Saturday 20 January 2018

Cllr Tatler on Alperton development: 'Whilst some policies are not met, many are...'

Readers will recall the uproar over Brent Council's approval of a development at 245-253 Ealing Road despite it not meeting many planning guidelines. LINK

A local resident has submitted a question about this to Cllr Shama Tatler at Monday's Council Meeting. This is her anodyne response:
Question from Hiran Patel to Councillor Tatler, Lead Member for Regeneration, Growth, Employment and Skills: 
How were the proposals for development of the old HSBC bank and pub at 245- 245 and 253 Ealing Road approved, even though in my view they appear to break a number of safety regulations?


Planning applications of this size raise a number of complex, and often competing issues; in this case, involving the redevelopment of the site to provide two buildings, 9 and 10 storeys, for 92 new flats, a pub and a community use, it raised many issues – the appearance and build of the new buildings, the amount of residential provided, the mix of units, parking arrangements, etc. Officers and Committee members balance all of the different issues, including the planning objections, and make their decision against national, regional and local policies. These issues are often finely balanced, and opinions will often differ as to the merits of a particular case. 
Sometimes, one policy objective, (e.g. securing additional housing, or maintaining a public house on the site) might be given more weight than, for example, a reduced level of parking. In this case, the planning merits of the proposal were carefully considered. Officers made some pragmatic judgments around the proposal to achieve, on this allocated site in a housing zone, some 92 new units – a quarter of which are affordable – that works on the site. The committee report makes it clear that whilst some policies are not met, many are, and taking the scheme in its entirety, members felt that the benefits outweighed any harm. 
The question does not mention what safety regulations are broken here. However, it is a long established – and correct – principle, that planning does not duplicate requirements set out in other regulations and laws; these will be assessed by other bodies at the appropriate time, whether that be under Building Regulations or Health and Safety rules

1 comment:

Scott said...

There is no respect held for people who will actually have to live in these places.
Future rate payers for the area. This is how slums ended up being created & why planning guidelines were put in place.