Salmon, and was known to have the largest amount of land in the street. Mr. Salmon built the street. Did any of you actually go into the depth of who built those houses? The whole street, Mr. Salmon constructed all the houses built as individual detached houses with their own charming character. I live opposite number 26. My neighbor at 27 was Berra, who was born in number 27. She died at 90. And her sister was also, they were both spinsters. They knew Mr. Salmon really well. Berra invited me to her house, and she told me distinctly that Mr. Salmon was so close to her sister that number 26 would never have anything built on his land, but only a detached house. In the middle of the size, but he decided not to allow any other. I knew the previous owners, then the current people who owned their land. I knew them distinctly. They wanted to sell the house, but they were not allowed to extend it. How did you guys bring up a permission to extend it or rebuild it, demolish it. Even the previous owners offered it to me, but they said you won't be able to build it because the council has already refused us to bring another house, even next door for their children. The new idea for development of this land is against the deeds and his legacy. Did you check the deeds? Have you had the deeds? I mean, it may just think that you are in the council, but I don't know if you did. Right, so we don't want a new development here and caused it and caused detached houses to get devalued in their own right. There's already development at Krishna Court, who was struggling currently and is using this as an Airbnb. We understand it is now being offered in the market as a package for sale. They haven't difficulties already. It's obvious that monetary gain is in the eye of the developers and within the council planning department. The planning department is attempting to bulldoze this application for extra housing. Why? Salmon Street is an exclusive street. Go into some of London's exclusive streets. You won't find extra development in the front. You might find it in the rear, but not in the front. Right, so the planning department's intended bulldozers. This will have a negative effect on the houses nearby. I live right across. The roads are already tight, with extra cars and parking in the vicinity. Even the current vicinity parking in Queenswalk is tight. People parked. They leave the car for the day. There's no match. People are visiting their friends in this new development parking again is limited spaces. That's more congestion. You've said there's only one disabled parking. I have a blue badge. I'm a disabled driver. I may look to you, but I have a blue badge. Sorry, the three minutes look. If you could just finish your point, please. And lastly, shame for the planners and developers for the greed of to make a profit. We are many residents in Salmon Street. And we are all against this application for many reasons. Noise assessment will be heavy too. Thank you. Thank you. Again, just to get to the point of whether you seem to be referring to the history of it. And it's a question, Councillor, but asked that a previous speaker about whether you, you know, you seem to be done with any development there at all. I mean, you mentioned that it's an exclusive street with sort of wide detached houses and has its own character like that. I mean, we as a community of Brent, right? Three hundred thousand people in Brent. For a community, we have a major shortage of housing and we need to build two thousand three hundred units a year. If we say, well, we will never put any in exclusive streets, which have detached houses. That means they will all be dumped in areas which already, you know, over crowds and have a density. Does that seem fair? No, it's not fair because we already have an issue that Krishna caught. We have a good example. Four years ago, they built it. They're stuck. It isn't a fact. The previous gentleman who spoke here said correctly that people during matches come, try and take the Airbnb and they have problems. They drink. They smoke. And everything else that goes with it. We can hear the noises. Why do we have to hear? We're peaceful. We're happy in that area. Thirty eight years I've lived here. I didn't know Mr. Salmon, but my name is one ninety years old and they knew Mr. Salmon. And even then, when I tried to buy that land across the road, the property from my own friends mysteries, the couple were devastated. They said, we can't even sell it to anyone because we can't build. So we are going to split the money and sell it in the end. They kept quiet for two years. I couldn't even help them. I wasn't buying it for myself. I had friends who were interested but they said, what are the conditions? Well, I think this committee should find the planning application, find the deeds, look into the deeds, see if there's a couple of them that says in the deeds that you can't build on this land. And where have you guys come from just because you have a shortage of houses? Well, yes, there's lots of other land. You know, there is and that there has to be at Salmon Street. There's the end of Salmon Street. There's frying park, not very far away. There's frying park. There's areas that are not used just because we know we need greenery. We're, it's a park that's really developed that's been taken by people that enjoy it. But it doesn't, but after that, the double lines at Salmon Street at least allow us that people don't park in front of our front doors that they used to do originally that I agree for the council doing. All right, thank you. Any further questions from members of the committee. No, if you could. Thanks again, Mr. Gudemal for participating. If you could retake your seats, please. Thank you. Thank you for listening. Thank you. And we have had those two speeches, which, you know, both referenced value of property. Can I just remind all members of the committee? That's not a valid planning consideration. It's hard to prove or measure and it wouldn't be something you'd be allowed to take into account when making a decision. If you have now Kieran Stevens and Ben Thomas from the applicants who are speaking, I believe. So if you can choose yourself and then your colleague online, I believe that's, that's how you approach it. And then you'll have three minutes like the other speakers. Yes. Hi, my name is Kieran Stevens and I'm the project architect. Ben Thomas is the planning consultant is joining virtually just to answer any questions, but I'll be making the, the speech on the scheme. Okay. Thank you. We welcome the officer's recommendation to grant approval. This reflects a positive dialogue between the applicants and officers. We've been through a therapy application process with your urban design officers, where the design of the scheme has evolved through a collaborative approach. The result is a high quality design that references the character and materiality of the local area, having been shortlisted for the housing design awards in 2024. The building has been carefully designed in its relationship to the adjacent properties on Salmon Street and Queenswalk. The proposed building gradually steps down and four stories to three down to a single story through a slope on these boundaries. Officers conclude in the committee report that the overall impact of the development is considered acceptable in relation to the neighboring properties, having regard to daylight sunlight outlook and privacy. Not only will the scheme provide much needed new homes, including four family homes, the proposals include a highly efficient design that incorporates a range of energy efficient measures. These include high standards of insulation, heat pumps for heating and hot water systems, and a roof mounted solar panel array. This provides an overall 63% reduction in carbon emissions over part L. The scheme will achieve a biodiversity unit net gain of 22.96% in head row and 13.86% net gain in habitat units, and an urban greening factor score of 0.56. These two trees are proposed as part of the landscaping. All of the homes have private gardens or terraces 77% of the homes are dual aspect. High compliance with daylight and sunlight BRE guidance is achieved, and all of the homes meet the minimum size requirements. This demonstrates a high quality living environment for future residents. In the possible housing, a viability appraisal was submitted and has been independently assessed by industry experts appointed by the council. They consider that the scheme is capable of delivering a surplus of 41,000 pounds. This will be paid to the council as a contribution, as it would not be enough to deliver affordable housing on site. Those also include a payment towards healthy streets of 29,000 pounds towards highway improvements to the vicinity of the site, as well as a sale contribution of 329,000 pounds. It should be noted that there is a late stage review mechanism to capture any potential uplift and profitability as the development progresses. There are no statutory objections to the scheme proposals. Officers have concluded that the application is acceptable and in accordance with local and national policy. As such, we respectfully request that the application is approved tonight. Okay, thank you. So, I've got a couple of quick questions. You sort of talked about how you believe it's very high quality design and in terms of the building. I mean, does that would you say it's high quality in terms of the amenity spaces and notice there is a sort of short for there and it's had to be changes to that based on concerns about the quality of the communal community space I mean does that. Does that meet the high standards which you sort of boast about in terms of the general application. So in regards to external amenity space, as you'll know, Brent have a standard which is 20 meter squared dwelling and that increases to 50 meter squared ground floor family dwelling. That is a higher standard than the London plan which reflects a commitment to high quality aminacy space standards within the borough where individual flats do not individually comply with that high standard which is not always possible. Brent allow for that surplus space to be provided as communal aminacy. So in total, the scheme does comply with that standard in the between the private and communal aminacy spaces across the scheme. We are meeting Brent standards of 20 meter squared dwelling and 50 meter squared ground floor family dwelling in regards to private aminacy space at ground floor. Many of the flats have got external aminacy spaces, spaces, which are far above those requirements, including one flat which has over 100 meter squared of aminacy space. That won't actually be captured within the calculation because any space, space provided above those standards. I'm not counted as part of the calculation, so that that's additional space over the space you will see in the totals. In regards to the private aminacy spaces at the upper levels. These are either meeting London plan standards, but in many cases exceed the standards. Outside of space standards, but more in terms of the qualitative nature of them. We've ensured that all balconies are set in by 80%. This means that all of the balconies will have a high degree of privacy whilst maintaining good levels of outlook. In regards to the landscaping proposals themselves, as you see, there's there's quite a significant gain in by diversity net gain, a good urban greening factor score, and we're also providing 10 new trees across the site. The landscape design has been prepared by landscape architects who also jointly prepared the ecology benefits for the scheme in tandem. That may be answers your question in terms of the aminacy spaces, but if there are any other elements in terms of quality that you want me to cover, that's fine. I think you think that that generally answered the question. I'm obviously some further thought with officers, but I think that's helpful. Just secondly, I say to you, you've obviously heard that many people living there by are sort of unhappy with this and don't see it as a benefit in their street, their community. So, you know, one of the things that's been mentioned is the very dangerous double roundabout, which is sort of near there and extra funds which are sought to address that with new pedestrian safety. Is that something you're sort of, you know, committed to helping out with? And could you see that and anything else? Well, you know, to residents, if you would sort of explain how your proposal or benefit the existing community as well as the new tenants. Yeah, just to just make sure I answer the right question. Is this in relation to. Are you asking demand, the or the contribution towards page 66 in the report mentions and sort of obviously what time driven around there as well. So no, no, what it's referring to is a sort of dangerous double mini roundabout, which is not far away in it. The report mentions that a contribution from various developers in the area is sought to improve safety and some of 20,000 is sought from this development. To contribute to that, along with, with elsewhere. So that's going to be obviously in the section 106, but I just wondered if, you know, if you could sort of comment on on that. And that's the sort of something you're, you're happy to participate with through the section 106. So that's sort of like part eight of the question. And then part B is that any other benefits from your scheme, which you could point to, which would help existing residents, rather than just obviously the new tenants. Yes, so in terms of the first question. Yes, so a contribution of £29,000 has been agreed towards healthy streets so that that has been confirmed. In terms of benefits to neighboring residents, I think what I would say is, firstly, we've been through quite a lengthy process with Brent's to get to a scheme which officers feel that they're comfortable with. That includes two pre applications and consultation with local residents and also including reaching out with letters to select neighboring properties to ask for face to face meetings. In terms of the way we design this scheme, I think we put quite a lot of effort, which hopefully you'll see within the design and access statement to understand the local area and the character of the local area. That includes the forms, roofscape and materiality, which have all been referenced within the design, and utilized to step step the scheme down from the corner down to a slope, which goes down to one story towards the neighboring properties. That in combination with setting balconies and a high quality approach to mean to materiality. I think show that we've been quite careful in terms of how the scheme is relating to its neighbors. In terms of Brent, this is obviously this is a proposal of 13 new homes and that includes four family homes. That's a provision of over 30% family accommodation, which is in excess of the 25% standard that Brent applies. And it's also worth noting that an additional four of those properties would be two bedroom or person units, which, whilst they might not be family units. They can be good for newly starting families and so that there is quite a bias in the scheme towards towards larger units. In terms of direct benefits to the local community. I don't know if you know that historically along the street, there was quite a well established tree line on the street, which has since been lost. As part of this proposal, there are 10 trees being introduced onto the site and nine of those will be placed on the perimeter of the scheme. And that's in combination with deep two meter buffer planting. That's new planting, which unlike the existing planting is made up of local species. And that's going to give a benefit in terms of the green setting and ecology benefits. So I think that would answer the question, but happy to cover anything else. And that's it for me, any other members of the committee at this point, cuts the budget. My question to you is the previous objective. He said, in the deed. You are not allowed to build there. Have you looked at it? Yes, I mean, as part of as part of the developing the scheme, we will have assessed with the applicant titles for the application. And so we see this as a developable site, but I think what I would note is that, that, that wouldn't, that wouldn't necessarily be a planning consideration that that's more of a legal consideration for the, the owner of the property to, to deal with it. It wouldn't be a matter. I think, I think we would sort of come to this. Obviously, we have a lawyer here who is represents us as members of the council will give us advice on that. And then we will sort of take it from there. But normally when there's questions over deeds, you know, that's sort of done through JR and the courts and other areas rather than the committee because, you know, we can't possibly have that information to hand. I'm going to have a quick question for Councillor Johnson, then we'll go to the main part. I'm, you would have heard from the two residents here that had you considered alternative proposals apart from the 13 units. Yes, so when we, when we review schemes, we always look at multiple options of sites to understand what is the optimal provision or the sites. And again, I think what I would refer to is that this application has been through quite a process with Brent Council and that that's included to pre application. So the, the first application in particular, we had some really helpful input in terms of how we would relate to the local area in terms of materiality form, which we then went through and effectively redesign the scheme to to meet those concerns. We then had a second pre application with Brent Council to arrive at a accommodation revision, which the council were comfortable with. And that's then being consulted with the local residents as well. So that is something we have looked at in detail. And that's been through a process with the council as well, who are happy with the proposed accommodation. So would you consider this to be a landmark building from your point of view. Not necessarily no. I mean, if you look at the pattern of development on salmon streets, you'll see that you predominantly, you would be attached properties, but these are interspersed with flatter development. So, in addition to this proposal, there is a cherry lands close, which is a similar height to this proposal. Krishna court and other flatter developments and a further distance along salmon street. So, no, I would see the scheme as one of a pattern of flatter developments on the roads. And I think it's important to note that salmon street is is identified as an intensification corridor as part of the local plan so it is envisaged that over time. And there may be developments that come through which, which could be a greater height. So I would see this as one of a number of flatter developments on the road. Thank you. Just a quick one, as you saying, like, there's more development, not on the immediate side, but I'm just looking at the picture and it shows like on salmon street on 26. I mean, the immediate properties and the one opposite are they're not as big as your development. So, like, have you considered looking at the site and how this building and a look in terms of impacting the buildings, you know, dwelling in the area. So, in terms of impact on on neighboring properties, I think one of the key, the kind of key elements in determining that would be in terms of scale would be a daylight and sunlight. And so the scheme has been assessed by an independent assessors appointed by the client to review the scheme against BRE guidance in terms of daylight so it's a light impact to the neighboring properties. And that has found that the scheme is entirely consistent with BRE guidance. So in that sense, it depends on what you mean by impact, but from a daylight perspective, the scheme is really compliant. And that's, that's both on the internal living conditions. That's also the external living spaces. All right, thank you. I think, sorry, yeah, Councillor. Thank you very much. It was just in regards the, the design and the height of the building. So, I have had that you've been through a couple of pre applications with the offices. But I also know that the policy around sort of five floor. Development is about 600 meters or I can't remember the exact 60 or 600 meters away from this particular site. So, I just want to understand why you have persisted with a building off this height, considering that the other others around this vicinity. It doesn't resemble that, even though we've got a few blocks of flats, they still only two, three sort of floor floors high. What was the reasoning behind this and what's the benefit to us, because if I had seen an additional layer or height, and we would have had some social rent or affordable housing within that. I can understand, you know, balancing the probabilities for the policies. So, what was the sort of basis behind going above the policy and still not sort of being able to provide so any affordable housing. So, the first part of the question in regards to height. So, I think in terms of distance to the intensification corridor, I think that would be closer to 60 meters or about four properties rather than 600. And that's within the Brent local plan. The, the, what is envisaged is that there could be an acceptability for schemes up to five stories on that intensification corridor. Within the local areas, some of that, having already been developed. In terms of height. I think what I would note is that cherry lands close, which is a building within. It was quite close to the site is 11.8 meters tall. The scheme is just over top meters. So you're, you're looking at about 30 centimeters. They're different. So there are local precedents for that height within the area. And in addition to that, the topography of the site is such that the ridge level of the scheme is actually at the same height as many of the directly opposite properties on salmon streets. In terms of the way the scheme is arranged, the scheme is effectively arranged as a combination of three elements. And that is designed to maximize to last spec provision, but also to ensure that the scheme negotiates the corner and provide an active frontage to both sides. We didn't want the scheme to feel like it only addressed one street and not the other. And what that gives you as an opportunity is the ability to layer those elements together so that where you have a full story corner to the corner of salmon street in Queenswalk. The scheme then steps down through its slope to three stories towards the neighboring properties on Queenswalk and salmon street. But I'll note that that is three stories. I think it's really worth noting that that third story is presented as an inhabited roof. So anybody walking. As a scheme would perceive that as being a roof level. And now in terms of the height of that three story element. Next to the adjacent property on salmon street. The roof level of that three story element is actually slightly lower than the ridge level of that property. So this is quite, this is quite consistent with how you would typically develop a site like this, which is that you adjacent to properties, you would try to follow the prevailing ridge heights, and then you have a buffer offset, and then you step up. I think what we've managed to do on this scheme, which is maybe a little bit different, perhaps to some other schemes in the local area is that by really analyzing and