Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to:

 

(1)         The application’s referral to the Mayor of London (Stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed in the main and updated within the supplementary committee reports, together with:

 

·             Provision to include the requirement for an outdoor gym facility to be added within condition in the Community Use Agreement to be secured as part of the legal agreement;

 

·             Definition of intermediate housing within the legal agreement to capture a range of intermediate products;

 

·             The review mechanisms to be secured as part of the legal agreement to include the requirement to change intermediate housing to social housing where viability allows.

 

(2)        The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the main and amended within the supplementary committee reports.

PROPOSAL

 

Hybrid planning application comprising: Full planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and structures within ‘Phase 1’ and all site preparation works, and redevelopment with mixed-use buildings providing residential homes (Use Class C3), flexible commercial, retail and leisure space (Class E), workspace (Use Class E(g)), associated cycle and vehicle parking, new and altered vehicular accesses and other associated highways works, hard and soft landscaping including creation of new and upgrades to existing public open space, and all associated ancillary and engineering works; and

 

Outline planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and structures within the rest of the Site, and redevelopment with a series of new mixed-use buildings accommodating residential homes (Use Class C3), flexible commercial, retail, workspace and leisure space (Class E), community space (Use Class F), and flexible nursery/community/medical floorspace (Use Classes F/E(e)/E(f)), associated cycle and vehicle parking, new and altered vehicular accesses and other associated highways works, hard and soft landscaping including creation of new and upgrades to existing public open space, and all associated ancillary and engineering works, with all matters reserved except for means of access.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

 

(1)  The conditions and informatives as set out in the main Committee report; and

 

(2)  Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London along with the prior completion of a satisfactory s106 legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the report.

 

Neil Quinn (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the planning application committee report, detailing the hybrid planning application comprising:

 

·       Full planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and structures within ‘Phase 1’ and all site preparation works, and redevelopment with mixed-use buildings providing residential homes (Use Class C3), flexible commercial, retail and leisure space (Class E), workspace (Use Class E(g)), associated cycle and vehicle parking, new and altered vehicular accesses and other associated highways works, hard and soft landscaping including creation of new and upgrades to existing public open space, and all associated ancillary and engineering works; and

 

·       Outline planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and structures within the rest of the Site, and redevelopment with a series of new mixed-use buildings accommodating residential homes (Use Class C3), flexible commercial, retail, workspace and leisure space (Class E), community space (Use Class F), and flexible nursery/community/medical floorspace (Use Classes F/E(e)/E(f)), associated cycle and vehicle parking, new and altered vehicular accesses and other associated

 

The proposed development was formed of two phases: Phase 1 was applied for in detail and included the construction of 11 new blocks (Blocks C-H, J, K, V, W and Y) to provide 1,076 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), comprising heights of between 4, 5, 10, 11, 15, 17, 22, 24 and 28 storeys (up to 98.5 AODm). The development also proposed 3,354 sqm of flexible retail, commercial and leisure floorspace (Use Class E) (which includes 1,173 sqm of gym floorspace) at lower levels of these blocks.

 

Phase 2 was applied for in outline, and included the provision of up to 3,500 sqm (GIA) of new land use floorspace within 11 new blocks (Blocks A, B, L-N, and P-U) comprising heights of between 4, 5, 6, 11, 14, 16 and 17 storeys (up to 100.2 AODm), with the maximum quantum as follows:

·       flexible retail, commercial and leisure floorspace (Use Class E): up to a maximum of 1,500sqm;

·       community floorspace (Use Class F): up to a maximum of 1,000sqm;

·       nursery or local community/ medical floorspace (Use Class F/E(e)/E(f): up to a maximum of 1,000sqm;

·       C3 Residential: up to 57,500 sqm (approximately 551 homes).

 

Attention was drawn to the supplementary report, detailing two further representations received after the publication of the committee report, amendments to the main report, additional conditions, amended conditions, and additional Heads of Terms to the published report. The recommendation remained to grant consent subject to the additional and amended conditions and Heads of Terms, and in the main committee report.

