Agenda item
Barham Park Estate, Wembley HA0 2NE (Ref. 09/2350)
Minutes:
Hybrid planning application for the demolition and redevelopment of the entire Barham Park Estate, comprising: Full planning permission for the erection of 1 part four-/part five-storey block and 2 part six-/part eight-storey blocks, comprising in total 119 residential units, 422m² of (Use Class A1/A2) floorspace and a 121m² community facility (Use D1), with associated parking, landscaping, amenity space and including the diversion of the public footpath connecting Central Road and railway footbridge; and Outline planning permission for the erection of a further 216 residential units (matters to be approved: land use, quantum of development and means of access, with layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved). |
OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to completion of satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement, and referral to the Mayor for his Stage 2 response. |
In response to members’ enquiry as to whether there was any scope for improving the estates junction of the estate road with Harrow Road, and whether or not full vehicular access could be provided onto Central Road, the Planning Manager Neil McClellan referred to the full Transport Assessment submitted as part of the application. The assessment tested the junction capacity at Saunderton Road/Harrow Road and found that the junction would continue to operate well within capacity even when accounting for increased flows that might be expected from the development. In view of that, there was no requirement to upgrade the junction in order for the redevelopment of the estate to be acceptable on transport grounds. He continued that the close proximity of the junction to the roundabout and pelican crossing to the south of the site would make a right-turn movement out of the estate unacceptable on road safety grounds, whilst the amount of traffic entering and leaving the estate was not sufficient to justify the provision of an alternative junction design. The only alternative would be to provide a vehicular exit from the site onto Central Road which according to the Transport Assessment was not necessary and that a single point of access onto Harrow Road was considered satisfactory.
Mrs Angela Tanner, Chair of Barham Park Residents’ Focus Group, stated that although the group welcomed the proposed development, she wished to highlight a few of their concerns.
(i) The height, density and appearance of the proposed development in the Sudbury Town area characterised by low rise low density buildings would be out of character.
(ii) The plans show that the scheme had not designed out crime particularly the car park in the south west corner of the estate which could attract crime and anti-social behaviour.
(iii) The development should have mixed tenure within each block instead of a segregation of socially rented and private homes which would create a ghetto atmosphere.
(iv) As there was a single access/egrees point to the estate, this could give rise to health and safety issues for residents and emergency vehicles.
Ms Diana Brown, Secretary of the Tenants and Residents’ Association, welcomed the proposed redevelopment as it would improve the living standards of the residents. She however requested the Committee to take the following matters into account;
(i) The proposed car park in the south west corner which was not a secure car park would encourage anti social behaviour.
(ii) There were concerns about the allocation of car parking spaces and the management of the underground car park.
(iii) Residents would not welcome the use of cobblestones for traffic calming as they would make it difficult for the less able to walk on.
(iv) Residents would request that traffic lights and yellow box junction be provided to facilitate residents’ access and that the bus lane restriction be relocated to start from after the main entrance to the estate.
(v) Improved residential amenity by ensuring that kitchens and bathrooms be provided with windows for sustainability.
Ms Rosemary Houseman, the applicant’s agent, in her introduction stated that she would continue to work with the residents on the details of the redevelopment. She continued that the report and the transport assessment did not raise significant issues and that the car parking management plan would be secured via the Section 106 legal agreement. Ms Houseman added that the height of the building the external appearance of which had been revised following comments made by the GLA, would not result in overshadowing. She pointed out that the redevelopment which had been planned to meet demand for family housing units would respond to the acute need for housing and regeneration in the area.
In response to member’s queries about tenure and internal layout, Ms Houseman stated that the 3 phases of the development would each have a mixed tenure and that the first phase had been designed in accordance with the wishes of the residents not to live on the Harrow Road frontage. She added that plans for the development had been revised to provide some of the flats with separate windows for their bathrooms and that cobblestones would not be used in the traffic calming or landscaping scheme for the development.
In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Wharton, a ward member, stated that he had had discussions on the development with the applicants and the residents. Whilst welcoming the proposed redevelopment, Councillor Wharton requested that further consideration ought to be given to the road junction with Harrow Road, the bus lane in front of the development and the possible removal of the pay and display bays at Saunderton Road. He however noted that there were no significant objections to the officers’ assessment of the traffic implications.
In the discussions that followed, Councillor Moher commented on the congestion at the junction and at the roundabout and questioned the basis of the PTAL rating of 4. Councillor Hashmi suggested the relocation of the terminus for bus route 18 from Sudbury to Northwick Park Hospital grounds. Councillor Anwar suggested the removal of the bus lane restrictions from the entrance to the estate and the provision of a medical centre and a community hall for the residents. Councillor Thomas sought clarifications on the access from and egress into the estate. Councillor Powney enquired as to whether the police had been appraised on the underground car park. In expressing his concerns about possible congestion to the entrance to the estate, the Chair remarked that Transport for London should be asked to review the bus lane restrictions at the entrance to the estate and the Council’s Highways and Transportation unit should to consider having a “yellow box” junction to assist with the movement of vehicles.
In responding to the issues raised, the Planning Manager Neil McClellan stated that the Council would lobby TfL about the terminus for bus 18 and that there was scope to review the bus lane restrictions at the entrance to the estate. He added that the emergency access available via central Road was considered acceptable. Although the car park in the south west corner of the estate was slightly remote it met with the criteria for natural surveillance. He continued that due to site constraints, it was not possible to accommodate a medical centre and a community hall adding that some of the contributions under the Section 106 legal agreement could be used to improve similar local facilities including the facilities at Vale Farm sports grounds.
The Head of Area Planning added that the later phases of the detailed scheme could offer scope to reflect some of the preferences expressed by the residents. He added that although the local car sales site would be removed and in its place a Tesco Express built, there would be no servicing designed for Harrow Road and traffic congestion would be reduced to a minimum. He continued that unauthorised parking within the non adopted roads within the estate would have to be enforced by the Housing Association.
In summing up the debate, the Chair pointed out that the mixed tenure scheme would assist with the housing stock of the Borough. He noted the concerns expressed on access into and egress from the estate, parking and congestion but added that these were not within the remit of the Committee at this stage as further details of the redevelopment would be considered at a later date.
DECISION: Planning permission granted subject to the completion of satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement, and referral to the Mayor of London for his Stage 2 response. |
Supporting documents:
- 18, Barham Park Estate Wembley HA0 2NE, item 18. PDF 548 KB
- Supp Info Barham Park, item 18. PDF 103 KB