understanding the prevailing roof forms of the area such as hips roofs, asymmetrical walls, and decorative dormers cobbling and brick detailing. We've actually been able to use that to generate a scheme, which is using those roof forms to step down towards the neighbors so that as you get towards the boundaries of the properties on Queenswalk and salmon street, the the roofscape is then negotiating itself back down to one story, and all windows from first floor upwards directly looking over properties are obscured so I'd say in terms of the massing approach we put quite an effort into interpreting the local forms and then using those to help sculpt the scheme to have as minimal impact as possible on the neighboring properties, including following the ridge heights of the neighboring property at salmon street on a three story element. I just want to come back to something you said at the beginning when I referenced the intensification corridor, and I think you went on to mention the distance, but then you went on to mention the height level difference between an intensification corridor application and what the difference is between your application, which is outside of the intensification corridor, you're either within the zone or you're out of the zone, just like you're in a conservation area or you're not, you're in the ULA area or you're not. So, I think it's slightly misleading by quoting those figures by quoting the reference to the intensification corridor and the levels difference between the application site height. But, yeah, that's myself on the line. Thank you. Would you like to come back on anything but the final statement from council but is anything you'd like to say in response. Yes, so in terms of the intensification corridor, as he said that that is a policy which envisages up to five stories in terms of development. This scheme is not within the intensification corridor is it's adjacent to it. And so in terms of the relevant policy for this site, this site would fall under H two of the London plan which is about the optimization of small sites. So in terms of the overall mass quantum development and accommodation, I think Paul's under BH four. Someone might be able to correct you on that small site policy London plan is H two and we also got our own policy which follows on for now BPH perhaps. In terms of the London plan, essentially, the policy for small sites would be to optimize those sites for development and that is a policy which is designed to support a smaller house builders and the delivery of housing on small sites. That does include with it some weight which is given to local character and I think, you know that that would be evidenced by the quite thorough process that we've been through with the council with two pre applications and I think I would then just further highlight again what listed for the housing design awards this year, for its approach to addressing local character. So, in regards to that policy, you also sort of mentioned that great a way to be placed on the existing character and access to public transport. This site is a low P tell rating, although it may be 600 meters away and that's what I was referencing before when I mentioned 600 from the bus stops. We're still short of 3.75 parking spaces as per the point six calculations that we use for our sites. But you're using overspill onto neighboring streets, whereas there was no overspill from the previous development. So, I do think this is placing great a weight. On the side streets and the sort of neighboring transport, but we'll discuss that with the officer and the transport officer, but I do thank you for your time here and thank you. Is it is the transport a point that I could just perhaps come back on. Thank you. So, as part of this application, a transport assessment delivery and servicing plan travel plan was prepared to understand and mitigate any potential impacts of the development on local transport infrastructure. As part of that the local area was analyzed using 2011 census data. And that showed that in terms of car ownership for local relevant developments that would be flats maze and debts and apartments show that 43% of those properties are our car free. This scheme is proposing seven car parking spaces and that equates to 0.54 spaces dwelling. Therefore based on census data that 50% of households are likely to own a car. This level of provision should ensure that no car parking would overspill from the development onto the street. On top of that 24 cycle spaces are proposed with two short stages spaces to promote active travel. And as part of this development, it wouldn't necessarily be a requirement for a scheme of this size, but we went to the extra effort of preparing a travel plan. And within that, that will be highlighting local amenities and sustainable forms of transport for users of the building to promote active travel. And we're also providing electric vehicle charging points on the site. And in terms of so that's parking in terms of the impact on the local transport infrastructure. An analysis of trip rate data has been reduced using the tricks database. This shows that seven or eight two way person trips will take place on the traditional weekday peak periods of travel demands. Therefore, it's unlikely to adversely effect on the operation of local transport networks, assuming that most of these journeys would be rooted through the proposed proposed south through the salmon street 40 lane. Blackbird Hill double mini roundabout junction. The impact of the development at peak times would be minimal with around one peak hour traffic movement through the junction every 20 minutes. So that would be one traffic movement every 20 minutes. In terms of deliveries, it's forecast that a total of 40 way servicing trips would be attracted by the proposed development on an average weekday. Zero of those would be attracted to the site during peak hours. And it's also forecast that no more than one service vehicle would arrive or to pass at the site in any one hour. A high proportion of those would be motorcycles cars and lights good vans, which can all be accommodated within the parking for court. So I think that that shows that it's anticipated that the scheme will meet it's arcing to band based on census dates. The scheme would only generate on salmon street one vehicle movement 20 minutes. And it's never envisaged that more than one delivery vehicle would ever visit the site in a one hour period and not at peak times. I think that's probably helpful. I think if you could retake seat now, Miss Stevens, but thanks for that as well. I think in terms of the car load, I think we obviously have the system information, which we sort of need to rely on. I think points which have been raised about how many cars are in place in other houses on the street is probably, you know, they are large detached houses, whereas these are smaller flat. So, again, if you sort of think what sort of, you know, yeah, exactly what, you know, the other kids and also the trend in London of currency is down or like more people getting rid of cars and buying them. So, yeah, I think the statistics that we have in the report, probably the ones we need to rely on that because there's study and evidence behind that in that way. Okay, just going to turn that to questions from officers. I think first thing to ask James and we might be helpful to have some sort of some of the, you know, the images on screen to sort of help understand this is obviously important. This is obviously, you know, this is not a priority area for sort of tall buildings and therefore more weight should be given to the nature of the surrounding area and how it fits in with that and that as well. So, I just essentially what sort of did the developer do in terms of the design to satisfy you that, you know, the sufficient trades