 

The Chair thanked Neil Quinn for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then invited Terry Gamble (who had registered to speak as the applicant’s representative) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

 

·       In representing the applicant (The Hill Group), Mr Gamble began by highlighting they were the second largest privately owned house builder in the UK and had maintained a 5-star Home Builder Federation rating for the past seven years, reflecting the quality of their homes.

 

·       Contracts had been exchanged with United Colleges Group in August 2022 to advance proposals for two key Site Allocations in the Brent Local Plan: the College North West London site and Crescent House in Wembley. The acquisition facilitated the delivery of the College’s new campus on Olympic Way, ensuring the College's permanent presence in the Borough with state-of-the-art facilities, providing specialist training and apprenticeship opportunities for young people.

 

·       The commitment to delivering meaningful social value, already collaborating across 14 London boroughs with community partners and anchor organisations to understand local needs and develop bespoke social value delivery plans. This approach intended to continue in partnership with Brent and United Colleges Group on the development.

 

·       That the development would generate significant Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions to Brent, estimated at approximately £46 million. It was noted that the scheme's design complied with the Neasden Station Growth Area masterplan, aiming to connect with the local community and provide a range of local facilities, including a nursery, gym, workspaces, local shops, and a purpose-built community centre.

 

·       The development included the creation of a grand public green space, resulting in one of the greenest schemes in Brent with nearly 1.5 hectares of enhanced green space, over 370 new trees, and an Urban Green Factor of 0.57. Enhancements to Dudden Hill Park and Selbie Avenue pocket park were also noted, with these spaces remaining under Brent's ownership but maintained by Hill Group.

 

·       The proposed application was would deliver over 1,600 high-quality new homes, equating to approximately 68% of Brent's annual housing requirement, at a time when many housebuilders were pausing new developments. Despite being a unique ‘enabling development’ funding £105 million towards a new College facility, Terry Gamble expressed that the Hill Group had sought to maximise the level of affordable homes when compared to the viability assessment undertaken.

 

·       Described as an established developer and contractor with an unparalleled track record in delivery, The Hill Group had built out every site where planning permission was secured. If granted approval, construction was intended to commence in Summer 2025 and was felt by the applicant representative to represent substantial investment in the Borough, delivering significant economic, social, and environmental benefits.

 

·       In concluding his representations, Terry Gamble advised that the applicant looked forward to growing their relationship with Brent and urged the Committee to approve the scheme in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.

 

The Chair thanked Terry Gamble for addressing the Committee and invited members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented, with the following being noted:

 

·       As an initial query, members inquired about the management of the social rented homes, specifically questioning whether a housing partner had been secured to manage the scheme. In response, Terry Gamble reported that discussions had been conducted with several Registered Providers, including Brent, regarding the management of the homes. It was noted that whilst no final agreement had been reached, significant dialogue was ongoing. This raised related questions on the management approach that would be taken, should no Registered Housing Partners be secured to which Terry Gamble assured that there were currently interested parties and offers under consideration.

 

·       Members addressed the provision for an indoor gym and queried whether the developers would consider contributing to an outdoor gym, noting that outdoor gyms were extensively utilised by residents in Brent to mitigate health inequalities. Members also discussed the provision for community use within the development, highlighting the significance of youth hubs and diversionary activities for young people, and inquired whether these considerations would be incorporated in the development plans. In response to the former question, Terry Gamble responded affirmatively, indicating a willingness to consider the provision of an outdoor gym. The supporting consultant (Don Messenger) added that, as the planning consent was an outline consent, the details could be addressed at the reserved matters stage. In response to the initial question and while elaborating on the plans and vision for the community centre, including potential users and discounts, Don Messenger advised that the community centre was designed to be highly flexible for various uses. Consultations had already taken place with local groups and residents, who had expressed a desire for leisure-related activities, such as table tennis. The supporting consultant noted that, as the community centre was part of the outline element of the hybrid consent, there was additional time to refine the plans. The importance of ongoing community engagement to ensure the best fit for the community centre, aiming to attract the wider community to the scheme and utilise the green space was also emphasised. The supporting consultant welcomed continued discussions on the community space as the project progressed, should planning permission be granted.

