Anger as developer lobs in an extra storey on Dollis Hill proposal pleading viability

Less than a month after Alice Lester, Brent Council Head of Planning, sent formal permission for the development at  4-9 Gladstone Parade, the developer has come in with a new application to add an additional storey and an additional 16 units to the proposal. LINK

Their knowledge of the local area is a little suspect when they can't spell the name of the road correctly!:

In comparison with the previous scheme, the proposal introduces an additional storey to the Edgeware Road frontage as well as a partial additional storey at both the Dollis Hill Avenue and Gladstone Park frontages. The raising of the height of the building by 712mm is minimal in the context of the overall development and will barely be perceptible in the wider street scene. The proposal is of a similar, albeit smaller, height to the Fellows Square development on the opposite side of Edgeware Road and therefore the increase in height is considered accepting  (sic) in terms of the emerging local context.

The increase in the number of units is based on a viability assessment:

The Development Appraisal, prepared by James R Brown and Company Ltd, assess the financial viability of the proposed scheme and the residential market in London. 


 Since the viability review of the previous scheme, dated March 2017, the new homes market in London has increasingly and significantly weakened. Residual land values are therefore reducing due to weaker new homes values and increased build costs. Subsequently, the viability of the 38-residential unit scheme is now substantially challenged (due to the weaker market conditions) and therefore in order to improve the viability and efficiency of the site a larger scheme of 54 units its proposed. 


The residential content of the new proposed scheme contains a 34.4% affordable housing provision by habitable room, detail in paragraph 9.2 of the viability report. The appraisal demonstrates that the proposed scheme drives a negative residual deficit and falls marginally short of being viable with 16 affordable housing units in comparison to the consented scheme which is significantly unviable with 10 affordable housing units. 


The revised proposal is already garnering opposition on social media:

Gladstone Parade planning decision: This is NOT democracy

The Planning Committee in action

Guest blog by Alison Hopkins

This is a rant, and it’s long.

It’s about Gladstone Parade, the loss of our shops and the fact that the planning committee on Brent Council is a total waste of space. It never used to be like that: back in the day, the committee was impartial regardless of political composition and also had long serving members who actually understood planning matters, with an excellent Chair. Now, it changes membership constantly, and is, frankly dominated by the leader of the Council and his agenda. That agenda is the wholesale drive to build more and more flats all over Brent, just like Barnet. Now, this would not be so bad if any of those flats were real council housing, not the nonsense called affordable housing. It would also not be so bad if Brent’s Planning officers didn’t simply give in on all fronts to developers who then promptly advertise and sell said flats overseas. Fat lot of good that is to anyone here.

So, the Parade. Built with the houses in the 1920s. The grocer corner shop was there when I was a baby and long before. Hairdresser: fifty odd years. Chip shop – thirty, with a butcher before. Pub, a couple of decades. Two shops have been empty on and off for a while, and that, in my view, was deliberate. The freehold of the land has changed hands a fair bit, and the leases of the shops had lapsed.

The shopkeepers had of course been paying rent and ALL of them had been pushing hard for lease renewals for a long time. There have also been rumours flying of redevelopment for a fair while, but nothing concrete. The first real intimation was when the chip shop owner phoned me in February with the bad news that he’d had a notification letter from Brent Planning. He, and all the rest, had heard NOTHING from the freeholder of the Parade and knew nothing until the letter from Brent arrived. I’d had conversations with other shopkeepers before that and had been keeping an eye on planning applications on Brent’s website. I actually check those all the time for Dollis Hill anyway – I did it as a councillor and I think it’s good practice, as well as keeping one’s ear to the ground.

Having read the application I went and spoke to the shopkeepers, who were obviously devastated. My view from the outset, as someone who knows the area and who we are, was that this was a totally flawed application which seriously disadvantaged us. I tried contacting the developer, who was essentially – how can I put this – mendacious. I know how Brent’s consultation works. A letter to a very few neighbouring houses and a notice on a lamppost. So, I hand delivered about a thousand letters, emailed eight hundred people, and Facebooked this, and we also then went and door knocked.

In all that, I found ONE person in favour. Oh, and we put a petition in the chip shop.

We know what happened next. Lengthy detailed and well thought out objections on line. The petition in the fish shop, got over 650 signatures from all over Dollis Hill and beyond – there were more, but those were too late. A whole bunch more signatures from the hand delivered letters, which also resulted in more on line objections. There were, in the end, five pages of those! Other local people emailed and wrote in directly. Brent Planning, by the way, got those numbers wrong in the officer’s report.

