Agenda item
Sarena House and Allied Manufacture, Grove Park, London, NW9 0EB (Ref. 14/2930)
Decision:
(a) Granted planning permission, subject to securing appropriate initial funding towards residential parking permits should a CPZ be introduced, an appropriate form of agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section ,conditions detailed in the main Committee Report; subject to amended in condition 13 as detailed in the Supplementary Report, and subject referral to the Mayor of London, or
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Demolition of all existing buildings and the erection of 2 to 6-storey buildings providing 227 residential units (10 x 4bed houses, 58 x 1bed, 101 x 2bed, 31 x 3bed and 27 x studio flats), 256 sqm of affordable work space for research and development (Use class B1(B), proposed vehicular access from Grove Park, provision for car/bike parking on the basement and ground level and associated landscaping and amenity space.
RECOMMENDATION:
(a) Grant Planning Permission, subject to an appropriate form of Agreement in order to secure the measures set out in the Section 106 Details section of this report, subject to conditions listed after paragraph 116 and referral to the Mayor of London, or
(b) If within a reasonable period the applicant fails to enter into an appropriate agreement in order to meet the policies of the Unitary Development Plan, Core Strategy and Section 106 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to delegate authority to the Head of Planning, or other duly authorised person, to refuse planning permission.
With reference to the supplementary report, Rachel Murrell (Area Planning Manager) responded to the queries raised at the site visit. She informed the Committee that the agent had confirmed that the boundary wall along Evelyn Avenue may not be retained and to reflect that, condition 13 had been amended as set out in the supplementary. She continued that on the advice of GLA and TfL, the PTAL rating for the site was 4 taking into account its proximity to a range of public transport facilities. She however confirmed that it should be noted that the site ranges from PTAL 2 to 4 with the eastern half of the site including the mid point of the site falling PTAL 4. In reference to the additional objections received, the Area Planning Manager submitted that extensive consultation with about 533 neighbours was undertaken in addition to press and site notices being displayed. She continued that the height of the proposed development was considered acceptable in design terms and in relation to neighbouring sites. Members heard that the site was within the Colindale/Burnt Oak Growth Area which would be supported by infrastructure development including a school and a D1 facility which have planning permission. Furthermore, a contribution would be sought from the applicant towards the cost of consultation for CPZ if its introduction was required.
Seb Malde (Chair of Grove Park Residents Association) urged members to refuse the application on grounds of excessive density, inadequate parking provision, lack of health care provision, educational provision and children’s play area.
In responding to the above, the Area Planning Manager drew members’ attention to the infrastructure development involving the Oriental City development which she added would provide a superstore, a primary school and a D1 facility. She continued that officers were seeking a financial contribution from the applicant towards the cost of consultation for CPZ, although the mitigation measures secured were anticipated to reduce the potential for overspill parking . She also added that funding received through CIL payment could be used if deemed appropriate to improve the Grove Park Open Space. With regard to the scale of development, she discussed how the buildings reduced in scale at the boundary with Evelyn Avenue to take account of the character of surrounding development.
Robert Dunwell, speaking on behalf of Queensbury Area Residents (Group of) Associations (QARA) stated that more than half of the site had a PTAL rating of between 2 and 3 which would give rise to parking overspill. In his view, the possibility of a 2 year grace period during which existing residents’ permits would be paid for or subsidised, would not be sufficient adding that a lasting solution would be for a provision of an additional car park. He also expressed concern about the density of the proposed development which he felt was excessive and should be reduced. For the above reasons he urged members to be minded to refuse the application.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Kabir, Ward Member, declared that she had been approached by the residents and the applicants. Councillor Kabir drew Members’ attention to the concentration of residential and commercial developments in the vicinity which together with coaches to and from Village School would result in increased traffic, air pollution and general intensification and overdevelopment of the site. She added that consideration should be given to securing infrastructure including a health facility and community space to support the development. Councillor Kabir however supported the proposal to undertake consultation on the introduction of CPZ in the area if required.
David Maddox (applicant’s agent) reaffirmed that the PTAL rating for the site was principally 4. He continued that the provision of 136 car parking spaces for the development, which equated 0.6 space per unit, was in excess of TfL’s requirement for 0.5 spaces. He added that the play space was also in excess of requirement and that the independent viability assessment commissioned by the Council supported the number of affordable units provided by the development. In response to a Member’s enquiry, David Maddox explained that as the development would not be carried out in phases, it was agreed to provide off site contribution for affordable housing following completion of the development, should market conditions improve
DECISION:
Granted planning permission as recommended subject to securing appropriate initial funding towards residents parking permits should a CPZ be introduced.
Supporting documents: