Sudbury Labour on its blog has given an account of theor contribution to tonight's Planning Committee decision
LINK.
After
strong objections from Sudbury Councillors, Brent Council’s planning
committee today voted 4-3 against the Pocket Living application. A vote
to refer this back to Council Officers and the applicants was then
passed by a vote of 5-2. This follows strong objections from local residents and Sudbury Councillors.
For over a year, Sudbury Cllrs Tom Stephens and Mary Daly have
provided consistent opposition this proposal, submitting several written
objections to the development (all of which are noted
in the Committee Report)
and supporting residents to carry out their own survey of car park
usage. We also spoke out against the application at today’s meeting. You
can watch our speeches
on the Brent Council website, and a note of our speeches is also copied below (check against delivery).
Councillor Saqib Butt, as a Member of the Planning Committee,
remained neutral and objective throughout, but after a fair hearing of
the concerns raised decided to vote against both the application and the
decision to refer it back to Officers and the developer.
The main reason Councillors gave in voting against the proposal was
because it was contrary to the planning policy of both the Local Plan
and the London Plan, both of which stress the need for genuinely
affordable family housing units to meet the severe need for housing in
London. The provision of 52 1-bedroom units, which only just meet the
technical definition of “affordability” without being genuinely
affordable, will simply not meet this severe need.
We too felt this was by far the strongest grounds for objection, and
gave Councillors a clear material reason to reject this proposal – hence
why this featured very strongly in our objections. But it was by no
means the only concern we had. Between us, we also covered a range of
other issues such as the severe lack of disabled parking space, the lack
of amenity space for residents and the impact the developement could
have on parking pressures for residents. All of these were highlighted
in our objections.
We were glad to see that after a fair hearing, the majority of
Councillors in the Planning Committee shared these concerns, and
declined to offer the application their approval. We will continue, as
we have always done, to fight for Sudbury residents on this issue and to
closely scrutinise any future applications which come forward.
Speech opposing the development from Cllr Thomas Stephens
Many other objectors speaking today have already given powerful
reasons for rejecting this proposal. But in my representation, I wish to
focus on the one issue in particular, which I feel which the Committee
by far the strongest grounds for refusal.
There are others and I can talk about these in response to
questions.
It is simply this: the affordability and housing mix in this
proposal is a direct contravention of our Local Plan and the London Plan. None
of the grounds the Committee have been given to accept the proposal in spite of
this hold water, as I will explain later.
***
I wish to acknowledge at the outset the acute housing crisis
facing this country, with Brent the least affordable borough. All of us see
this clearly in our surgeries. People who need stable, genuinely affordable
homes for themselves, their families, and their children.
But it is exactly these needs which I want to emphasise here
in my objection: the needs of families, with children, without a stable home.
***
As Policy CP21 of our own borough’s local plan acknowledges,
this acute need can
only be addressed through the provision of
genuinely
affordable
family housing units.
It requires that new housing provides, and I quote:
[1]
“[F]amily sized accommodation …
capable of providing three or more bedrooms … [on] sites providing 10 or more
homes.”
Planning policy also contains similarly clear provisions on
affordability, with the London Plan (Policy H6A) requiring 30% of affordable homes
to be either London Affordable Rent or Social Rent.
[2]
This need cannot be met through
52 one-bedroom units which only just meet the technical definition of
affordability.
Indeed this is expressly acknowledged
in numerous parts of the committee report you will have all read:
- It is
acknowledged on the front cover, where it states the development is a
“departure from policy CP21 of Brent’s local plan.”[3]
- It is
acknowledged on page 6, where it states that the housing mix, “does not fully
accord with Brent and London Plan policy targets.”[4]
- And it
is acknowledged in paragraph 14, page 15, where it states “the scheme would be
contrary to Policy DMP15(b) of the Local Plan, and both Policy 3.11 and emerging
Policy H6 of the London Plan as no flats would be offered at a social or
affordable rate.”[5]
***
In all good conscience, I cannot accept the grounds that
have been proposed for passing this application, in spite of this direct
contravention of our Planning Policy…
***
I accept that if no viable alternative in keeping with our
Planning Policy was available, that could offer grounds to accept. But
paragraphs 15 and 16 of the committee report
clearly state that a viable
alternative, in keeping with our planning policy, could be provided on this
site.
[6]
***
The committee report notes the unmet need for 1-bedroom intermediate
housing in our borough.
But this isn’t grounds for ignoring our own
Local Plan, Paragraph 5.94 of which expressly argues
against
the then-Mayor changing the social / intermediate housing ratio.
[7]
If we do not think it is addressed in our Local Plan, the
proper process would be to address this as a policy in our new Local Plan – and
not by simply deciding on the hoof to contravene our own planning
policy.
But even more fundamentally than this, the demand for
intermediate housing can also be met by freeing-up existing overcrowded smaller
housing in a way which is entirely in keeping with our Local Plan: providing
suitable, new build
family units, at genuinely affordable rates.
