WILLESDEN GREEN: Controversial Cranhurst Road mixed place of worship/accommodation development Planning Appeal deadline July 8th

 

27 Cranhurst Road, NW2

 

The purple pin marks the property in its suburban context

 

Following refusal of planning permission for extensive alterations to an Edwardian house in Cranhurst Road, Willesden Green the applicant has launched an Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

The application by the Gaudiya Mission  (a Hindu monastic organisation) was for excavation of a basement, the doubling of the number of bedrooms from 4 to 8 and new structures in the garden area.  The house currently has planning permissions for mix as a place of worship and accommmodation.The proposal would have increased the worship area to accommodate more people.

The decision to refuse was made by delegated Brent Planning Officers, not the Brent Planning Comittee.

This is the timetable for the  Appeal:

See LINK

 

'Interested party' comments have to be sent in by Monday July 8th.

This is the proposal as submitted to Brent Council:

Proposed creation of basement, single-storey side to rear extension, rear dormer extension with 2x front rooflights and outbuilding to the rear garden to the premises.

 

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

 

1 The accommodation proposed across the first floor and loft floor levels does not align with the space standards as outlined under policy D6 of the London Plan (2021) and consequently would not provide an adequate standard of accommodation and internal amenity for future residents. As a result, the proposal is therefore contrary to policy DMP1 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-41) and policy D6 of the London Plan (2021).

 

2 The proposed single storey rear and side extension and basement by reason of their design, height and bulk would appear overly prominent, incongruous with and detrimental to the character and appearance of the existing property and surrounding area. As such, the proposal is contrary to planning policies DMP1, BD1, & BD3 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-41), Supplementary Planning Document 2: Residential Extensions and Alterations (2018) and Basement Supplementary Planning Document (2017).

 

3 The proposed rear element at basement and ground floor level, by reason of excessive height and proximity to the boundaries of adjoining properties would have an unacceptable impact to the  neighbouring amenity of the adjoining occupiers. Moreover, the proposal by not offering sufficient natural daylight to the basement and ground floor areas of the premises is deemed to offer poor levels of internal amenity for future occupiers, contrary to policies DMP1, BD1 & BD3 of the Brent Local Plan (2019-2041), the guidance contained within Supplementary Planning Document SPD1 Brent Design Guide (2018) and Basement Supplementary Planning Document (2017).

 

4 The proposal by reason of the insufficient provision of information regarding soft landscaping and planting fails to demonstrate how that the scheme will achieve a satisfactory urban greening factor on the site and provide sustainable urban drainage. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy policies BD1, BGI1 & BSUI4 of Brent's Local Plan (2019-2041) and policies G5 and G6 of the London Plan (2021).

 

5 By reason of the lack of a Fire Statement, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal will provide a suitable fire safety and safe means of escape strategy for all building users, contrary to Policy D12A of the London Plan (2021).

 

6 By virtue of the lack of details regarding bicycle parking and a statement regarding visitor numbers and opening hours, the proposal does not adequately consider the requirements of Local Plan policy BT2 (2019-41).

 

7 No relevant arboricultural studies were submitted in support of the proposal. As such, it is considered that the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that there will not be a harmful impact on trees adjoining the applicant site. Accordingly, the proposal is therefore deemed to be contrary to Policy G7 of the London Plan (2021) and BGI2 of the Brent Local Plan (2019-2041). DocFDN Ref: 23/2411

 

8 By reason of the lack of submission of a suitable Drainage Strategy, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal will achieve greenfield run-off rates for surface water, contrary to Policy BSUI4 of the Local Plan (2019-41)

 

The Officers' Report gives more information on the views of local residents:

 

 

ALERT: Submissions to Wembley Park Station/Brook Avenue Planning Inquiry have to be in by Thursday July 8th - Read Philip Grant's submission

 

Submissions to the Planning Inquiry on the Wembley Park Station/Brook Avenue have a deadline of Thursday July 8th.

The referral to the Planning Inspectorate was made by Robert Jenrick MP, the Communites Secretary, after concern that the Planning Committee's approval decision was unsound as it was alleged to be in breach of Brent Council's own policies. LINK

Local historian Philip Grant has made a detailed submission that you can find below. Click bottom right for a full page view.