 

·       Members raised concerns regarding the provision of social and affordable housing. Disappointment was expressed at the low contribution of 18% towards affordable homes, noting that the target was 50%, with members querying the discrepancy between the developers' calculations, which indicated a deficit of approximately £147 million, and the independent assessment by external consultants, BNPP, instructed directly by the Council, which identified a less substantial deficit. Clarification was sought on the reasons for the discrepancy and whether it implied the possibility of increasing the offer for affordable housing, which was a significant need for Brent residents. In response, the supporting consultant explained that the developers’ viability assessment encompassed numerous inputs and outputs, and that the developers had also engaged closely with the independent adviser. Despite iterative discussions, both parties had concurred that the enabling development was in deficit, and the maximum reasonable amount was being provided. It was further mentioned that an agreed review mechanism would be taking place later in the construction process, which would ensure complete transparency. Should a surplus be identified at a later date, there would be an opportunity to either increase affordable housing or alter the tenure, subject to discussions with the planning officers.

 

·       Following on from the previous question, members reiterated the concern regarding the significant discrepancy between the financial viability assessments of the developers and the independent consultants, with further reasoning being sought for the substantial difference. Jack Taylor, an additional consultant, provided further clarification, noting that the appraisal involved numerous inputs, and the large scale of the scheme compounded the issue. Several areas of challenge were cited, including residential values, which, although not significantly different, resulted in larger discrepancies when applied to a large scheme.  Further issues included rental levels for two blocks envisaged as built-to-rent, and the yield used to capitalise rental income for those buildings. Minor challenges also existed in areas, such as build costs, agents' fees, and finance rates. It was emphasised that where these small changes were applied collectively, they resulted in a substantial change in the deficit figure.

 

·       Members sought further clarification, including how the proposed development would contribute towards the preservation of the environment or the enhancement of green areas. Members additionally questioned whether there was a possibility for local residents to receive concessions or incentives to join the gyms, rather than being subjected to commercial rates. Questions were also raised around whether a percentage of housing could be allocated to provide priority for key workers in Brent and to purchase houses or accommodation in the area. In response, Don Messenger responded to the initial inquiry regarding the environmental landscape, emphasising that the preservation and enhancement of green areas were of paramount importance from the outset. Reference was made to Neasden SPG, which outlined a vision closely adhered to in the development plans. The primary change was the retention of Dudden Hill as part of the open space within the scheme, whereas the original proposal in the SPG had suggested constructing buildings in that area. It was also noted that the development included 11,500 square metres of open green space and two football pitches, exceeding the SPD's minimum target by 24%. The urban greening factor, as per the London Plan, had a policy target of 0.4, whereas the development achieved a factor of 0.57, nearly 50% above the policy requirement, which highlighted the commitment to creating meaningful green spaces accessible to all. Don Messenger reiterated the intention to ensure the green spaces and routes were open and inviting to the wider community, not only the residents of the development. Terry Gamble addressed the question regarding concessions for gym memberships, stating that the developers were in dialogue with several operators and would consider this suggestion. Regarding housing for key workers, it was noted that the rented homes in Phase 1 were all designated as social rent. The final arrangements, whether with Brent or an individual registered provider, would need to be reviewed to determine potential inclusion within the Section 106 agreement.

 

·       Members raised queries regarding the proportion of affordable housing within the proposed development, noting that typically there was a 70/30 split between affordable and intermediate housing whereas within the proposed scheme the split appeared to be reversed, with approximately 64% intermediate housing and 36% affordable housing. Members sought to understand the rationale behind this distribution and whether there was potential to increase the proportion of social rent housing. Don Messenger responded by explaining that the tenure split aimed to achieve a balance. The importance of delivering the project, which included enabling the college to have a permanent home in the borough, was emphasised. The first phase of the development focused on social rent housing, with an emphasis on front-loading social rent units. These units were situated in the lower blocks, which were more suited to family homes and had direct access to green spaces. It was noted that 62% of the social rent units were family homes, ensuring this met community needs. It was further mentioned that viability reviews would be conducted at later stages, and if a surplus was identified, there could be an opportunity to adjust the tenure mix in the future.

