Plans to demolish a hospital building and former ambulance station in Wembley to make way for over 100 homes has been given the go ahead despite some residents and politicians being “deeply concerned” about the impact on the local area.

Developer Fairview Estates Limited submitted plans to redevelop the Old Wembley Hospital site, with the project set to deliver 108 homes in residential buildings ranging from three to six storeys tall. The scheme was reviewed again by Brent Council’s planning committee earlier this week having been deferred last month.

The developer claims the scheme would make use of a currently “underutilised and oppressive” plot but concerns were shared by members of the committee about the low number of affordable housing, a lack of parking spaces causing congestion on surrounding roads, the building’s historical significance, and loss of light to nearby properties.

The Old Wembley Hospital operated within the existing buildings from 1928 until 2000 when all frontline medical, clinical or healthcare treatment ceased following the opening of the new Wembley Centre for Health and Care.

The site then provided a “back of house function” until it was deemed “redundant and surplus to needs” in 2019, according to the developer. It was temporarily used to store personal protective equipment (PPE) during the Covid-19 pandemic but has been identified by the developer as an “inactive and underutilised” urban brownfield site that is ripe for development.

The redevelopment will include 27 one-bedroom, 54 two-bedroom and 27 three-bedroom properties, after the developer agreed to turn one of the one-bedroom homes into a three-bed. Of the new homes, 99 would be flats and nine would be houses but just 11 are set to be ‘affordable’ – just over 10 per cent of the total. This is considered acceptable due to the findings of a viability assessment.

Other changes made to the original scheme include an additional parking space – taking the total to 13 – and a ping pong table in the communal area as a way of including leisure provision for young adults.

When the application first came before the committee last month the vote was split – with four voting to approve the plans and four against – which resulted in the committee Chair, Cllr Saqib Butt, using his determining vote to approve the development.

However, it was then made known that one of the councillors who voted in favour of the scheme, Cllr Iftekhar Ahmed, had not been present for the full discussion. According to the constitution, not being present for the entirety of the review means a member is not permitted to vote.

This meant that, now with just three votes in favour and four against, the plan was rejected by the committee. But a council officer suggested the reasons for refusing the application would be “difficult to defend” on appeal and could result in a “significant risk” of costs being awarded against the council so the decision was ultimately taken to defer the application.

The latest vote achieved the same result, with four voting to approve the plans and four against – with all Labour members voting in favour and all opposition members voting against. This time the Chair’s deciding vote counted and the scheme was approved.

When providing his reasons for voting against the application, Vice Chair of the committee, Cllr Harshadbhai Patel, said: “This application has made some improvement on the previous application. However it is not to the satisfaction of us, first of all starting with the lack of affordable housing. The policy clearly states 50 percent we are far far far below that.

“The second thing is the parking issue. The expected standard on this development for parking is a maximum of 54 and we are now providing just one increase on 12, so it is 13. It has very substantial adverse impacts on the neighbouring area and it has been even admitted in the report that this is unacceptable impact on highway safety, community impact on the road network and potential for over spilling.

“[Then there is] the overlooking and reduced sunlight and daylight. There are 44 properties which will be impacted by this development and, out of 44, I think 33 will [will be impacted by] overlooking and 12 by reduced sunlight and daylight.”

Cllr Michael Maurice said his reasons for refusal were “mainly to do with parking” but also pointed to the loss of daylight on nearby properties and, for that reason, “it should never have been accepted”.

Cllr Anton Georgiou also pointed to the lack of affordable housing numbers, which he said are “significantly lower than the policy that we have in place”, as well as the potential for parking issues to do “significant harm” to existing residents in the Wembley area who already experience considerable problems.