UPDATED: Details of the 'significant changes' in Dudden Hill/Willesden High Road application which led to deferral

 

Matt Kelcher, Chair of Brent Planning Committee, announced that the planning application for the very large development between Dudden Hill and High Road, Willesden, would not be taken at tonight's meeting.

The reason given was that the developer had submitted 'significant' late changes to the application, presumably to address the reasons planning officers had given for, unusually in Brent, recommending refusal of the applciation LINK.

Sceptics on social media had already suggested that 'the developer will be back with a few changes and then the planners and committee will back it.'

It may come back as early a next month when officers have had a chance to assess it and committee members have had time to review revised documentation.

Let's wait and see if the sceptics are right.

UPDATE 

Philip Grant sent the comment below which tells us much more:

I  think that the answer to what the 'significant late changes' were for application 18/3498 is contained in the supplementary report to the Planning Committee meeting (main text "copy and pasted" below for information).

Instead of changing the affordable housing offer for their own scheme, the developers are offering to pay the Council £1.5m, to build affordable rented accommodation somewhere else in the borough!

The current shortfall on "affordable rent" in their scheme is 13 homes. Would £1.5m cover the cost of building that many new Council homes?

Following this 'significant change', will Planning Officers now recommend the application for approval? I wouldn't bet against it!

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT:-

'Revised Affordable Housing Offer:

At the time of writing the Officers Committee Report, the formal offer proposed by the applicant was for 66% affordable housing on a non-policy compliant split, weighted in favour of Shared Ownership homes. The Officers Report outlines that the proposed affordable housing offer is unacceptable as it over delivers Shared Ownership homes at the expense of 13 London Affordable Rented homes, which would meet the most acute needs of the borough.

Since the publication of the report, the applicant has proposed a payment of £1.5 million to be used toward the provision of off-site affordable housing to mitigate the under-provision of London Affordable Rented (LAR) homes. This would be in addition to the 66% affordable housing discussed in the main report.

Revised Retail Parking Arrangements:  

The officers committee report also raises concerns with the quantum of retail parking without an appropriate parking price regime to encourage non car access and regarding the under-provision of residential blue-badge parking.

Since the publication of the agenda, the applicant has agreed “To enter into a retail car park management plan with the council and a space re-allocation plan allocating up to 10 retail parking spaces to disabled parking spaces”. This would allow for a strategy for parking management to be agreed with the applicant.

Application to be deferred:

 
Officers recommend that this application is deferred to allow the report to be updated to reflect and consider the revised offer and arrangements

'Matters of balance' reveal conflicts and contradictions in Brent planning policy

 

Video of Gerry Ansell's summing up re the proposal and councillor's reasons for voting against

The Planning Committee of October 14th was notable as the first the be chaired by Cllr Matt Kelcher following the Labour and Council AGM, for its length and for the way in which the themes that emerged during the discussion of the application to redevelop the site of the Willesden Green PoliceSstation revealed some of the conflictions and contradictions in Brent Council's planning policies and guidance.

This is the Council's recording of the decision:

Although the lack of affordability housing in the development took up a great deal of time in the discussion, and was cited as a reason for rejection by some councillors, they were 'cautioned' by Gerry Ansell, Head of Planning and Development Services, that when it came to professional advice on viability there was no viability in this scheme. Independent professional advice was that if the scheme was to be financially viable for the developer all 28 units had to be sold at market rates and no affordable housing could be provided. Planning Officer David Glover said that the concerns over affordable housing could be recorded in the Minutes of the meeting but not in the reasons for refusal.

Ansell said that there were particular factors in this development that reduced viability.  It was in a sensitive location with a building of quality with associated costs for its retention and restoration that reduced land values.

He said that affordable housing was a core Council policy but issues are 'a matter of balance.' He assured councillors that officers pushed developers hard on affordability.

Cllr Arshad Mamhood was particuarly vexed working out that the market value was about £10m and the developer was only required to contribute £143,000 to off-site affordable housing elsewhere. Councillors were told that this could be used for the equivalent of 1-1/2 units elsewhere in the borough.

Cllr Mahmood asked that councillors be able to look more closely at the detail of Viability Assessments so that they could scrutinise them. He was told that they were available on the Council website before applications came to Committee.

 

 The retained police station with the new development behind

The recently liberated (from Cabinet) Cllr Tom Miller, representing his ward, spoke against the development.  He told the Committee:

I feel that with only this proposal on the table, what the Committee are being asked is, 'Would you rather have a development that is out of character with, not just the local area, but a conservation area?' and show we are not serious about preserving that or, 'Would you rather have a proposal that shows we are not serious about having  enough affordable homes?'

It's asking the Local Authority to pick which of our policies we should ditch and that for me has 'REJECT' written all over it. It is throwing down a challenge to the Committte, 'Which of these is not important.'

I'd rather not have a conservation area at all then have a conservation area that allows developers to drive right through it.

Both he and fellow Willesden Green councillor, Cllr Donnelly-Jackson said that they had not been approached bu the developers and consulted.

A positive aspect of the discussion was the planners assertion that they had been keen to ensure the retention of the police station and recognised its historial merit depite it not being a listed building. Cllr Dixon spoke about the important historical character of this section of the High Road.

Other issues that came up were carless developments that just meant residents would spill over into nearby streets to park, the development overlooking neighbour's gardens and in one particular case reducing the light  entering a neighbour's property to almost zero. The sheer bulk of the property in contrast to the local side streets  and the High Road and the lack of proper consultation were major issues - along with the 146 objections to the scheme.

The Committee voted to reject the proposal with Cllr Liz Dixon and Cllr Saqib Butt abstaining.

 

 

 

 

Council tells Willesden Bookshop to quit by April 17th 2012

Steve Adams and other workers at the Willesden Bookshop have sent me this comment on  my story about the bookshop's uncertain future if the Willesden Green Library redevelopment goes ahead.

We are mystified and a little confused by the fact that both the November and December Executive meetings did not have the redevelopment proposals on the agenda. We had originally been told that a decision would be made at the November meeting, and just prior to that the Property and Management division of the Council served a Section 25 notice on us: a legal notice giving us 6 months' notice to terminate our tenancy and requesting vacant possession by April 17th 2012. They made it clear that there would be no provision for retail space in the new building.

Naturally, we are dismayed at the prospect of our tenancy being terminated. Having looked at rent levels on the High Road we are not confident that we could afford to relocate - given all the current pressures on independent bookshops in this new age of the Kindle and Amazon's dominant market position - although we have not taken any final decision on this.

We will circulate a link to your blog amongst various customers and local residents who have offered support in trying to make the Council aware of the strength of local opposition to these plans for a mammoth apartment complex with a library and museum buried somewhere in its midst. No local residents we have spoken to want this development - and consider it further folly that when 6 libraries are being closed, one of the few remaining large libraries should then be closed for al least two years with only some adhoc temporary facility taking its place.

The Kilburn Bookshop  closed at the end of March last year. You can see the manager's comments on its demise HERE