***
In conclusion, I wish to stress that there are many other
grounds for the Committee to challenge the developers on this application. And
I’m sure these will be addressed by other speakers:
- The issue
of disabled parking space for commuters still isn’t resolved in this proposal. In
fact TfL’s planning condition could mean there are just two disabled spaces for
general public use, and not three as stated.[8]
- The
availability of parking remains a concern. And there is even an
admission in paragraphs 89 and 92 of the report that 38 cars and many blue
badge holders could be displaced to residential streets – including streets
already in a CPZ outside of CPZ hours.[9]
[10]
- There
is a serious lack of amenity space, to the tune of 913 square
metres
- And
concerns have been raised about running this Committee online, I’ve
asked for further info on this and I’d be happy to discuss in questions
But there is no clearer argument for rejection than the direct
contravention of the Local Plan and the London Plan which I have mentioned.
When I first objected to this development almost a year ago,
I assumed that the developer would take steps to address this. I’m disappointed
to see that this hasn’t happened.
In the absence of clear reasons to accept such a contravention, and
with the grounds for doing this discounted, the Committee is left with
just one option: to reject the proposal put forward today.
[1]
Brent Council,
Local Plan: Core Strategy, Policy
CP21, page 78. NB Objective 7 (p21) also sets a goal of “ensuring that at least
25% of all new homes built in the borough are family sized (3 bed or more) and
50% (approx.) are affordable.”
[2]
Brent Council,
Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May
2020, page 14
[3]
Brent Council,
Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May
2020, page 1
[4]
Brent Council,
Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May
2020, page 6
[5]
Brent Council,
Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May
2020, paragraph 14, page 15
[6]
Brent Council,
Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May
2020, paragraph 15 and 16, page 16
[7]
Brent Council,
Local Plan: Core Strategy, Policy
CP21, paragraph 5.94, page 78.
[8] This is because TfL asks that “a parking design and
management plan to be submitted for approval prior to occupation of any units,
in order to ensure at least one disabled space is secured for occupiers of the
flats.” See Brent Council,
Committee
Report 19/1241, 6 May 2020, page
11
[9]
Brent Council,
Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May
2020, paragraph 92, page 24
[10]
Brent Council,
Committee Report 19/1241, 6 May
2020, paragraph 89, page 24
Speech opposing the development from Cllr Mary Daly
Para 1 of
the report speaks of getting rid of an
84 space underused car
park car park and replacing it with two residential blocks
This
statement is factually incorrect in the summer of 2019 TFL fenced off the rear
end of the site and reduced the size of the car park to 66 spaces this
is important because the very sketchy information the developer provided is as
a consequence is incorrect.
Para 87
describes a survey undertaken by the applicant claiming that there was a 30%
use of the park based on the incorrect number of spaces.
A survey
undertaken by members and residents found a different pattern of use. This was
reported to the council but not included im the report to members of the
planning committee. Over three weeks during the morning and afternoon members
found a consistent 54% occupancy of the 66 space car park. Members observed use
was predominantly by commuters. Morning users were different from afternoon
users so the car park is not as described underused.
There is no
evidence that the statuary bodies TFL or Brent Council undertook any activity
to establish use of the car park in contravention of legal equalities
obligation.
Parking
Para 97
advises that DPM 12
requires that all overspill be safely accommodated
on street
Policy BT2
that developments will be supported where it does
not add to on street
parking
Policy 90
acknowledges that the nearest Brent streets are heavily parked but claims that
Ealing streets can absorb some on street parking.
- With this in mind it is worth looking
at that they will absorb.
- The site is so tight that even the
one disabled space a policy requirement for disabled future disabled residents
is proposed to be put on the highway.
- If future disabled commuters need
additional spaces it is proposed they are put on the highway
- The report advises that Para 96 that
the parking allowance for such a development is 39 spaces. Because they cannot
be provided it is permit free but not future vehicle owner free. It has nto
been estimated how many future professional higher income residents will own a
vehicle clearly they will compete with local residents for parking when CPZ are
not in operation.
- Because there has been no
comprehensive survey of commuter parking at the car park it is impossible to
know how many commuters use the car park for sure certainly it is considerably more than that
suggested by the applicant.
- Service vehicles for the proposed
development including online deliveries, maintenance vehicles, displaced TFL
staff TFL staff using the yard to the
back of the site.
None of
which can be accommodated on site because it is simply an overdevelopment.
As stated
above policy is in place to prevent this level of pressure on existing
communities.
Amenity
Para 77
advises the policy DMP19 and emerging policy BH 13 that all new dwelling be required
to have external private amenity space this is expected to be 20 sqm of
private outdoor space for 1d-2 person dwellings. Based on the policy 1050sqm of
space is required Only 11 of the 52 proposed units have outdoor amenity space falling
short by 913 sqm.
Para 79
suggests that this cam be mitigated by communal amenity space 476 sqm of
amenity space in the communal courtyard. However this space appears to have two
uses it is also intended to be a turning space for large vehicles there are two
descriptions of this space para 80 “ a communal amenity space” and “ a turning space for servicing buildings
Para 102
describes the same space as “
a turning facility has been incorporated into
the lauout between the two proposed blocks to allow refuse vehicles emergency
vehicles so that they are not required to reverse long distances”
In Para
there are contrary statements about the courtyard/turning point “ para 80
states “
the communal courtyard has been improved it would be usable” whereas Para 102 states “
officers
recommend a condition of the surfacing of the turning point” it is clear is that the development is
marginally short of private or even communal amenity space requirements it is
so
unacceptably short as to warrant refusal. 