have been made to recognize the character of the area and maybe if there's any design pictures, et cetera, that can help us understand that that would be helpful. Yeah, so on slide 20 of the drawings pack is contextual elevation of salmon streets. So, so this shows salmon streets from from the other side of the road from the proposal, and it shows Krishna Court, which has been referenced on the opposite corner of the Queen's Walk salmon street junction and it shows cherry lands close, which was the other building mentioned. And as you can see both of these store these developments are three story developments, and it shows the proposed development as well. Whilst this sort of does go up to four stories, it transitions, and you can see it in this slide and then also in slide two slides on to the neighboring properties by utilizing three story elements. At its southern and eastern portions, and you can even see on this elevation, and the bridge height of the three story part is lower than the neighbor on salmon streets. And I think what's worth noting about this site as well is that it is a large corner plot. And a lot of the massing has been focused away from the neighboring properties towards the center of the site. So whilst it does represent a slight departure in terms of height. We felt that this was supported by the size of the site, and how how the building has been transitioned to the neighboring properties. It's also helpful to have the CDIs on page three as well, because that looks at the materials and the roof design, which is obviously something which is a feature of the design of this building. It's having regard to the character of the area in terms of its materiality, and the fact that it has these sloping roofs to help break up the bulk and the mess in and focus at additional heights at the corner junction. Okay, thanks. So those are the kind of steps that you discussed in pre-opification to make sure that it was in character. That sort of would be your summary of what was been made. But basically, you know, it's not a priority priority for tour building. So kind of thinking that, you know, if this exact building was in a different area, that was a priority area. You know, what would be different about it, like, than if it's in this area to reassure myself that steps have been taken to ensure that it is in line with the character of the street. Yeah, I mean, I mean, it does deviate to a degree from the character because it is taller than its immediate surroundings, which are the two story buildings. And then, as you see in the contextual ones, there is elements of flatter developments. But they're up to three stories. So, you know, one could say four stories, you know, does differ to that character. But obviously the policy has an emphasis on, you know, when you're looking at the small weight given to the character of the area. And our view is where the designers proposed. It's in our opinion and our designers' opinion. It doesn't have a harmful impact on the character, even though there is a difference in it. It does deviate from that character. But, you know, even if one was to consider, there was some in a positive degree of harm, you know, we considered the benefits of the optimization and the homes that are being delivered, including the four family out home family homes, you know, without weight at home. But, you know, we're in our way, but it's not a deal breaker if the rest of it is beneficial in line with policies. Yeah, but I think in our case, you know, we are satisfied, although it does deviate from the character, we don't consider that to be harmful, the judgement that we have made as officers. You know, if you had that building and you put it elsewhere, if it's a completely different context, then it may not be acceptable. So it's not one size fits all. It's having regard to, you know, to the character of this particular plot, the corner junction, the topography, et cetera, and coming to that view. And it is worth noting, as we touched on, you know, the intensification corridor is about 60 meters along Salmon Street, where there could then be changes of buildings of up to up to five stories and heights. You know, that's where the piece, how free comes in. So it's getting closer to where you're very close to is a good public transport accessibility. So, you know, having a gas at us as well. Thank you. Another question is just sort of related to sort of the scale, obviously. Do we have any slides as well, which I might be able to explain this as well, but I just want to be satisfied. There's no harmful overlooking, which would sort of come from this. That the units, one dash over four and two dash over four, have it up with windows, which are less than sort of the nine meter target. And sort of how we've assessed that and we're sort of happy that there wouldn't be overlooking. I mean, it mentioned that would not overlook good quality immunity space and how do we define what is good quality and what's not good quality. In terms of when we're assessing that overlooking. Yeah, probably slide six would be a good one for that, please. That's the first floor. Yeah, so, so as mentioned, there are some capital windows, which would be within nine meters of the site boundary and our policy does our SPD one guidance. Yeah, so it's those units to the top. So looking looking at the, so it's 8.35 meters from the joint boundary. And that sort of portion of land adjacent to the neighboring property and the site is quite narrow. It's a narrow strip of land. And in this instance, that wasn't, it's also to the front of the house rather than to the rear of the house. So it wasn't considered to be high value immunity space, which would be used regularly for immunity purposes. So on this occasion, sort of the minor deviation from SPD one guidance on achieving a nine meter distance from the boundary was considered to be acceptable. Things worth clarifying SPD one, the nine meters, some of it to your sort of, you know, your private vehicle immunity spaces, absolutely the vehicle garden of number 24 salmon street is behind this site. So this wouldn't be looking into that. And then we obviously talk about it, you know, we're looking at sites coming forward for development, but likewise, in the event that other sites were to come forward for development, you know, it wouldn't. And Julie compromised a site from coming forward. It's not relying on its outlook into the neighboring sites. So that's where the other consideration comes in. And I think you mentioned also, the bound they said it talks about how there wouldn't be endures at undue levels of overlooking because of the boundary treatment proposed. Could you just say what that boundary treatment is and exactly how it helps. Yeah, we're bringing that slide up now. That is. Some sections here, James, find them for you. But I also must note with SPD one is a guidance document. It's not a policy. So not a planning policy to have the nine meters. It's a guidance document that sort of, you know, gives an indication on what is likely to be an acceptable level of immunity. But obviously, you know, you have to take into account the site circumstances, you know, and we would consider that it wouldn't have a harmful impact. So it's still accord with development policy DMP one. Thank you. Yeah, James. Yeah. And so if we could just bring up slide 17, please. Yeah, so I mean, with reference to the boundary treatment, that was with regard to some of the ground floor windows on the flank of the building, which would also be within nine meters of the joint boundary. But because of the boundary treatment proposed, which can be seen here, the level of the window compared to the boundary treatment would not give rise to harmful overlooking because there would be a physical barrier in between the two sites. The neighboring sites at a higher