Campaigners will be sharpening their swords for next week's Planning Committee as two controversial planning applications are heard. (Wednesday 18th October 6pm) Mumbai Junction is from a private developer while Kilburn Square is from Brent Council itself.
Swords may not be much of a match for the developers' bulldozer (soon to be driven by Keir Starmer!) but a lively meeting is in prospect.
Mumbai Junction (John Lyon pub) proposal
The Mumbai Junction application was deferred at a previous meeting when officers intervened to derail a straight rejection by the Planning Committee. LINK Officers felt that the reasons for rejection put forward by the members were inadequate and would open the Council to an expensive appeal.
Officers have now come forward with a report that still recommends approval of the scheme but suggests reasons that the Committee could give for rejection. There is an air of 'On your own head be it' about the report:
Officers remain of the view that the scheme is compliant with the policies that have been set out. It has been clearly demonstrated that the proposed development would deliver the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing (in this case no affordable housing). A late stage review mechanism would be secured within a Section 106 Agreement to capture any off site contributions towards affordable housing in the event that viability improves.
Officers do not consider there to be any substantive grounds for refusal based upon the affordable housing provision as the scheme is in line with the relevant policies.
If members are minded to go against Officer advice a reason is suggested below:
The proposal would fail to provide an appropriate level of Affordable Housing to meet an identified local need within the Borough. This would be contrary to Policy BH5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policies H4, H5 and H6 of the London Plan (2021).
In summary, the scale and massing of the proposed development is larger than the surrounding context and represents a departure from policy BH4 in this respect and one could reasonably consider that this departure warrants the refusal of planning permission.
However, officers consider the overall appearance to be appropriate in light of the site’s specific characteristics. Furthermore, the benefits of the scheme (including the delivery of homes in the borough) are considered to outweigh the policy departure from Policy BH4.
Nevertheless, if, bearing in mind the discussion above, the Planning Committee are still minded to refuse the application, then the following reason for refusal could be considered:
The proposed development by reason of its scale, design, bulk, massing and siting in relation to the suburban context of the site would appear as an excessively dominant building which would have a detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding area. This would be contrary to Policies DMP1, BD1 and BH4 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021)
It is legitimate for Members to ensure that the optimum site capacity is achieved within development proposals. However, officers consider that this has been achieved for the site.
Notwithstanding the officer recommendation, if the Planning Committee are still minded to refuse the application for this reason, then the following reason for refusal could be considered:
The proposal would fail to optimise the capacity of the site and this would result in a deficit in relation to local needs, in particular affordable housing. This would be contrary to Policies DMP1 and BH5 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, and Policies D3, H4, H5 and H6 of the London Plan (2021)
Kilburn Square proposal
The Kilburn Square proposal has also been controversial and changes made since the first version of the application have included the removal of a second tower. However, issues such as densification, loss of daylight, loss of amenity, loss of green and play space, loss of 13 mature trees and fire safety remain concerns. The officers' report introduces a new concept (to me anyway) of 'doorstep play space' that conjures up visions of terraced cottages opening straight on to the street.
Officers' report:
Following public consultation, objections from a total of 117 people have been received. One objection has been received from MP Tulip Siddiq for Hampstead and Kilburn (objection reflects concerns of residents within this constituency), as well as an objection from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) charity and an objection from the Brent Parks Open Space Forum. One objection has also been received from Sian Berry who is a Green Party member within City Hall.
Four (4) petitions have also been received against the development. These include:
· Petition containing 21 different signatures representing objections from residents of Algernon Road
· Petition containing 103 different signatures representing objections from residents of Brondesbury Road, Brondesbury Villas and Donaldson Road
· Petition containing 14 different signatures representing objections from residents of Sandwood Court
· Petition containing 176 different signatures representing objections from residents of Victoria Road, Victoria Mews and Hazelmere Road
After a long and detailed discussion of the objectors' alleged 'harms' of the scheme and what officers see as its benefits LINK officers' conclude:
Conclusion
247. The proposal would provide 139 new homes including 40 extra-care homes and 99 Use Class C3 homes. At least 50 % of those homes would be Affordable, with 70 % of the Affordable homes provided at London Affordable. The proposal is considered to constitute a well composed series of blocks that fit well within their context. The proposal will result in the loss of some of the amenity spaces within the site and some car parking, but improvements to the remaining amenity spaces and play spaces are proposed whilst car parking has been demonstrated to be sufficient to meet demand. All new homes will be "car free" and will be supported by a Travel Plan. Cycle parking has been provided for existing and new residents along with electric vehicle charging points.
