In a damning decision notice Brent Council has thrown out the developer's plans for the Queensbury pub in Willesden Green. They cite massing, poor design, inadequate standard of accommodation, failure to provide maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing, lack of control of carbon dioxide emissions and impact on parking and transport infrastructure.
The decision notice states:
The scheme does not comply with guidance and the pre-application advice received has not been adhered to:
-->
The decision notice states:
The scheme does not comply with guidance and the pre-application advice received has not been adhered to:
The proposed development, by reason of its massing, poorly
designed front elevation and lack of articulation, would appear unduly
prominent and out of character in the street scene and in the wider locality.
The development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance
of the Mapesbury Conservation Area in which the site is located. As a result,
the proposal fails to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012;
Policies 3.4, 3.5 and 7.4 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations
since 2011 (March 2016); Core Strategy (2010) policy CP17, Development
Management Policies (2016) DMP1 and DMP7; Supplementary Planning Guidance 17 “Design
Guide for New Development”, October 2001; and the Mapesbury Conservation Area Design Guide.
The proposed development would not provide an adequate
overall standard of accommodation for future occupiers, by virtue of the lack
of amenity space for all units, the undersized nature of units AF3, AF5, AF8,
AF11 and AF15, the poor outlook of units 2.06, 3.06 and 4.05 and the poor layouts,
narrow widths and usability of the units which would be contrary to Developmen Management
Policy (2016) DMP1 and DMP19, Policy 3.5 of the London Plan consolidated with alterations
since 2011 (March 2016) and the Technical Housing Standards – Nationally
Described Space Standards (2015).
The proposal would fail to provide the maximum reasonable
amount of affordable housing which would be contrary to Core Strategy (2010)
policy CP2 and Development Management Policy (2016) DMP15, policy 3.12 of the
London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016) and policies H5 and H6 of the draft
London Plan.
In the absence of a legal agreement to control the matter
the proposal would result in additional carbon dioxide emissions within the
borough in an Air Quality Management Area, without any contribution to carbon
reduction measures in the area. The proposal would also fail to demonstrate
that a BREEAM rating of at least ‘Very Good’ could be achieved. As a result the
proposal would be contrary to London Plan
consolidated with alterations since 2011 (March 2016) policy 5.2, 5.3
and 7.14, Core Strategy (2010) policy CP19, Development Management Policy (2016) DMP1 and the Mayors Sustainable Design and
Construction SPG (2014).
In the absence of a legal agreement to control the matter,
the development would result in additional pressure on servicing, parking
demand and transport infrastructure to the detriment of the free and safe flow
of traffic and pedestrians which would be contrary to Development Management
Policies (2016) DMP1 and DMP12.
'The proposal would fail to provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing ....'
ReplyDeleteAt last! Butt how many applications in the past few years has Brent approved when the same reason could have been used to reject them, unless the developer improved its affordable housing offer?