Existing houses
Rejected proposal
Proposals for the redevelopment of the modest ex-park keeper's 'cottages' in a corner of the much-loved Barham Park have returned after proposals made in 2021 were rejected, opposed by both the local residents' association and local councillors. LINK
The planning situation is complicated by conditions on the land LINK and the role of the Barham Park Trustees chaired by Brent Council leader, Muhammed Butt.
The new proposal is for demolition of the existing 2 houses and replacement with four 3 bedroom, 5 person, 3 storey houses.
Although the Brent Council planning portal states that there are 11 comments on the planning application at present one is from Chiltern Railways and another from a resident which just records their objection to the proposal. I have asked Brent Council about uploading the other comments and also if restrictive covenants on the land have been taken into consideration.
Brent Council's Heritage Officer has submitted a comment:
• A Heritage Statement has been submitted with this application which describes the significance of theheritage asset(s) and to understand the potential impact of the proposal [NPPF 194].
• It should have included a Statement of Significance and the Greater London Historic Environment Record consulted.
• Notwithstanding this, I am satisfied with the overall design approach based on the half-timbering present in the existing locally listed buildings.
• I am also satisfied that the new build will not harm the significance or setting of the park given the location.
• The western part of the park was outside the original ‘Sudbury Lodge’ grounds and only became part of the park in the 20th century and is not the most significant part of the park. The proposed development, although more visible in relation to this area, will not harm the importance of the public open space nor impact upon the ability to experience the area of the original historic landscape park.
• Views from within the heart of the park show that the development will be mainly masked by trees and in any case, its overall scale and design would not be seen as out of keeping.
• In terms of the setting of the locally and listed buildings, they are set within a very secluded area where they are screened from view from the wider area of the park.
• The Council can be content that the proposal will preserve the character and setting of the park of local special architectural or historic interest.
Chiltern Railways have no objection to this proposed development. We would, however, point out that it is in the best interests of the developer, Brent Council and Chiltern Railways to ensure that the proposed three storey dwellinghouses are built to a standard that mitigates any impact the operation of railway services will have on the inhabitants.
Looking at the proposed development site, the 4 new houses would be located within a 20m distance of the Chiltern mainline. The line provides regular commuter railway services connecting the West Midlands, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire with London Marylebone Station.
As per the Acoustic Assessment Report enclosed in the planning documentation, we would like to raise the fact that Chiltern trains run on the mainline from approximately 05:00 to 01:00 the next morning, so their will be significant noise and vibration impacts for the future residents of the site. There may also be freight trains running during the night-time, which create additional noise due to their slower speeds and heavier weight. As such we would like to stress that the proposed property be given suitable noise insulation to mitigate the impact of the railway line nearby.
We also operate Sudbury and Harrow Road Station which is located approximately 70m from the proposed development site. Whilst the station is used a limited number of times for example it recorded 15,352 entries and exits in 2021/2, many through trains travel through the site creating noise impacts for the proposed development. The station will also have automated service and safety announcements, including warning announcements when fast trains are passing. As such we agree with the contents of the acoustic assessment report, that suitable noise proofing and glazing be put in place in this development to mitigate these impacts on the future residents.
The Thames Water submission is more detailed than is often the case:
EXTRACT
The proposed development is located within 15 metres of a strategic sewer. Thames Water requests the following condition to be added to any planning permission. "No piling shall take place until a PILING METHOD STATEMENT (detailing the depth and type of piling to be undertaken and the methodology by which such piling will be carried out, including measures to prevent and minimise the potential for damage to subsurface sewerage infrastructure, and the programme for the works) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with Thames Water. Any piling must be undertaken in accordance with the terms of the approved piling method statement." Reason: The proposed works will be in close proximity to underground sewerage utility infrastructure. Piling has the potential to significantly impact / cause failure of local underground sewerage utility infrastructure.
We would expect the developer to demonstrate what measures will be undertaken to minimise groundwater discharges into the public sewer. Groundwater discharges typically result from construction site dewatering, deep excavations, basement infiltration, borehole installation, testing and site remediation. Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. Should the Local Planning Authority be minded to approve the planning application, Thames Water would like the following informative attached to the planning permission: "A Groundwater Risk Management Permit from Thames Water will be required for discharging groundwater into a public sewer. Any discharge made without a permit is deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. We would expect the developer to demonstrate what measures he will undertake to minimise groundwater discharges into the public sewer.
As far as I can see no mature trees are proposed to be removed, although at present Tree Preservation Orders have not been made on them.
Full documentation and comment opportunity HERE,