248. The buildings will be near to existing heritage assets and 'Less than Substantial Harm' has been identified to the significance of the Kilburn Conservation Area. However, a balancing exercise has been undertaken with regard to paragraph 202 of the NPPF, it is considered that the very limited 'less than substantial harm' that has been identified is significantly outweighed by the public benefits that would be afforded as a result of this development.
249. When considering other impacts, the development would result in some impact to the light and outlook of a number of neighbouring occupiers both within and adjacent to the existing site. Although the proposal has been designed to limit the degree of impact , it has been noted that there would be some losses of daylight which would be material to a limited number of windows on existing properties. When considering the impacts on the overall living conditions of these neighbouring occupiers, the would largely be modest and not have a significant effect on the function of the function of the properties as a whole. Furthermore, when considering the site allocation, the requirement to make efficient use of land and the impact of any meaningful development would have in comparison, the proposal would achieve an appropriate balance. The benefits of the new dwellings, a policy compliant provision of affordable housing and the NAIL accommodation, for which there is an identified need.
250. In addition, the development would enhance security within Kilburn Square by providing natural surveillance, CCTV and appropriate security features. Landscaping would be improved with additional planting and a layout that would provide an attractive setting for the resultant buildings and more useable areas for recreation.
These public benefits are significant and would far outweigh any harm that has been identified and the application is considered to be in compliance with the Development Plan when read as a whole.
251. It is therefore considered that the application should be approved subject to the conditions set out,
If you along to the meeting in person it may be an idea to take a flask and sandwiches - it may be a long one. (Also accessible online).
The Mumbai Junction Planning Application has already been REFUSED by the Planning Committee.
ReplyDeleteAll the new Meeting needs to do is to CONFIRM REFUSAL and state the grounds for refusal.
Anything else would be a major abuse of the Planning System and would bring the Brent Planning Process into disrepute.
Interesting point. The Minutes of the meeting record that members were 'minded to refuse the application' rather than they actually voted to refuse it:
ReplyDeleteAs there were no further questions from members and having established that all members had followed the discussions, the Chair asked members how they were minded to vote on the recommendations. The majority of Members on the Committee had indicated they were minded to refuse the application. However, officers considered that some of the cited reasons did not reflect departures from policy, whilst other reasons were unclearly set out. Members then voted to DEFER
the consideration of the application to a future Committee meeting in order to enable a further report to be provided addressing the indicative reasons outlined as the basis for refusal, relating to affordable housing and viability, the height and design
of the scheme in relation the surrounding area and whether the development of the site had been optimised as well as clarity on the balance of the schemes harm against its benefits
After his speech yesterday, if Keir Starmer gets in there'll be no refusal - it'll be build build build everywhere 😞
ReplyDeleteMartin
ReplyDeleteThis extract from the Planning Committee Code of Conduct may explain the what happened when the Mumbai Junction Application was Refused and why it has been brought back:
"6.When the Planning Committee vote to refuse an application contrary to the
recommendation of officers, the Chair shall put to the meeting for approval a statement of the planning reasons for refusal of the application, which if approved shall be entered into the minutes of that meeting. Where the reason for refusal proposed by the Chair is not approved by the meeting, or where in the Chair's view it is not then possible to formulate planning reasons for refusal, the application shall be deferred for further consideration at the next meeting of the Committee. At the next meeting of the Committee the application shall be accompanied by a further written report from officers, in which the officers shall advise on possible planning reasons for refusal and the evidence that would be available to substantiate those reasons. If the Committee is still of the same view then it shall again consider its
reasons for refusing permission which shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting."
The Planning Application was debated for a very long time and when it came to the vote it was REFUSED by a large majority. The Chair was in a minority and it is not surprising that he could not come up with a stated reason to justify the REFUSAL (as the Code suggests) as he voted for it.
Officers have updated the report for the next Planning Meeting giving a number of reasons justifying refusal. The reasons for REFUSAL should now be accepted by the Planning Committee. If the Applicants do not like the REFUSAL decision they can always appeal to the Planning Inspectorate Service.
My point is that the reason for bringing the item back to Committee is purely to agree reasons for refusal and NOT to reconsider that refusal.
The other point to make is that the decision should only be considered by the same Councillors who attended the original meeting and NOT any new Councillors who were not present at the original meeting and did not hear all the arguments presented by both sides including a number of objectors.
To do anything else would be a clear abuse of process.