The closing date for comments, ahead of the Public Inquiry, is Thursday 8 July. Anyone who wishes to, but has not yet done so, can submit their comments to: leanne.palmer@planninginspectorate.gov.uk , quoting the reference: APP/T5150/ V/21/3275339. 

Did Brent Council do enough to save the Queensbury?

Although it was the Planning Inspector who gave the go ahead for the demolition of the Queensbury Pub there is also an issue of Brent Council's role.  Brent Council never got round to listing the building which would have been a first line of defence but the Planning Inspector himself seemed doubtful that they had properly prepared for the case.

The Save the Queensbury campaign on social media accused the Council of dithering:

Because this was Brent's own doing. Inept officers dithering about new plans in front of them, dancing to the developer tune, rather than preparing for an upcoming Inquiry. Car crash of an Planning Committee in June, officers desperate to approve led to zero prep for the Appeal.

The campaign  are asking Cllr Butt, leader of Brent Council and Carolyn Downs for an explanation of the Inspector's comment on the Council's preparation for the Inquiry (Para 46)

The evolution of the design of the proposed building was clearly set out in the appellant’s evidence, and was carefully analysed by the appellant’s architectural and conservation witnesses. In comparison the Council’s evidence was far less detailed and was given by an architect with apparently very limited experience of comparable developments, and who was doubtless hindered by being instructed only a week before evidence was submitted.

In contrast after considering objections to the Save the Queensbury's website inclusion of an image of a previous application which he said could have been misleading, he writes (Para 70):

That said, the STQ evidence was clear and relevant, and there could be no suggestion that their clear evidence was in any way misdirected

This is the Inspector's conclusion:

Planning balance and conclusion

I have already identified the policies which are most important for determining the appeal above. There is no persuasive evidence that any of the policies are out of date. Considering the policies as a whole, the policies are not out of date and I conclude that the ‘tilted balance’ under paragraph 11 of the Framework is not triggered.  

I am conscious of the considerable importance and weight to be given to the desirability of preserving the character and appearance of conservation areas. However, in this case I have found that the proposal would overall have a neutral effect on the designated area, which is to say that its character and appearance would be preserved. 

The proposal would generate the following main benefits, to which I attach significant weight: 

a.     It would deliver 48 new homes, including 35% affordable housing at the Council’s tenure split. This is accepted as the maximum reasonable amount and is subject to a late review mechanism. The percentage of family sized units is unusually high for a development of this sort.

b.    The re-provision of a larger public house in purpose built accommodation.

c.     The provision of a larger and dedicated community space, along with secure arrangements for the existing and future occupiers.

d.    The development is in a highly sustainable location opposite a tube station and on bus routes, and with a PTAL score of 6.

            For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

-

 The full report is below. Click on the bottom right hand corner for full size version: 

Harrow School Planning Appeal starts Tuesday April 30th

The battle over Harrow School's building application enters a new round next week when the Planning Inspectorate hears the school's appeal against the refusal of planning permission. The London Mayor opposed the new sports hall development on the basis that it was not compatible with protecting the surrounding Metropolitan Open Land.

The Inspector instructed by the Secretary of State is Mr C Parker. If you wish to express a view on the appeal, you may attend the Public Inquiry and at the discretion of the Inspector, state your views in person or through a representative.

For information remember to add the last 4 numbers to the old planning reference number in order to see the appeal documents on the Harrow Council website LBH Appeal No: P/1940/16/5397    www.harrow.gov.uk

An alternative source is at https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk   PINS Ref: App/M5450/W/18/3208434  Put in the last 7 numbers and you can make comments there. 

 Hearing details

Venue Harrow Council, Civil Centre, Station Road, HA1 2XY
Starts at 10am

Day 1 Tuesday 30th April 2019 Committee Room 1 & 2
Day 2 Wednesday 1st May 2019 Council Chambers
Day 3 Thursday 2nd May 2019 Council Chambers
Day 4 Friday 3rd May 2019 Council Chambers
Day 5 Wednesday 8th May 2019 Council Chambers
Day 6 Thursday 9th May 2019 Council Chambers
Day 7 Friday 10th May 2019 Council Chambers
Day 8 Tuesday 14th May 2019 Council Chambers

Another battle between Harrow School and locals comes to a head next month

I have reported the battle between local people in Harrow and Harrow School over the school's plans to build on Metropolitan Open Land and spoil views of the Hill LINK but the school and locals are enaged in another battle, which started in 2003, and is due to come to a head next month.