On Monday, the leader of the council was supposed to come and visit the Parade to “listen to locals”, but didn’t – some kind of family emergency. This meeting was also not publicised anywhere, of course. The three councillors finally showed up, having been less than keen to be engaged up until literally the last minute. They have, as has been published here, finally replied to some emails but I am convinced their replies were not written by them. One of the councillors said they’d been talking to Planning “for some months” about the development – a shame they’d not talked to residents, isn’t it.

That same councillor also said that local people seemed less than keen on a CPZ, which may be because of Brent’s outrageous charges. One of the other councillors knew about the issues with bus drivers parking locally, but had no idea who the manager of the bus station is, or the steps they’ve taken to try and fix this. I know what those steps are, because I’ve MET the man. That councillor also claims people from the Hassop Road garages in Cricklewood are parking on our roads, but I doubt that – and I’ve had no complaints about it.

Anyhow.

Wednesday was the Planning Committee meeting. The officer’s report had already recommended passing the application as did what’s called their supplementary report – that’s what gets written after they visited the site. That site visit was last Saturday and I went along. You aren’t supposed try to nobble the committee members but I did manage to point out some of the problems, as did the shopkeepers.

So, the meeting. Some fool had decided to hold it on the same night as 100,000 people were watching Adele at the Stadium. We also weren’t heard till almost ten, as there were two highly contentious other applications before us.

Despite that, all the shopkeepers and the pub owner showed up, as did many locals, who managed to sit it out. Two locals spoke in objection, including the fact that they have right of way and use of the garages – this may yet present a problem for the developer, I hope. I spoke – or rather, I ranted.

You’re only allowed two minutes which is absurd and hardly enough, but so be it. The presentation by the planning officers lied about discussion with the shop owners and presented the development in a manner that really showed how much this was already decided. The planning officer also said you could walk to Cricklewood Station in twelve minutes – has he actually TRIED that? It’s a good half hour. He made reference to the supposed new Brent Cross station which is imaginary and to a possible CPZ, also imaginary. The real bombshell was that Brent had been talking to the developers for over a YEAR. That’s BEFORE the freehold got sold to them! The leader of Brent Council would have known about this and so, I think, would the Dollis Hill councillors.

To repeat: it’s supposed to be councillors who run things, but this whole sad sorry mess makes it clear that it’s officers, the head of so called Regeneration and the Leader who hold the power. There are a handful of councillors who dare fight back and they get both abused and side-lined.

Another local made an excellent speech about the poor living quality of the flats, the air pollution on the Edgware Road, their unsuitability for families and the parking issues. He was speaking on behalf of a statutory consultee, the Dollis Hill Residents Association, who had also NOT been properly consulted.

Anyhow, I raised two of the many issues, namely, the loss of the shops and the parking and traffic issues. The committee ignored the latter. In his summing up after, the Planning Officer blithely said that yes, he agreed the Brent Cross station would be delayed but that didn’t matter, as the transport assessment was based on what is there now. He also, equally blithely, said that the solution would be to effectively impose controlled parking in our roads. Whether that’s an answer or not, it ignores the real issues around the flats, namely high density and access. I am convinced Brent wants to impose controlled parking all over the borough: it’s a great money spinner for them. I also ranted about the flats across the road being marketed to China, and that there’s no guarantee the affordable housing level will be maintained, or that the flats won’t lie empty.

I was questioned by some of the committee members. One stated that all the shops were run down and shut, that they’d not been there long and that Lidl had taken business from them. Given that they’re open and doing well, and that Lidl has been there for what, ten years? – this is nonsense. I had pushed for regeneration, and another councillor asked which companies might do that, so I quoted several. Another asked about the petition and looked through the fish shop one. But it was all rather half hearted.

Cllr Dixon spoke. The three of them seemed, on MONDAY, to have finally got off the fence, but it all felt very half-hearted to me. They had still lodged not one objection on line. She didn’t address planning issues, which is actually what you need to do when addressing the committee, but rather talked about the community round the Parade. The gist of it was that she had only discovered in the past few weeks how strong the community is and had been unaware of how thriving. She did pick up on the low level of affordable housing, but didn’t seem aware of the difference between that and social housing – that’s council housing, to you and me. She also said that she’d been backing the plans up until she became aware of this strength of community. She did query the lack of consultation: in my view, one of the functions of a councillor is to tell people what’s going on, and they had all known about this for many months, supposedly.

