It promises to be quite a marathon meeting at the next Brent Council Planning Committee. on Wednesday Three of the proposals are from Brent Council itself and propose infill plans on existing council estates that have been opposed by current tenants and leaseholders.
The officers' recommendations now follow the established pattern of recognising various problems with the applications but end up narrowing them down to a judgement that benefits outweigh the pronlems, even when those are loss of green space, trees, light or a conflict with policy.
Clement Close, Willesden. 68 objections and petition against of 267 signatures, Demolition of one bungalow to be replaced with 21 residential units of 2 terraces and 3 flatted blocks,
“Whilst the proposal results in some impacts such as the loss of trees and open space across the site, officers consider that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to accord broadly with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, should be approved subject to conditions. The proposal would deliver 21 homes that would contribute the Council's housing targets, and the limited conflict with policy would be outweighed by the planning benefits. The benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh any less than substantial harm to the trees within the gardens of neighbouring properties.”
Kilburn Square, Kilburn. 117 letters of objection alongside several letter of objection from Kilburn Village Residents Association. Infill of 139 units in four blocks of 5-8 storeys.
“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. It is therefore considered that the application should be approved subject to the conditions”
Newland Court, Wembley Park. 45 objections. Demolition of all garages replaced by five new homes.
“Whilst the proposal does not meet the 0.4 target for the Urban Greening Factor as set out within policy BH4 and is likely to result in the trees along the northern boundary within the conservation area to require more frequent re-crowning as a result of the development, the scheme would deliver significant benefits including the provision of five affordable family sized homes. Officers consider that taking the development plan as a whole, the proposal is considered to accord broadly with the development plan, and having regard to all material planning considerations, and that the application should be approved subject to conditions. The proposal would deliver five family sized homes that would help to meet the Council's housing needs, and the limited conflict with policy would be outweighed by the planning benefits. The benefits of the scheme are considered to outweigh the impacts associated with the potential higher frequency of work to the trees within the gardens of Barn Hill Conservation Area and the less than substantial harm to the conservation area that may occur.”
I will be publishing more from the objectors over the next tw days.
3 comments:
Brent's planning committee don't give a ...., it's building at any cost. But why? Are councillors landlords?
One of the significant public benefits, which Planning Officers claim 'would far outweigh any harm that has been identified' on the Kilburn Square application is this:
'the development would enhance security within Kilburn Square by providing natural surveillance, CCTV and appropriate security features.'
What they appear to be saying is that as the proposed development would take away the main open space area on the existing estate (including the mature trees which people could hide behind!?) and build a block of flats on it, there would be a smaller area of public space to keep under surveillance and more residents (60% more than the existing estate) to keep it under observation!
A perfect example of Brent's pro-development logic!
Loads are landlords including some who don't declare that they are.
Post a Comment