 

·       Following up, members inquired about the potential of incorporating intermediate housing products within the scope of the development to address housing concerns and assist individuals in temporary accommodation through registered providers, as an alternative to shared ownership. In response, Don Messenger responded by noting that London living rent was typically associated with build-to-rent schemes. The Hill Group predominantly focused on for-sale housing, although there were some build-to-rent units within the scheme. It was indicated that the second phase of the development included build-to-rent units, and the developers were open to considering different types of intermediate housing products.

 

The Chair thanked the applicants representatives for responding to the Committee’s queries and then moved on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask the officers any remaining questions or points of clarity in relation to the application, with the following being noted:

 

·       Further details were sought regarding the tenure split for the affordable housing element of the proposed development. Members sought to understand the rationale behind why the development had not achieved the standard 70/30 tenure split, noting that the current proposal included approximately 64% intermediate housing and 36% affordable housing, and questioned whether there was potential to increase the proportion of social rent housing. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) offered comprehensive general information on affordable housing and the conclusions related to tenure split and explained the strategic targets of the London Plan and Brent's Local Plan, aiming for 50% affordable housing in new developments. Members heard that the fast-track approach enabled certain schemes to bypass viability assessments provided they met specific affordable housing thresholds. The current planning application proposed 19.4% affordable housing, requiring viability testing. Phase 1 included 9.3% affordable housing (69 social rent homes), and Phase 2 included 36.9% (15 social rent units and 160 shared ownership homes). The scheme was tested using the Existing Use Value (EUV) plus approach, with BNPP concluding a potential surplus. It was additionally noted that redevelopment of two College of North West London sites - Dudden Hill Lane and Crescent Housing, Wembley - was contingent on a new college facility at Fulton Road. The redevelopment aimed to support growth, provide new homes, and enhance infrastructure. The Committee also heard that an agreement on a benchmark land value and capital contribution had been reached, but a funding shortfall remained. The proposed scheme's benefits were also highlighted, including the provision of 1,900 new homes towards the Council’s annual target of 2,350 homes, open spaces, social infrastructure, and job opportunities.

 

·       Clarification was sought regarding the potential outcomes of a late stage review. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) explained that the College Green scheme, being a large development with over 1900 homes, would undergo early, mid, and late-stage reviews. The early and mid-stage reviews would aim to capture additional affordable housing on-site if there was a surplus. It was further elaborated that the tenure split would also be considered. The exact mechanisms would be discussed with the applicant and the Greater London Authority (GLA). It was also highlighted that there were opportunities for adjustments at the early, mid, and late stages of the development.

 

·       Members sought further details around the type and nature of the convenience store proposed for the scheme. In response, Neil Quinn (Principal Planning Officer) noted that the proposed convenience store would be a retail convenience store located on the Dudden Hill site, with a floor area of less than 500m². The impact of the store, referenced within the committee report which included the sequential test and the impacts on neighbouring town centres, was also cited. Neil Quinn (Principal Planning Officer) further noted the flexibility in the variety of uses within the development, highlighting that there was approximately 4000m² of Class E workspace, which included retail and leisure uses. It was emphasised that while the store was primarily envisaged as a convenience store, the Council lacked the authority to dictate the end operator, leaving the decision to market forces to determine the occupant of the unit. As a subsequent question, members inquired about the provision of medical centres in the vicinity, given the expected increase in the local population. In response, Neil Quinn (Principal Planning Officer) addressed this concern by indicating that consultations had been conducted with the NHS and the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) during the planning application process. It was conveyed that, based on these consultations, it has been assessed that there were sufficient facilities or other sites being developed to meet the healthcare needs of the incoming residents. Members were assured that the NHS and CCG had confirmed the adequacy of existing capacity to accommodate the anticipated demand.