The Planning Officer summed up. He again claimed the shop keepers were in discussion with the developers, to which they shouted back that they were not. He claimed consultation had been adequate: a few letters, the newspaper notice, the notice on the lamppost. He said that this was proven by the volume of objections, to which I shouted back that hand delivering a thousand letters was probably more of a reason. He acknowledged my remark about Brent Cross and the station, and called it irrelevant, then stated AGAIN that it’s only a twelve minute walk to Cricklewood Station.

This was roundly jeered at. He talked about how important it is for Brent to hit housing targets and that the developers would have to give £400,000 to Brent for “local projects”. There is, by the way, no guarantee at all that Dollis Hill will see a penny of that.

They voted and passed it, with one exception a councillor who lives in Brent North, and seemed to understand far more than the rest. The hairdresser was in tears, the pub owner is furious and the chip shop and Londis owners, stunned and bewildered.

This is not democracy in any way. This is a failure to listen to local people, yet again. It’s also not how you represent local people: the campaign against this has been grass roots, with no help at all from elected representatives. I’ve both fought and supported planning applications in the past and managed to get real improvements in them. You can’t win every objection but as a councillor, you really should fight.

So, let’s just sum that up. Over a THOUSAND written objections ignored, which represents far more.
Just remember that next May, hm?

Huge disappointment as Brent approves controversial development proposals for Corrib and Gladstone Parade

The divide between local residents and Brent Council widened further last night when despite opposition from local residents, supported by their councillors, the Planning Committee followed officer advice and approved controversial developments at the Corrib Rest, Queens Park, and Gladstone Parade, Dollis Hill.

Although listed as objecting to the Corrib Rest proposal, Robin Sharpe representing the 400 strong Queens Park Area Residents Association, actually spoke in support of the application although he felt it could be improved.  He suggested that QPARA had been successful in increasing the number of hours that the replacement community space would be available to 40 hours although they would like it to be available until 3pm on Fridays rather than just Monday to Thursday.  He urged the developer to work with the community to make the project a success. Full text HERE

 A Hopefield Avenue resident also spoke in favour claiming that the new proposal would reduce the 'nuisance' previously experienced by homeowners in Hopefield because the community space would now be on the ground floor, rather than the first floor, and would not have an entrance in her street.

Opposing the application Kevin Barratt, representing Irish Pensioners and the 2,000 people who had signed a petition opposing the development, wanted to see more community involvement before a decision was made. He said that the Council would be better off keeping the Corrib as a community facility, rather than using money generated by the development to fund other community facilities.

He argued that with no street entrance in Hopefield Avenue, users would have to access the ground floor community room by walking through the bar, which would not be appropriate for some users. He suggested that the community space had been 'designed to fail' so that eventually the developer could convert it into housing.   He said that the replacement space was smaller than the current two first floor spaces that were to be replaced by flats. The proposed ground floor community room lacked light and space and the number of toilets had been reduced.

Dan Judelson who had tried to co-ordinate meanwhile space at the Corrib said that opposition to the scheme was 'wide and deep' and that their submission explained whey they had pulled out. He said that they were dealing with a property developer and not a community organisation and that the best guide was to look at the developer's track record in Camden. We shouldn't rely on businesses to provide community spaces of their own volition, such facilities should be supported and protected by councillors and the Council.

Cllr Denselow pointed to the 25% reduction in the number of London pubs and thus the need to protect the Corrib's Asset of Community Value status and to follow the Council's pub protection policy.  He wanted to see a thriving community space funded by the Council. He raised the question of whether Brent Council had the necessary skills to implement the Business Plan for the project.

Cllr Nerva said he had been trying to work out why no separate entrance had been provided for the community space and asked if there were plans to rescue the dance floor by re-installing it on the ground floor or making it available to another organisation.  The pub's viability would depend on the rent to be paid to the landlord (both for community space and the weekend commercial lettings) and he wanted to see upfront information on comparable rents locally. He asked how the community room provision could be revoked by the owner of it turned out not to be successful.  He thought an entrepreneurial landord would seek to extend the hours for the community space.

Cllr Pitruzzella was concerned that the community space would not be available at the weekend (Friday, Saturday, Sunday) for community activities. Cllr Conneely sent a written submission objecting to the privatisation of a community facility if the development went ahead and remarked that she had used the Corrib as a community hub for 30 years and did not want to lose it. She queried representation on the community board that would oversee the community space. Cllr Duffy sent in a request that the Committee defer a decision pending further consultation.

