Cllr Tom Stephens posted this on the Next Door website earlier today
As one of Sudbury’s local Councillors, I’m pleased to confirm that the planning inspector has today *REJECTED* Pocket Living’s proposal to build 1-bedroom flats in Sudbury Town station car park. Residents will recall that Brent Council’s own Planning Committee refused the development on 11 June 2020. Alongside Sudbury residents, myself and fellow Councillor Mary Daly spoke against the development and sent strong written objections. Like you, we were concerned about the impact the would have on parking in the area - especially disabled parking - and the lack of any genuinely affordable, family housing. The developer then appealed to the Planning Inspector and the inspector has been considering the case for several months.
We argued the Planning Inspector should reject Pocket Living’s appeal and refuse the development, as did Brent Council. We attended the hearings and the site visits and spoke against the developments then. We are delighted to inform you that on 19th January, the Planning Inspector dismissed Pocket Living’s appeal and rejected the development. They argued that the development won’t provide the appropriate level of affordable housing or mix of housing unit types - a clear breach of a Brent Council’s local plan. We hope this will come as good news. We are pleased to have opposed this development from day 1 and to have worked alongside residents to send in objections. We will continue to oppose it.
There is quite a history to this development proposal see LINK and confusion over deferral LINK.
Paul Lorber raised an official complaint about how the application was handled LINK
Following the deferral the developer came back to Brent Planning Committee with a revised proposal and Wembley Matters reported:
After a lengthy discussion Brent Planning Committee again rejected the TfL application for a development of 'pocket homes' on the car park at Sudbury Town Station. Despite a £600k offer by the developer towards the build costs of 6 three bedroomed homes outside the area, the committee stuck to their original objection on grounds of lack of family homes for the site itself, the loss of the car park and its impact on acessiblity for people with protected characteristics; and the applications lack of compliance with Local and London plans. Three members of the public and two councillors made very persuasive presentations opposing the application.
TfL are intent on developing other station car parks so the result of this appeal and the grounds for refusal will be widely studied.