There is to be three day Harrow School Footpaths Diversion Inquiry at Harrow Civic Centre from January 17th to January 19th 2016 by the Planning Inspectorate where evidence from the public and the school will be heard.

The conflict was reported by The Guardian in 2011 LINK and this extract summarises the issue quite well:

The extraordinary row, which threatens to end in court, stems from a multimillion-pound development of the school's facilities eight years ago when, next to a running track and an extended sports centre, two all-weather pitches were built. At the time, it was agreed by the Ramblers Association – erroneously, it now claims – that the pitches could be put on top of the old pathway as long as an alternative route was created.

But the alternative path, known as a permissive path because its continued existence is at the whim of the school, has now been deemed unacceptable by local walkers. Legally, because it does not follow the route of the old path, the right for people to walk on the new path could be summarily removed with six months' notice, it says.

And because the path circumvents the school's pitches, it has extended what was a gentle stroll across the grounds into a trek. "The permissive path probably pretty well doubles the distance of when you enter the playing fields to when you leave the playing fields," said Graham Wright, the Ramblers Association's local footpath secretary. "These people actually want to get to Harrow, they don't want to walk that extra bit and in some ways they are not having the beauty of Harrow Hill.

"The proper path has the views of St Mary's church and Harrow Hill as you walk, whereas when you do the permissive path you are looking towards Northwick Park hospital and Watford Road. It's not quite the same."

The Ramblers Association says that a small path between the two all-weather pitches should be opened up to the public to resurrect the old path. But the school, which charges up to £30,000 a year per pupil in fees, is not budging, prompting accusations of "arrogance" from some quarters.

The school's application, which includes allegations of dog excrement on the fields and the public wandering off the path can be found HERE

Fairview Homes appeal to demolish the Queensbury Pub to be heard

It looks like the Planning Inspectorate may have to open an office in Brent! Fairview Homes have lodged an appeal against Brent Council planning committee's refusal of their plans for the Queensbury pub site at 110 Walm Lane. Fairview want to demolish the Asset of Community Value and replace it with a block of flats.

The hearing is expected to last three days. The Planning Inspector's letter can be found HERE

A chance to support a French restaurant in Wembley Park

The Planning Inspectorate are considering an appeal by  the owners of Montparnasse  Cafe in Bridge Road, Wembley against Brent Council's refusal of planning permission to convert it into a restaurant.

The Council's decision was condemned on this blog at the time LINK and locals were perplexed by the Council officers' claim that a restaurant would 'result in an unacceptable loss of a retail (A1) unit which would impact on the viability and attractiveness of the centre for shoppers, contrary to policy SH7 of the UDP 2004'.

Since the refusal the Montparnasse has been shuttered pending the appeal.

Comments on the appeal can be sent to the Planning Inspectorate no later than September 25th 2012. They should be sent to the address below quoting reference number APP/T5150/A/12/2176952/NWF

Rachel Owen,
The Planning Inspectorate
Room 3/14
Temple Quay House,
2 The Square, Temple Quay,
Bristol, BS1 6PN

Meanwhile on nearby Grand Parade, Pippa's Cafe, famed for its great selection of cooked breakfasts, has finally closed down after serving the local community for many years. Customers included: building workers, the motor cycle training school, Town Hall workers and a loyal group of self-styled 'Last of the Summer Wine' customers who meet up regularly to solve the world's problems.   The family who ran the cafe  finally admitted defeat after losing money for several years. The cafe  is likely to have been hit by new local parking restrictions. The cafe, the family  and the bubble and squeak will be greatly missed.

However, Zayona, the Middle Eastern cafe/ restaurant next door has come to the rescue of bereft customers and has offered to open up in the morning  for cooked English  breakfasts.  I popped by the other day and found the 'Summer Wine' crew settling into their new home.

There's something rather comforting about the final twist in this story.