Paul Clough, Brent Legal Adviser, said that the landlord would have to apply to the Council for any variation in conditions attached to the community space.  Summing up the Brent Planning Officer said that they were satisfied that the developer's was a 'generous offer' and warned that it was important not to make too many conditions that would mean the pub became unviable.  He said that they had investigated a stand alone community space with its own entrance but could not ignore the concerns of Hopefield Avenue residents and their experience of anti-social behaviour.  He said it was not reasonable to request availability of the space earlier in the day as this had not happened before. Officers would look into how to advertise the space to ensure community groups knew about it and would set up a review if it was not being used. He suggested that wording be added to say that hire rates should be comparable to local authority rates.

Planning Committee members then voted unanimously for the application. Cllr Choudhary's hand did not appear the be raised but he confirmed later that he had voted for the proposal.

Afterwards it was clear that some of the long-term users of the Corrib felt that they had been scuppered by Hopefield Avenue resident protecting the value of their properties from a Corrib user profile which did not match their, or the Council's,  aspirations for the area.

Next up was the proposal to demolish Gladstone Parade on the Edgware Road, Dollis Hill, with its local shops and flats above, with a much bigger development.  Alison Hopkins spoke as lead petitioner saying that the shops were a local community asset, the hairdresser had been there for 50 years and the grocery shop had recently been refurbished. There was no guarantee that the current shopkeepers would be offered a lease or tenure of the replacement shops or would be able to afford it. Residents objected to over-development of the site as well as the replacement accommodation being unaffordable to locals. Instead they wanted the current properties, which appeared to have been deliberately run down, with vacant properties not marketed by the freeholder (in order to help his application?),  to be regenerated and refurbished - not demolished and replaced by something that did not meet local needs.

Andy Thompson for Dollis Hill Residents Association, a statutory consultee, said that that the proposed development was inappropriate for the area and did not meet density requirements. Its position on the busy Edgware Road, with high air pollution, meant that the development would not be suitable for families, with children's health particularly at risk.

To cries of denial from the residents and shopkeepers in the public gallery, the developer claimed to have had discussions with the fish and chip shop owner and others (a claim later repeated by Brent planning officers) and that that there had been detailed reapplication discussions with planning officers to ensure the proposal was acceptable.  Six of the housing units were 'intermediate' and four 'affordable' although the latter rate was not defined.

Cllr Liz Dixon, representing residents, said that at first she had been in favour of the development recognising that it provided much needed housing, However, she had been inundated with  comments from local people and shopkeepers and realised that the Parade was a vital part of the local community.  It was very much an elderly community who have known each other and the shops for years.  She had been educated along with the campaign and a sense of community was at the heart of the issues.  It was true that the community had not been consulted properly and this was a major concern. Addressing the developer she said, you haven't learnt about the community.  The new homes would be at the expense of the existing community - there was a need to balance what we need with what we have. In a phrase which would serve for many of the developments in the borough, including or perhaps especially, Wembley, she said that new developments had to benefit the existing community.

The Committee then voted 7-1 in favour of the application with Cllr Maurice the lone councillor voting against.

Supplementary reports on Gladstone Parade and Corrib Rest for tonight's Planning Committee

Officers still recommend approval. Corrib Rest has added conditions and obligations.

1.      Site visit - Gladstone Parade

1.1       Members visited the site on Saturday 24 June and viewed the site from the north, east and south. Members raised the following queries:

How the building line would change 


Whether existing occupiers have been offered new tenancies 


Trees 


Amenity space 
1.2 The change in the building line has been addressed in paragraph 6.2 and 6.3 of the committee report. The building is currently set back from Edgware Road by 9 metres. The proposed building would be sited closer to Edgware Road and would be angled rather than straight. The building would be located 4 metres from the road on the northern side of the site and 8 metres from the road on the southern side of the site. 
1.2 The applicant has been in contact with the existing tenants of Skippers Choice fish and chip shop about occupying the proposed A5 use. With regard to the other existing tenants, all of the existing leases of the current units in the shopping parade with the exception of the Estate Agents have expired. However informal negotiations regarding their leases have also been ongoing over the past few weeks. 
1.3 he existing tree is of low quality with an estimated remaining life expectancy of at least 10 years. In mitigation, the proposals include replacement tree planting of five trees to the landscaped areas along Edgware Road as well as new tree planting to the communal garden to the rear of the property. Further details of this replacement planting would be secured by condition 14. 
1.4 The amount of amenity space has been addressed in paragraph 4.2 of the committee report (page 72). Residents would have access to a mixture of their own private balconies and 388sqm of communal roof terraces that combine to meet Brent DMP19 amenity space requirements. 
2. Further representation 
A local resident has provided written comments on the following issues: 
2.1 Loss of retail of community value
As set out in paras 1.1 to 1.5 on pages 70-71 of the report, the existing units are afforded no policy protection with the exception of the public house. The public house and an A5 takeaway unit will be re-provided as part of the proposal. As well as this two A1/A2 units will also be provided that could accommodate a shop or hairdressers in the new development. 
2.2 Harm to character
The impact of the proposal on the character of the area is covered in paragraph 6 – Impact on character and design of the committee report (page 74). 


