Agenda item
Land on site of former Craven Park Health Centre, Knatchbull Road, London NW10 (Ref. 15/0822)
Decision:
Granted planning permission as recommended and the following additional conditions:
Travel Plan; a further clause in the S106 legal agreement that 20% affordable units be provided before 50% of the development was occupied
.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Construction of two buildings ranging from 4 to 6 storeys high providing 109 residential units (4xstudio, 60x1-bed, 44x2 bed, 1x3 bed) together with community space (Class D1/D2), private and communal amenity space, new areas of public realm, basement and on-street car parking, vehicle and pedestrian access, landscaping and ancillary development at Stonebridge Site 27, Stonebridge, London.
RECOMMENDATION: Grant planning permission subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Head of Legal Services, subject to the conditions set out in the Draft Decision Notice.
David Glover (Deputy Area Team Manager) outlined the scheme and in reference to the supplementary report, responded to the issues raised at the site visit. Members heard that the majority of the open space had been transferred to Brent as agreed as part of the wider regeneration plans for Stonebridge and that it had been secured to mitigate the shortfallin the provision ofon-site amenityspace. In respect of disabled access, he advised that the applicant would be required to make arrangements for the maintenance ofthe lift, which was required due to the in height of land and other options being impractical. He clarified the shared ownership and requested members to delegate its final wording and viability issues to officers for inclusion in the legal agreement.
David Glover informed members that there was sufficientsocial infrastructure including a school and medical facilities to accommodate the development as a result of the widerregeneration ofStonebridge. In respect of parking, he stated that the on-streetparking situation wouldbe formalised with the inclusion ofbayswhich would provide some on-street capacity, for use by the existing churches,doctors surgeryand visitorsto the site. He then drew members’ attention to an amended condition 9 on landscaping as set out in the supplementary report.
Mike Johnson (applicant’s agent) stated that the proposal which incorporated a high quality design and community facility would provide a real and long lasting change within the community. He emphasised the applicant’s commitment to deliver an acceptable scheme which was amplified in the heads of terms of the section 106 legal agreement. In response to members’ questions, the agent stated that the scheme incorporated a large number of smaller housing units so as to meet the demands of the social rented sector. He continued that lift access to the development would be provided and that maintenance issues would be addressed.
In the ensuing discussion, members were concerned to understand how the applicant was able to provide affordable housing, which apparently contradicted the financial viability assessments, and sought reassurance that these units would not be later withdrawn from the scheme, Mr Johnson explained that due to the applicant’s commitment to affordable housing it was willing to transfer profits from other sites to support affordable housing on this site, Members also expressed views about parking facilities and the impact of the community facility on parking, especially if it was to be used to accommodate a church. The chair added further conditions for a Travel Plan for use of the Community Facility and a clause in the Section 106 legal agreement for a minimum of 20% affordable housing to be provided prior to 50% occupation of the development and a clause as offered by the applicant to require a review mechanism on commencement of the development. Members also noted the applicant’s commitment to providing the affordable housing aspect of the scheme.
DECISION:
Planning permission granted as recommended and additional conditions for a
Travel Plan (community facility) and a further clause in the S106 legal agreement that 20% affordable units be provided before 50% of the development was occupied and a review mechanism to allow for an increase in affordable housing on commencement but no decrease in the agreed 20%.
.
Supporting documents:
- 10 - Craven Park Health Centre, item 10. PDF 941 KB
- 10 Supp Craven Park Health Centre, item 10. PDF 93 KB