20/0115 Matalan Discount Club, Cricklewood Broadway, London, NW2 6PH
Granted planning approval subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement, and the Stage II referral to the Mayor of London.
Demolition of existing building; erection of 3 buildings ranging from 3 to 7 storeys with basement, comprising 238 self-contained residential units with commercial space at ground floor level (Use Class B1, Block A only); creation of new street, associated landscaping, car and cycle parking, private and communal amenity space.
That the Committee resolve to grant planning permission subject to:
(i) Referral to the Mayor of London (stage II).
(ii) The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out within the Committee reports.
That the Head of Planning is granted delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
That the Head of Planning is granted delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out within the Committee reports.
That the Head of Planning is granted delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the Committee.
That, if within 12-weeks of the date of the stage II response from the Mayor of London (assuming no objections raised/not calling the application in and subject to any amendments/extensions to the expiry date agreed by both parties) the legal agreement has not been completed, the Head of Planning is granted delegated authority to refuse planning permission.
Mr Sean Newton (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report, set out the key issues highlighting the car free development, increase in affordable housing and answered Members’ questions. In reference to the supplementary he advised that the number of dwellings proposed in the description of development should read 239 dwellings units (not 238) dwellings or units and the number of dwellings within Block A should read 141 (not 138). He then drew Members’ attention to the additional objections received and officers’ responses as set out within the supplementary report.
Mr Ben Tansley (objector) raised several concerns about the proposed development including the following:
· By the tallest part being on the edge of the site the proposal would constitute a breach of Brent’s Policy BD2 and Tall Building Strategy adding that heights should step down from the centre, not rise to the edge.
· The proposal would be overbearing and result in overlooking and intrusion to surrounding properties, to the detriment of residential amenity.
· The development would result in similar undesirable precedents in the area
· The proposed private external amenity space falls short of policies without compensatory provision as the local park was about half a mile away.
· In the interest of residential amenity, Members should condition that construction traffic should not simply avoid but must not use Temple Road due to existing traffic problems.
Mr Chris Miller (objector) although not against the principle of development of the site in order to build residential flats expressed the following concerns:
· The height of the proposed 7-storey building would be excessive with detrimental impact on the amenities and the character of the area. Mr Miller considered that a 5-storey building would have less impact and more in keeping with the local environment whilst at the same time providing a substantial boost to housing availability in the area.
· The proximity of the building to the Broadway and, consequently, the likely infringement of privacy for both the residents of Gratton Terrace and the new development.
· The applicant has not included adequate analysis as to how the skyline for Midland Terrace (which lies immediately behind Gratton Terrace) would be affected by this development
· The applicant has not set out the lines of sight from the development to Midland Terrace which would be altered by the proposed development.
· The top floor windows of the development would be able to look directly into the first floor windows of both Midland and Gratton Terrace, compromising their privacy.
· If possible, the development should also be set back from the Broadway to reduce the imposing impact on the Broadway and also allow trees to be planted to break up to the appearance of the frontage.
Councillor Colacicco (ward member) echoed similar sentiments in objection to the proposed development. She suggested the following conditions, if members were minded to approve the application:
No glass balconies to minimise impact
A ban on construction traffic and Saturday working on site.
Requirement for a car club and adequate disabled parking spaces
Measures to improve air quality.
Mr Mark Pender (agent) and other experts representing the applicant addressed the Committee and answered Members’ questions. He drew Members’ attention to the following supporting facts:
· The scheme incorporated significant input from key stakeholders including Brent Council, the GLA, CABE/Design Council and the local community through public consultations.
· The design of the scheme would facilitate the adjoining site coming forward for development as identified in the emerging Local Plan.
· The scheme responded to concerns raised by your officers and residents of Gratton Terrace by lowering the height from 9-storeys to 7 at the junction of Temple Road and Cricklewood Broadway.
· As the proposal is for build to rent, in accordance with the now adopted London Plan and the emerging Local Plan, the preference is for the affordable units to be for London living rent.
· The viability assessment submitted in support of the application has been rigorously tested by the GLA and BNP on behalf of Brent Council the result of which would be 50 London living rent flats.
· All flats have their own private balcony or terrace as well as access to communal spaces at ground level including the pedestrian street, new park, courtyards and roof terraces and would meet or exceed the national space standards.
· The applicant would sign up to the Considerate Construction Scheme, Car Club and would implement servicing and delivery strategy
In the ensuing question time, Members raised several issues to which officers submitted the following responses:
· The request for glass balconies was an issue for the applicant and that Considerate Contractors Scheme was normally secured for major developments.
· Delivery and servicing plan was already within the conditions.
· That officers considered that the proposal would not harm the Railway Cottages Conservation Area would result but if Members considered that there was any harm in line with the GLA comments, it would be ‘less than substantial’ harm with public benefits identified to outweigh that harm.
· Whilst the proposal would be 2 storey higher than the adjacent building, excessive separation distance meant that there would no loss of privacy or outlook.
· If any dwelling were to change from build to rent to sales then the viability assessments would be revisited.
· Barnet Council were consulted about the application but did not provide any response.
· Adequate amenity space provided in addition to the nearby Gladstone Park.
With no further issues raised and having established that all members had followed the discussions, the Chair thanked all speakers for their contributions and asked members to vote on the recommendation. Members voted by a majority decision to approve the application.
DECISION: Granted planning approval subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report, the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement, and the Stage II referral to the Mayor of London.
(Voting on the decision was as follows: For 5; Against 3)