2.3       Parking and traffic

The issue of parking and traffic has been covered in paragraph 5 of the committee report. A resident has also raised concerns with potential congestion in the area. Overspill parking is addressed in para 5.1 (page 73). The volumes of vehicle trips that are likely to be generated are not significant, particularly compared with flows on the Edgware Road.

2.4       Daylight and sunlight
The issue of daylight and sunlight has been covered in paragraph 7.3 of the committee report (page 75). A resident has raised concerns about overshadowing of the school to the north of the application site. As is normal practice the school was not included in the daylight and sunlight report because it is not a residential building. However notwithstanding this due to the separation distance of the proposed building of 30m from the school building and 18m from the edge of the playground it is considered that there would be no materially harmful loss of light or overshadowing to the pupils and teachers.

2.5       Fire safety
Fire safety is not a planning consideration however in light of recent events the applicant has submitted a fire safety briefing outlining measures such as access, heat and smoke alarms, means of escape and necessary signage and lighting.

2.6       Lack of benefit for the area
The proposal would result in a net increase of 32 homes to the borough, 10 of which would be family sized units and 10 of which would be affordable housing. The proposal will also provide training and employment opportunities for Brent residents that will again be secured by a legal agreement.

Recommendation: Remains approval subject to conditions and section 106 legal agreement.

1.      Committee site visit  - Corrib Rest

Members visited the site on 24 of June 2017 and viewed the site from the surrounding area. Members also viewed the ground floor where the proposed function room would be located and the first floor where the current function rooms are located. Members queried:

how people would access the community space; 


how the booking system would operate; and 


what would constitute a ‘community’ activity. 
1.1 People would access the function room via the ground floor main entrance of the public house located in Salusbury Road. 
1.2 Bookings could be made up to six weeks before an event and would be made either over the telephone or in writing at least 10 days before the event. This would be secured as an obligation in a s106 agreement. 
1.3 There is no statutory definition of ‘community’ activities however the draft s106 has provided a definition of ‘community groups’ that are defined as “groups or organisations set up for charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes that include a substantial amount of activity or control by members of the public in a voluntary capacity, or provide organised training in the performing arts associated with specific cultural groups”. 
2. Further representations 
2.1 Cllr Duffy has raised the following concerns: 


Use of the term ‘minimum’ in referring to the number of hours the community would be able to use the function room 


Request the hearing be deferred to permit further public debate where Planning Officers explain the reasoning behind the recommendation. This has also been raised by a local resident. 
2.1.1 The use of the word ‘minimum’ refers to the fact that legally the owner will have to provide priority access for community groups for 40 hours per week from 12:00 to 22:00 hours Monday to Thursday. This would not prevent the owner from hiring out the room to individuals or community groups outside of the set 40 hours: it would be for the pub operator to determine what would best ensure the viability of their business. 
2.1.2 The committee hearing is the public meeting at which a planning application is debated. The application has been widely publicised between the end of February and the report’s publication in mid June. 
2.2 Cllr Denselow has queried the use of a restrictive condition on the occupation of the proposed flats unless the public house is occupied. Officers recommend a planning obligation or condition is imposed requiring approval of an effective marketing plan for the pub and that the applicant uses reasonable endeavours to ensure the pub is operational before occupation of the flat. Officers consider this to be reasonable because if the applicant was not able to find a tenant they would not be able to change the use of the public house without first obtaining planning permission due to recommended condition 7 and the ACV status of the 
 premises. However Cllr Denselow confirmed that he would still be objecting to the proposal.

2.3       A local resident raised a query regarding the amount of notice individuals would have to give before booking the function room. Please see response in paragraph 1.2.

2.4       A resident has reiterated their concerns with the accuracy of the Daylight/Sunlight report. This was addressed in paragraph 6.3 of the committee report however the applicants’ consultant has provided a further response to the points raised. As a consequence, Officers remain satisfied that the daylight/sunlight report has been properly prepared and the impact on neighbouring amenity would be acceptable.

