The proposed block of flats that would replace the bar/restaurant
The controversial Mumbai Junction redevelopment was due to be discussed at tomorrow's Planning Committee but the Council has now announced that its consideration will be deferred to a future meeting.
The proposal has met with firece opposition from local residents, Barry Gardiner MP, Sudbury Court Residents Association, and the ward councillors for Northwick Park.
I could see only one comment in favour on the Council Planning Portal and 539 against.
Brent Planning Officers had however recommended approval and deployed the 'less than substantial level of harm' argument as well as a suggestion that 'the limited conflict with policy' could be dealt with through mitigation. I leave you to sort out the sentence on affordable housing!
The proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, and, having regard to allmaterial planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions and obligations secured through a Section 106 Agreement. The proposal would result in the provision of 42 new homes, including 11 family sized homes, and would meet an identified need in the borough. The scheme would comply with affordable housing policy despite the absence of affordable housing as it has been demonstrated that the scheme would result in a deficit against reasonable target profit levels. The proposed development is larger than thesurrounding buildings both in terms of height and massing. As discussed the Officer view is that the design responds well to its the context and is well composed albeit it would represent a strong element in the local street views. No harm is considered to result to the setting of the Sudbury Court Conservation Area.
However, if one did conclude that a degree of harm resulted, the Officer's view is that the level of harm this would be "less than substantial" and significantly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. The scheme would be air quality neutral in relation to building emissions, but would not be air quality neutral in relation to transport emissions. The limited conflict with policy is capable of a degree of mitigation through the development of a travel plan and moreover considered to be outweighed by the planning benefits of the scheme including the delivery of 42 new homes with 11 family sized homes, contributing towards the Council's housing targets,
What a patheticly weak argument for the planners to make. Why didn't they just say, we don't give toss what residents think, we've been told it has to be built. Remember, no money towards affordable housing, just profit for the owner and developer.
ReplyDeleteSo, 500 people think it's too big, ugly, out of character, an eyesore, but the planners don't, they think "that the design responds well to its the context and is well composed albeit it would represent a strong element in the local street views. No harm is considered to result to the setting of the Sudbury Court Conservation Area", that's not what they said last time!!! and "the Officer's view is that the level of harm this would be "less than substantial" and significantly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme" What benefits?
ReplyDeleteThe scheme would be air quality neutral in relation to building emissions, but would not be air quality neutral in relation to transport emissions, and this bunch support ULEZ!!!! Hypocrites tell us it can be mitgated by a Travel Plan - they do talk rubbish.
Brent require contributions to affordable housing, but as this developer says they can't afford it, that's OK
It seems it's all about Housing Targets which the government withdrew. Still Brent have built more shoe boxes than any other Borough in the country.
Shame on you Brent
Yet another own goal by the developer's best friend Tower Block Tatler. Why don't they sack her, she's totally incompetent.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, if she stood to be your MP in Brent, would you vote for her after what's she's done to the Borough, moreover Wembley?
Brent council officers don't live here so they just don't care!!!
ReplyDeleteIf Barry Gardiner had objected to the latest Barham Park planning application would it have been approved??? We would like to know why he didn't object??? Double standards!
ReplyDeleteOne reason the application may have been pulled from tomorrow's meeting is.the threat of a legal challenge if the committee approve it.
ReplyDeleteI unferstand that most of the committee members had a meeting with the developer last year, so should not be the ones considering and deciding the application now.
Of course the planning commitee members have had meetings with the developer and the planning officers have spent months guiding the developers regarding what would get approval, exactly the same as they did with George Irvin re his latest planning applications for Barham Park - wonder how much all of this specialist guidance has cost us council tax payers??? No money for proper enforcement officers to catch fly tippers, street drinkers etc but loads to pander to the whims of mega rich developers regarding planning advice.
Delete“The scheme would comply with affordable housing policy despite the lack of affordable housing” - at least the council are not honest they don’t really care about anything
ReplyDeleteWhen I wrote to Brent's Head of Planning ahead of the meeting on the Barham Park application, I told him that the integrity and credibility of Brent's Planning Service was on the line.
ReplyDeleteAfter that decision and this recommendation, it's hard to see how Brent's planners have any credibility left. And as for integrity ...?
As I said before they don't live here so why should they care?
DeleteWe've yet to meet any council officers who actually live in Brent 😞
Perhaps time for an FOI asking for minutes of meetings between Irwin and his representatives, with councillors?
ReplyDeleteYes. Do it!
DeleteIt appears that this developer has a big mouth as does the site owner.
ReplyDelete