level. So when you got a 1.8 meter high fence existing fence and this is at a lower level, it will then be higher than 1.8 meters from there. Finish for all levels. It was just a point of clarification for something that you said, Victoria, just want to confirm. So in our master plans, where we have tall building zones, we normally blend in and out. So, if you're at the end of the intensification zone, would the building still be at the highest point of the intensification zone, or would you be expecting that just blend in with the character. I guess because it's at five stories, it wouldn't necessarily have the same sort of set step in when you're in a tall building zone, when you look at things, particularly from afar, if everything's at the same height in, you know, so them, if it's going to be when we park, it would all look very heavy. But by having the buildings are very high, some could be quite a bit taller than what say the indicative heights would be. But in the townscape terms, it would read a lot better than giving that sort of break between the heights. If something's up to five stories, it wouldn't necessarily have to have the guards, if there was a two story property next to it, and a design solution may not be, you can then jump straight up to five stories, you may need to step it to have an appropriate transition to ensure it works in design terms. But, you know, and also know of an amenity, but it wouldn't then be that you, you know, you'd have to have the whole building would have to then jump down because it's not such a huge transition and the townscape views are more localised and looking afar. So what I'm trying to get at here is that, for argument sake, if you went right to the border of the intensification zone and you kept it at the maximum levels that you would, you would then expect the others to then fall below, because you're not within the intensification zone. I mean, it would come down to a judgment on, you know, on character really and housing is progressed. Okay, just open this up to the rest of the committee now see Council Johnson first. I can understand why residents are very concerned about this. You have a one five beds home being converted to 13 units at what point do you believe. The maximisation should go beyond three or four times the amount that's on site. I mean, in each planning application, it does come down to sort of the site by site analysis and obviously every site is different. One of the key points about this application site it's it's a large corner plot, probably on the largest plots on salmon streets and Queens walk. And the existing dwelling on the site to quite a small proportion of the site. Through our assessment, we have assessed this larger development with regard to its impact on neighbours with regard to its, its quality of immunity space quality of housing provision, and have considered that it satisfies that it meets our development plan. So it is larger than what's there is existing, but sort of through through the application of our policies we've considered sort of the it's looked to optimise the site. I hear the justification in terms of carbon neutrality, which is good. I hear also the issue about traffic but nothing's been mentioned about waste and our waste is going to be managed. So, I mean, waste would be collected from Queens walk that's where you sort of got the, you know, the driveway and we'd have details of the bin stores to be secured and development of this size, you typically have it's 60 litres per residual waste and 64 of your recycling per bedroom. So that would be 25 bedrooms, it's about 3000 square metres so it's about, it's not about to free euro bins, but I think what was preferred in this in this one was just to kind of break the bin so you have a mixture of 240 bins. And, you know, the euro bin so, you know, there is, there is, you know, room within the site to be able to in an appropriate manner, accommodate the amount of bin stores as a needed, and cause the refugees lorry, you know, can park up on the street. It's within the carrying distance and our highways officers will have you with them arrangements, but the final details of how the bin store and stuff will be designed will be through, you know, through condition, but it would have to have that capacity within it. Given that there is no affordable housing provision apart from the 41,000. If this was a site that was all affordable, which would contributed would contribute to the council rehousing its own list criteria. I would consider it but given that it's going to be all for sale is 41,000 sufficient. Yes, I mean, I mean, the planning policy, outlines that 30 outlines the provision of affordable housing that should be provided on sites and where not possible, this should be tested through a viability test. In this instance, a viability test has been provided. And it was scrutinized by experts on behalf of the council. And it was concluded that the scheme would not be possible. Sorry, the profit from the scheme would just be 41,000. So in this case, it would not be possible to provide affordable housing on sites. So I think that's really the main. I just jump into that saying thanks James in a bit more detail. So there's obviously as a strategic position, we have an overall strategic target of 50% of our homes to be affordable. But on a case by case basis, when a planning application basis. In a case like this, where we have a threshold approach of 35% affordable housing. 35% by habitable rooms and what we call a 70 30 split so 70% weighted towards your L.A.R. your social rent and then 30% intermediate. And if you achieve that, then you, but that's what schemes will tend more homes and major, then you don't need to go for any financial viability assessment. So you would just be subject to, and the only stage of your mechanism in a section 106. But the policy does note that when schemes are not meeting the thresholds, so the thresholds, the London plan is to sort of try and encourage schemes to, you know, to deliver more affordable housing. So the policy does recognize schemes that are not, you know, not meeting that test without needing to go through a viability assessment. They then have to, you know, be subject to viability testing and demonstrate what they can, you know, via be deliver in terms of affordable housing. So I think the biggest one with this with the FBA was the benchmark land value. So, um, originally the applicants consults and their viability consultant had an eventual land value of around 1.65 million. And then had a visit your land value. So the visit your land value, just to remind members is when you take into account sort of profits you're making. So that's from the sale of the homes. And then you kind of deduct that from all the costs associated to the bill costs, your finance costs. You know, you're marketing your profit goes into that cost, which is 17.5%, which is a standard industry. And then that concluded they were concluded as a deficit of 635,000 pounds. But, um, rents consultants reviewed and scrutinized the viability information. And we concluded that with sensitivity testing and having a benchmark land value of 1.3, just over 1.3 million and sensitivity testing with the variable inputs that go into your residual land value. The scheme was in surplus of 41,000 pounds. And, you know, policy, it does generally want to secure affordable housing on site. And I'm only really in, you know, sort of exceptional circumstances. Do you have it as an office like contribution or payment in lieu? And obviously 41,000 pounds wouldn't cover the cost of delivering an affordable home within the site. And the other consideration, the challenges with a register provider with a single call development. And, you know, not being able to put them to really be able to take on, you know, one unit to win in the site. They just, you know, wouldn't, they tend to focus more on sort of provide a lot, you know, larger homes, larger sites with, you know, more homes, one, one unit, they wouldn't really be interested in. So in this case on a sort of non pleasurable basis, we've accepted in this, in this particular case to accept it as a payment in lieu and offsite payment in lieu. And obviously that will go in towards the council's wider sort of pot for affordable housing. So whether that would be to, you know, sort of, you know, when you add it to that general post and then the council will be able to then secure that towards its affordable housing program delivery across the borough. I mean, the scheme would still be subject to your early and late stage review mechanisms. And that would obviously, you know, not reduce that amount of £41,000. If there was any additional surplus, it would have been upwards only review mechanism. Okay, thanks. I think that's clear. Council chap. I just have a question off the back of that, actually, Victoria, the, you mentioned 17.5% profit being standard across the industry. Is that something, is there any movement on that, or is that like we agreed to it, or are we required to allow that. It does vary. I mean, for private, it's typically about 17.5 to 20% depending on the risk. So that's definitely something which our viability consultants would have looked at him as their industry professionals. You know, they did agree that that was the appropriate one, and it is one that we use standard one that we do typically see in the industry. Affordable housing is less than 6.5%, but I'm not proposing any affordable housing. So, you know, it's based on the private, which is standard practice. Okay, thank you. And then just also on a late stage review, I appreciate you clarifying that you can only go up. That's good. When does that actually happen, late stage reviews, so you built it, and then you do the review just before sale, or is it just before you finish? When does it. Late stage review from memory is at 75% of the units being sold. Okay. I think just if there's only affordable obviously our preference is always on site, but there are occasions when it is appropriate, because it's just to bear in mind for people that if it is affordable, it has to have a bridge to provide who sort of run it, you know, generally. So it's not going to be like a whole block would normally be affordable because then, you know, one of the house associations or whatever can run the whole thing at affordable rent. It's very rare sort of in a sort of small development, you would have, you know, one, because that's very expensive for a registered provider to cover in that sense. So that's why it can, on occasion, be appropriate to have an off site contribution. So just just remember that. Actually, that was very helpful, because, as people know me on the committee, I'm quite impressed with the architecture and how they have taken everything in. So, of course, I'm thinking, well, can they go higher and then we can have a lot more affordable houses, but I know that that doesn't fit our policies. It just feels that 41,000 is, yeah, I would use a word that's maybe not appropriate. It doesn't seem much. I mean, you know, when we ask what are they, what is the community getting from it, we are getting houses I know that you know any houses are welcome we need houses. I don't see why it shouldn't be on the Sanman Street in the same way as it should be on Wembley High Road, it should be on, we're Brent and we're building houses so on that level we welcome developers who can build homes for our residents. But 41,000 pounds. I mean, you know, the point I think is we've gone through the entire process and start to finish how that figure was calculated. So, I suppose I just question the vibe of the assessment. I just question it and I just want to put it out there. I think your point has been sort of noted, but I don't probably sort of run through the entire maps of how that was calculated again just because I think everyone's got that clearly. Sorry, I think Council Patel had your hand up before so I'll just bring you in now. Thank you just quickly two questions, the proposed development is located within 15 meters of Thames for the underground assets as such the development could cause the assets to fail if appropriate measures are taken from examples in the past where planning conditions have been given in Westmoreland Road and Steglane. We had issues with the drainage system, not system could not cope with the amount of water. How are we going to make sure this does not happen with this development. Yeah, so Thames water actually consulted as part of this proposal, and they reviewed all the information provided with the application and didn't raise any objections to the application and provided some informatives, which have been included within the decision notice. So, so I think, you know, it's key to see that they have gone through that process of assessing the development on their assets. I'd have given us advice to give to the applicant which has been provided. Was there some services further on that. Yeah, the thing is in the past we've been had where Thames water said there won't be issues, examples tag lane and Westmoreland Road. And business is still being flooded with, you know, where Thames water has not reviewed the drainage system, probably the drainage system was built in 1936 can cope with all this extra development. So that would be a concern. Sure, I've got is construction issues can occur at times during the construction process. We need to make sure educate controls are in place prior to work on considering on site prior to work starting on site. We have an examples in Barnhill, where one of the one of the developers that law is coming at seven in the morning to pick up with the comment pick, pick up mud dug out of the basement. So can we make, can we have assurance that during construction stage, this is not with the case. Yeah, so it's two points there. So to start with, on the drainage, the application was also reviewed by the local lead flood authority, who did review the drainage strategy provided with the application. The strategy itself, proposes an 84.62% betterment on the existing surface water run for rates. And those methods were reviewed and agreed by the local lead flood authority. So it would be providing a betterment to the existing situation. And then with regard to sort of deliveries and the time of deliveries to the site. The application would be subject to a condition which requires the submission and approval of a construction logistics plan. This would be prior to any commencement of development. And that within that construction logistics plan, it would need to outline when deliveries would be taken to the site for construction. And how often these would be, and it would be reviewed by our internal transportation highways team to determine the impact on the highway. I was just going to add, so the conditions on sort of construction logistics and construction management plans is to seek to sort of minimize the disruption on residents, because, inevitably, with construction work, so it is going to be a degree of disruption, but it's trying to sort of, you know, minimize that. It is a lot of legislation as well. So, you know, things that are covered under environmental health legislation, for example, or the controller pollution act, where, you know, through these other routes of legislation. And, you know, they obviously can act on things a lot quicker than any sort of enforcement food, planning enforcement, and lots of them points are covered through alternative legislation as well. Finally, my point is, a lot of these developers use private building control control control companies. And what tends to happen is they bypass some of the planning rules. For example, being in, you know, so can we make sure that if private structure engineers, companies used that business. I just, I mean, say that the council does take view on this and over, you know, overseas this and delivered it's more from sort of building regulations and other teams in the council. It's not a thing that the planning committee does. We just sort of decide of, you know, look at the application. If that was to be there, would that be a good thing for rent or not. And so the sort of process about how it's built is the council does oversee and does manage, but not this team. So these guys aren't really best answer on that because it would be sort of another area of the council and something that can be taken up with them. But it's not really a planning consideration in that way. But what I would say is that if they do deviate from the planning requirements, then we can take planning enforcement action against them, no matter whether the using an approved inspector for their building regulations, or, or the councils and building control team. Sorry, that's a big one. Just a quick one. Are we getting many application in salmon streets similar to this one. And if so, I mean, are we going to be opening a big warm like, you know, people, I mean, it sounds to the quiet street and it's got a lovely properties there. And I'm just thinking is it going to be turned into like a story, you know, having lots of flats and all that. Is that something that we're going to be looking at in future. And I think for memory, this is probably the only application like this in at the moment for, you know, flatter development, but each application is assessed on its merits and against, you know, the development plan. And also the color of the building is that fit in with the area of that, you know, it's just I'm just looking at the color on the design and, you know, looking at the other properties, it just doesn't doesn't kind of like fit in with the adjustment properties. Because of materials, they will be conditioned, but, you know, the area traditionally is your sort of, you know, your, your, your clay or your sort of, you know, bed concrete roof tiles. So it's having a modern interpretation. It's not there to be pastiche and mimic the exact, you know, what's immediately around it. It's having regarding cues from that. And, you know, what this kind of material, as you do see there, which usual sort of clay tiles, it is your sort of multi stock for it, but it's doing it in a more sort of modern interpretation, rather than trying to do a pastiche, trying to match what's there, you know, exactly. So, so like, I think, you know, it's not like when you have like, you know, row of terrace houses or semi attached houses on the street, which are all sort of designed and build exactly the same way it's. I think it's quite a lot of very different, you know, types of detached houses along the street as well. So I think that's why there might be a little bit more latitude in terms of that. And then it would be if it was, you know, just to row of terraces and you add them on to the end of it, they would have to look the same as the rest, you know, and council put as a final point. Yeah, just a final point. On the personal mean to space so there is a shortfall and then we're getting communal. I mean to space, but our SPD states that it should be high quality communal community space now. We've changed a little walkway moved to car park and all of a sudden it's become high quality. What are the other reasons for it becoming high quality, whereas, and the other sides that we've said. Bushes will give them privacy and will put a condition in. Can we not have something stronger than a bush or, you know, this is people's personal minty space, which we need to guarantee and safeguard, not just a bush. And I see it as no different as overlooking an obscured glass, that kind of thing. So I think we need to explore that particular part of it, but if you can explain why it became high quality, that made me a bit. Thank you. Yeah, so when when the application was originally submitted, we did raise some concerns to that communal community space, which is in the, the Northwest and corner of the site on the corner of salmon street and Queens walk. And as you know, previous one of those concerns was to do with the access to the space, which obviously a key part of the quality. And through some amendment to the scheme, the access was made clear without having to sort of navigate the car park to get to the space and clearly legible entrance from the front of the building. With regards to the sort of the boundary treatment for the immunity space, what we, what we did request during the course of the application was some, some more detail on on this boundary treatment and the relationship it would have with the pavements. And one of the key things that our immunity space SPD SPD does encourage is sort of sort of trying to limit noise, this immunity from the roads, and also sort of overlooking into these spaces because then they don't become private. And so there is a section during within the drawings back I would just find the slide number for you, which shows the relationship. You're talking about Yeah, I mean, so I'm sorry I'm afraid I can't find the drawing in the drawings pack. But yes, it said that the boundary site 27 for now it just shows a landscape in but it gives an indication but James would just talk there's a level changes and Yeah, I mean, I mean, the site itself is set lower than the street and the boundary treatment was, you know, proposed to be to a height that would balance that level of yes, it would balance it would balance that level of, you know, it would limit overlooking. And it was, you know, the trees and the landscape will provide a noise buffer to the natural noises of the road and the passers by. And I think what's key to note about that boundary treatment is also the depth of it. And the thick edges. So, you know, they would really limit sort of the potential for overlooking into the community space while providing that aforementioned benefit of a natural noise buffer to the road. Does the end of the question at this point, anybody else like any, any anything else they would like to raise. Okay, so I think we can move to make a decision at this point. So, everyone who's in minded to support the recommendation to prove could they raise their hands at this point. Okay, just quite clear everyone could put it up as well. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Anybody voting against. And anybody choosing to abstain. Okay, so that is carried, but we have one vote against one abstention. So we'll need to record the reasons why for the minutes. Councillor Burt, if you'd like to go first. Yep. Thank you very much. Yeah, it's just in regards the shortfall on policy, T six, the shortfall on policy BH for. And the person on the mean to space on and the bulk and massing of the building. Thank you. Councillor Johnson. I was torn between it because whilst on the one hand, I'd like to see more development, especially for affordable housing and social housing. This provides none of that. And the contribution that it gives is minuscule. I see it as over development. So that's the reasons why I was not willing to vote for the scheme. That's very clear and recorded for the minutes. However, you know, on the majority vote that has passed. So that means we've both passed both items tonight. The fan like Monday on is any other age of business. We've not received any in accordance with Daniel 60. So I can say everyone, thanks for your time and for interrogating both of those applications tonight. Our next meeting will be on Wednesday, the 10th of July. So we'll see you then. I think if I think if we just, we were not taken well over an hour to interrogate if there was anything formality about it will.