Agenda item
20/1163 1 Burnt Oak Broadway, Edgware, HA8 5LD
Decision:
Granted planning permission, subject to the legal agreement and amended conditions and informatives set out within the Committee’s main and supplementary reports.
Minutes:
PROPOSAL:
Partial demolition, restoration and extension of former bingo hall (Use Class D2) to create a part-7, part-8 storey building to provide co-working space and
purpose-built shared living units (Use Class Sui Generis), café (Use Class A3)
with ancillary facilities and associated shared amenity space, landscaping, cycle and disabled parking.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:
A. Any direction by the Secretary of State pursuant to the Consultation Direction
B. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out within the reports.
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 reports.
That the Head of Planning is 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 the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
As application reference numbers 20/1163 and 20/1164 related to the same site, the Committee decided to consider together the introductions, representations and deliberations but to decide on each application separately.
Mr Neil Quinn (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the reports, set out the key issues and answered Members’ questions. He highlighted that the schemes
would not provide any contribution in lieu of affordable housing, as required by policy H16 of the draft London Plan. However, the robust financial viability appraisal had demonstrated that this could not viably be provided at this stage, and subject to a section 106 agreement securing both early and late stage review mechanisms, both schemes were considered acceptable. He referenced the supplementary reports that set out amendments to parts of the main report and recommended additional conditions 24 and 25 as detailed within the supplementary report, following a review of the committee report.
Councillor Kabir (ward member) spoke in support of the applications and answered Members’ questions. Councillor Kabir pointed out that the designation of the Burnt Oak area with a Town Centre Officer to work with businesses and residents would be enhanced by the applications. The grant of planning and conservation permissions would address the issue of dilapidation of the Former Mecca Bingo Hall building, illegal dumping around the external perimeter, graffiti, anti-social behaviour around such an iconic building. She noted with interest, the retention of the iconic façade and central hall to add to the living and working space built around them along with a café, gym, library, leisure areas and cinema viewing room. Councillor Kabir continued that with a high PTAL rating and contributions towards the consultation for CPZ, the area would be improved for the business community including small start-up businesses and individuals requiring shared work space and local residents.
Mr Peter Jeffery (agent) addressed the Committee and answered Members’ questions. Members heard that the proposals were a product of extensive consultation and design development for the historic building within Burnt Oak Growth Area that would incorporate the auditorium for co-working with high quality co-living entity. The scheme would provide flexible tenancies with built-in support and management facilities secured via S106 for a late stage review.
He continued that the high quality accommodation offering substantial shared amenity spaces including lounges, gym, reading room and cinema room as well as concierge and laundry services within the flexible tenancies would enhance the business community and would be a welcome bonus for residents.
In response to members’ questions, Mr Jeffery confirmed the following:
Ø The applicant examined various other uses including as a place of worship, family housing and a pub but were considered insufficient to generate the revenue required to maintain the building.
Ø The inclusive rent from £255 per week was set with a view to cost recovery over a longer-term span.
Ø Discussions were on-going about the selection for the best management company with the appropriate calibre of experience for the building.
In the ensuing discussions, officers confirmed that other options for the building were considered but none was considered viable and that the rigorous viability assessment with late stage review considered the scheme acceptable. Mr Mark Price (Heritage Officer) added that statutory consultees including the English Heritage were satisfied subject to the conditions recommended as set out in the report. Officers were satisfied that the scheme would offer significant public and heritage benefits by bringing a vacant and run-down listed building back into viable use. Some Members were however sceptical about the application mainly due to the room sizes and the likelihood to set a precedent for similar developments within the Borough.
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 permission, subject to the legal agreement and amended conditions and informatives set out within the Committee’s main and supplementary reports.
(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 6; Against 2)
Supporting documents: