The Planning Committee of Brent Council met on Wednesday 17 January 2024 and made decisions on two planning applications. The committee granted planning permission for a co-living development at 24 High Street, London, NW10 4LX, but refused planning permission for a proposed conversion of a dwellinghouse into four self-contained flats at 291 Kenton Road, Harrow, HA3 0HQ.

24 High Street, London, NW10 4LX

The committee granted planning permission for the change of use of part of the ground floor, first, second, and third floors from student accommodation, and the change of use of first-floor retail storage, to create a co-living scheme of 45 units. This includes the erection of extensions at second-floor level and a two-storey extension. The development will feature communal kitchens and lounges on the first, second, and third floors, a communal courtyard on the first floor, and common areas on the ground and first floors. Minor alterations will be made to the ground floor to accommodate cycle parking and refuse facilities, and existing double-glazed timber sash windows will be replaced.

The decision to grant permission was made despite concerns raised by the Harlesden Neighbourhood Forum regarding operational impacts such as waste disposal and fly-tipping, and a perceived lack of engagement from the developers. The Forum requested assurances that tenancy agreements would include instructions on waste disposal and the use of communal services. The agent for the development, Mark Pender, highlighted the applicant's experience in delivering co-living schemes and detailed the extensive communal facilities, including a laundry room, gym, courtyard garden, and workspace. He also explained the shift from student accommodation to co-living due to the impact of COVID-19 on the student market, offering greater flexibility and longer rental terms.

Committee members raised questions about waste management, security of tenure, affordability, potential alternative uses, and the availability of updated demand reports for co-living accommodation. Responses confirmed that a detailed Waste Management Plan would be agreed, tenancies would be Assured Shorthold Tenancies with a minimum three-month term, and while co-living might be marginally more expensive than an HMO, it offered significant additional facilities. The viability of the scheme meant no upfront payment in lieu of affordable housing was possible, but early and late-stage review mechanisms were included in a Section 106 agreement. Concerns were also raised about the quality of accommodation, the lack of dual-aspect units, and limited external amenity space. Ultimately, the committee refused permission, stating that the application did not meet a Brent housing need, resulted in a poor quality of accommodation, and its limited benefits did not adequately outweigh the harm caused.

291 Kenton Road, Harrow, HA3 0HQ

The committee granted planning permission for the proposed two-storey side extension, first-floor rear extension, hip to gable roof extension, and rear dormer window with four front rooflights. This also includes a front porch, replacement of the rear extension door and window, and associated refuse and cycle storage, for the conversion of the dwellinghouse into four self-contained flats and the subdivision of the rear garden.

During the application process, revisions were made to the proposed front garden layout to increase soft landscaping and cycle storage, and to the rear garden layout to improve private amenity space and clarify access to the rear garden store. These changes were not considered material, and no further consultation was required.

Objectors raised concerns about the impact on the character of the area, parking, neighbouring amenity, external amenity space, pressure on local services, and compliance with planning policies. Officers addressed these concerns, noting that the site was in a priority location for new homes and the conversion complied with policy BH11 of the Brent Local Plan. The design was considered acceptable and would not harm the character and appearance of the local area. The proposed flats were deemed to be of good quality, and the development would not negatively impact neighbouring amenities or highway conditions. While there were minor shortfalls in internal space standards for some flats, these were considered marginal and did not compromise the quality of accommodation. The proposal was seen to contribute positively to the council's housing targets.

The committee granted permission subject to conditions, including a three-year time limit, the use of approved plans, restrictions on water consumption, and the implementation of car parking, cycle, and refuse storage. Conditions also covered external amenity spaces, external materials, and the submission of landscaping details, including an urban greening factor.