 

·       Members sought clarification on whether a conclusion had been reached around the arrangements for water drainage in relation to Thames Water, and questioned if conditions had been set on the property. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) responded affirmatively, stating that a number of conditions had been recommended concerning surface water capacity, as advised by Thames Water, along with a pilot method statement. It was further explained that these conditions would necessitate consulting Thames Water upon submission of the details, allowing them to provide comments and confirm that the capacity requirements had been met.

 

·       In response to further questioning around the funding for the new campus on Fulton Road, members were informed that the new college facility at Fulton Road had secured funding from the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Department for Education. However, there remained a significant shortfall of approximately £107 million. It was elaborated that, following the viability assessment, this shortfall would be addressed by the applicant through the purchase of both Crescent House and College Green sites, which would finance the construction of the college. It was clarified that the breakdown for the viability assessment included £50 million as the benchmark land value for the two sites, and an additional amount termed as the capital contribution. This combined figure effectively covered the shortfall in the delivery of the college.

 

·       Members sought reassurance regarding the efforts made to secure affordable housing funding and whether collaboration with the Mayor's office had been pursued to access affordable funding and if all possible avenues, such as grants, had been explored. In response, David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) affirmed that extensive efforts had been undertaken, stating that planning teams as well as housing teams had been actively working with the Hill Group and the Greater London Authority (GLA) to examine grant levels and to ascertain whether the GLA could increase these levels. It was noted that there had been some progress in this regard. It was also explained that the Council had been engaging with various stakeholders, including registered providers, to maximise affordable housing within the scheme. It was emphasised that where the financial viability of the two schemes was not achieved, the schemes would not be delivered. However, the Council remained committed to securing as much affordable housing, particularly low-cost rented housing, as possible. It was further mentioned that Phase 2 would not commence immediately, and other funding sources or financial changes might improve the prospects for Phase 2. In concluding the response, it was reiterated that significant efforts were being made across the board to optimise the outcomes.

 

·       Highlighting concerns relating to the family housing targets further questions were raised around whether the targets had been met and if the maximum possible effort had been made to achieve the family housing targets. In addressing the concern, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager)  explained that the viability of the scheme was influenced by the cost per square metre for family units, which was lower than that for one- and two-bedroom units. This had an impact on the overall viability. However, it was noted that Phase 1 encompassed a high number of family-sized units, particularly in the social rent category, which were prioritised based on the highest need.

 

·       As a further issue highlighted, members sought details about the feasibility of the scheme in the absence of grant funding. Additionally, members raised concerns regarding the impact of overshadowing, particularly in relation to daylight and sunlight factors, noting that many of the taller blocks were situated towards the railway line and requested information on the impact on properties located on the opposite side of the railway. In response, Neil Quinn (Principal Planning Officer) conveyed that properties on the opposite side of the railway had been assessed and indicated that these properties were situated at a sufficient distance, approximately 25 to 30 metres away, to ensure that the impacts would not be significant. While it was acknowledged that there would be impacts on Selby Avenue and Denzil Road, in particular, it was explained that the approach to building heights and massing adhered to the guidelines set out in the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Efforts had been made to minimise these impacts as far as possible. It was further noted that while there would be significant changes in height and massing, the lower-rise blocks of 5 to 6 storeys were strategically located to mitigate the impacts on daylight and sunlight.

 

·       Members further inquired about potential disturbances to wildlife in relation to archaeological considerations. In addressing the concern, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager)  stated that the scheme would be subject to a Construction Environmental Management Plan, which had undergone an ecology assessment. It was further mentioned that the scheme also considered biodiversity net gain, which involved on-site enhancements. To achieve the full 10% biodiversity net gain, some offsite credits would be required, however, there would be enhancements within the site itself, including new open spaces.