2.5       A resident has raised concerns with the timing of the building being listed as an Asset of Community Value (ACV). The asset was listed in July 2015 and the title updated to reflect this in April 2016. This is not a material planning consideration as it does not affect the status of the ACV listing. It is understood that the delay was due to the applicant not providing a relevant information.

3.  Notifications of committee

3.1         Ward Councillors did not receive the standard notification letter detailing the committee date. All Ward Councillors are aware of the meeting and as such have not been prejudiced in any way.

4.  Corrections to the report

4.1         The consultation dates in the ‘Consultation’ section of the committee report were incorrectly listed and should have read that neighbour consultation letters were issued to 68 properties on the 21/02/2017. A site notice was displayed on 24/02/2017. Press notice advertised on 02/03/2017.

4.2         The number of objections received was incorrectly listed in the ‘Consultation’ section of the committee report as 149 and should have read 151. All objections were however taken into account during the assessment of the application.

5.  Additional conditions and obligations

5.1         Officers recommend a further planning obligation be imposed, draft text as follows: Within 3 months of material start submit to the Council for its approval a marketing plan for the public house and function room and not to occupy any part of the residential development unless the marketing plan has been approved and implemented and the public house and function room marketed in accordance with the approved plan for an agreed period of time and the applicant uses all reasonable endeavours to ensure the public house and function room is operational before occupation of any part of the residential development.

5.2         The applicant has also requested that they be permitted to place table and chairs on the Salusbury Road frontage. Officers recommend condition 5 be varied to expressly prohibit the placing of tables and chairs on Hopefield Avenue frontage and to place no tables or chairs on the Salusbury Road frontage unless in accordance with a plan covering their siting and hours of use to be approved by the local planning authority.

Recommendation: Remains approval subject to conditions and section 106 legal agreement.

Has Gladstone Parade had its chips?

Not if local residents have their way. Six hundred and sixtyone  people have signed a petition opposing the loss of the fish and chip shop on Gladstone Parade, Edgware Road, which they fear would go if the site is redeveloped and other ojections have been lodged including over-development of the site; loss of light, amenity and health; low level of affordable housing proposed, parking and the recurring theme in Brent of lack of consultation.

The planning application is due to be discussed at Wednesday’s Planning Committee and in a controversial move Cllr Muhammed Butt is due to visit Gladstone Parade this evening at 6pm. The move is controversial because the Planning Committee is independent of the Council by statute and political interference in its deliberations is illegal.  Butt was able to make representations in the Wembley Stadium application on the basis that he was representing residents in his Tokyngton ward - this is not the case with this application.

Responding to concerns over the potential loss of the pub and fish and chip shop Brent planners state:

The pub will be reprovided as well as two units that could potentially house a shop due to their use class and a unit will be provided that could provide a replacement fish and chip shop. 

Given that there are likely to be issues of affordability regarding the new units this leaves little certainty and representations against the application will be made on Wednesday.

Cllr Liz Dixon, responding to a resident’s objections wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to draft and send this comprehensive overview of your objections to the proposed redevelopment plan of Gladstone Parade.

I can reassure you that we have been following this development closely. We are acutely aware that many in the local community are extremely distressed as they anticipate the consequences of the new development. From my point of view I can see that the development in Barnet looms over the area and this must heighten the concern. That said there are some benefits to be had for the community with the new development apart from new housing ; there is space for the chip shop and the shop and the pub. 

Even limited social housing in non high rise is attractive in a borough which desperately need more social housing. As a local councillor most of my case work is focused on those who are homeless or overcrowded and we often have to send residents out of London.

We have visited the shops and visited the planning offices in the council to raise all the objections and to learn more about the project. They have modified the plans and there are facilities to accommodate the new shops which will be housed in any new development. However that may not be enough.

We are due to visit the shops with the Leader of the Council before the matter goes to planning to ensure we are all aware of the ongoing concerns of local residents like yourself.
Again thank you very much for taking the time to highlight local concerns
and issues.

The matter is before planning this week where the concerns will be heard and considered. I have been at planning meetings before and can vouch for the rigour of the offices in ensuring that they do take into consideration all the concerns. This is where the local community does have an opportunity to make their concerns heard. I agree with you that in light of the horrific tragedy at the Grenfell towers all councils must ensure they are really listening to their residents who have knowledge and well placed concerns such as those expressed in your email.