 

·       Member raised queries regarding the shortfall in biodiversity net gain (BNG) as cited in the committee report, noting that there was no Section 106 contribution for this particular development to offset the BNG shortfall. It was questioned whether a Section 106 contribution could be considered to address the compliance with BNG. Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) responded by explaining that in previous schemes, Section 106 contributions were secured under the Brent Local Plan for general biodiversity net gain, though not specifically 10%. It was noted that under the current mandatory legislation, which came into effect in February 2024, where there was an offsite shortfall, contributions would be made through credits. It was further mentioned that the Council would work with ecologists to determine suitable sites for these contributions, although there were no specific Brent habitat sites identified at present. Contributions could also be directed to a national bank. David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) added that the legislation established a hierarchy for BNG under the Environment Act. It was explained that if the on-site provision was below 10%, it could be supplemented by offsite provisions at registered locations or through the purchase of credits administered nationally. It was highlighted that the Council did not have registered onsite habitats for BNG due to legal requirements for maintenance and monitoring. David Glover assured members that the Council was exploring opportunities for offsite provision within the Borough, particularly in parks, although these had not yet been established. It was clarified that any shortfall below the 10% requirement would be mitigated.

 

·       Members then sought further clarification about the internal daylight and sunlight analysis, specifically the Greater London Authority's (GLA) concerns regarding the high proportion of single-aspect north-facing units. Further details on the implications of this concern was sought. In response, Neil Quinn (Principal Planning Officer) highlighted that efforts were made to encourage as many dual-aspect units as possible. It was acknowledged that schemes of this scale would inevitably include some single-aspect units. It was clarified that there were no single-aspect north-facing units, which was the primary concern of the GLA. Neil Quinn assured the Committee that in Phase 2, efforts would be made to improve the number of dual-aspect units. It was additionally noted that the design of the buildings would include significant systems for heating and cooling to ensure comfort for residents in single-aspect units.

 

·       Members also sought additional detail about the viability of the scheme, noting that there was a surplus until the £107 million shortfall for delivery of the new college site was considered.  Clarification was sought on the composition of the £107 million shortfall in funding. In response, David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) clarified that the shortfall was comprised of various elements, including strategic CIL payments from the Council, funding from the GLA, and funding from the DfE. It was explained that the majority of the funding was generated by releasing the two sites for development. Whilst the shortfall was acknowledged, it was emphasised that the release of the existing sites for alternative development was a key mechanism identified by the college to afford the delivery of the scheme. Neil Quinn (Principal Planning Officer) added that that the mechanisms and legal agreements surrounding the funding were still evolving. It was highlighted that the development could not proceed until the college was delivered. It was stressed that the proposals collectively aimed to unlock the delivery of a new college for Brent's young people, which was a prerequisite for the developments. David Glover further noted that the viability consultants had evaluated the college cost figures to determine the reasonableness of the contribution towards the college funding. The consultants found only a minimal difference between their cost estimates and those provided by the college which it was confirmed was a higher education institution offering specialised vocational courses, apprenticeships, and training. The engagement work undertaken by Brent Works with the college was also highlighted.

 

·       Following up, members further queried whether the late-stage review mechanism would apply solely to the proposed site or if it would also capture any potential cost efficiencies that might reduce the £107 million figure. David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) responded that the review mechanism would only apply to the proposed site. It was explained that the amount the college received would remain the same, even where the college's costs were lower. However, it was noted that it was unlikely the college costs would decrease, as costs typically increased over time. The review mechanism would focus solely on the College Green and Crescent House schemes, without re-evaluating the college costs. Members also heard that College Green would undergo early, mid, and late-stage reviews, while Crescent House, being a smaller scheme, would have only early and late-stage reviews. It was explained that the profit levels and benchmark land values were fixed and would be considered during the viability reviews. Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) further added that the college had contractual arrangements for selling their land. Once the transaction was completed, the college would have the funds to proceed with their delivery phase, allowing the applicants and their agents to move forward with their sites.

 

·       In response to further clarification being sought about the Dudden Hill Lane zebra crossing, details were provided on the access and highway works at Dudden Lane, particularly in relation to the connection between the site and Dollis Hill tube station. John Fletcher (Team Leader - Development Control) conveyed that the developer had agreed to provide a zebra crossing at a specific point to facilitate access from the development to Cooper Road, which lead to Dollis Hill station. It was noted that there was an existing crossing further south, but observations indicated that only a third of people crossing at the end of Denzil Road were using it. Consequently, concerns were raised regarding the effectiveness of the existing crossing. It was further stated that contributions had been requested to fund a transport study, which would involve conducting detailed surveys, drawing up a detailed design, and analysing the data. Based on the findings, a decision would be made on whether to relocate the crossing. An overview of the wider highway works was also provided.

 

·       Further information regarding the measures in place to ensure that local residents benefited from job opportunities arising from the proposed scheme were sought by members. In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) advised the committee that an Employment and Training Plan had been secured, which required the developers to engage with the employment and training team to identify opportunities for construction jobs, apprenticeship positions, and end-use employment. It was highlighted that the Plan also included a social value component, where active efforts would be made to implement these methods. It was confirmed that these provisions would be secured in the heads of terms. Furthermore, it was estimated that the scheme would generate approximately 176 construction jobs and around 300 end-use jobs for the local community.

 

·       Members raised concerns regarding traffic and transport assessment issues, noting that the development would introduce nearly 3000 additional people to the area. Assurances were sought around the mitigations planned to accommodate the increased population in terms of parking and transport. In response, John Fletcher (Team Leader - Development Control) confirmed that the development would include 50 parking spaces designated for disabled individuals, meeting the minimum requirements. It was highlighted that this represented a significant reduction from the approximately 300 parking spaces currently available on the site. It was anticipated that this reduction would result in a net decrease in traffic in the area, which would be beneficial for the operation of the highway. It was further mentioned that improvements were planned for pedestrian and cyclist facilities, as well as contributions to public transport.

 

·       The Chair addressed earlier committee queries and the subsequent agreement by the applicant representatives to consider the inclusion of an outdoor gym as part of the SPD, as well as the possibility of securing concessions within the gym for the 69 dwellings designated for social rent within the development, with officers requested to respond on these elements further. Regarding the provisions for the outdoor gym, David Glover (Head of Planning and Development Services) suggested that the consideration of gym facilities would be included as one of the conditions. It was confirmed that the community use plan would be secured through the conditions, ensuring all related provisions were addressed. The possibility of opening intermediate homes to other tenures, in accordance with policies, and the inclusion of flexibility within the Section 106 agreement to accommodate this, was also conveyed. Regarding concessions within the gym, David Glover stated that it would not be possible to secure this within the planning agreement. While he acknowledged the willingness of the Hill Group to work with future operators to secure such concessions, it was noted that it could not be legally included as a requirement to mitigate the development's impact. However, he affirmed that other provisions could be secured.

 

·       The Chair also sought details as to whether discounts on the community use element for social rent applicants could be arranged to which Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) responded that hours for community access would be considered, which would include discounted rates for the local community.

 

As there were no further questions from members the Chair then moved on to the vote.

 

DECISION

 

The Committee RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to:

 

(1)  The application’s referral to the Mayor of London (Stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed in the main and updated within the supplementary committee reports, together with:

 

·       Provision to include the requirement for an outdoor gym facility to be added within condition in the Community Use Agreement to be secured as part of the legal agreement.

 

·       Definition of intermediate housing within the legal agreement to capture a range of intermediate products;

 

·       The review mechanisms to be secured as part of the legal agreement to include the requirement to change intermediate housing to social housing where viability allows.

 

(2)  The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the main and amended within the supplementary committee reports.

 

(Voting on the above decision was unanimous in favour).

 

(1)        The application’s referral to the Mayor of London (Stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed in the main and updated within the supplementary committee reports, together with:

 

·            Provision to include the requirement for an outdoor gym facility to be added within condition in the Community Use Agreement to be secured as part of the legal agreement;

 

·            Definition of intermediate housing within the legal agreement to capture a range of intermediate products;

 

·            The review mechanisms to be secured as part of the legal agreement to include the requirement to change intermediate housing to social housing where viability allows.

 

(2)       The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the main and amended within the supplementary committee reports.