Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to:

 

(1)       The applications referral to the Mayor of London (Stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a satisfactory Section 106 legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the main committee report.

 

(2)       The conditions and informatives, as set out in the main and updated within the supplementary committee report.

PROPOSAL

 

Demolition of the existing building and erection of 2 buildings ranging from 3 to 9 storeys comprising student bed spaces and ancillary facilities with commercial floorspace on the ground floor. 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

 

(1)      The prior completion of a s106 legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the main committee report.

 

(2)      The conditions and informatives, as detailed in the committee report.

 

Lena Summers (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report, detailing that the site sat at the western side of Cricklewood Broadway and was bordered by Longley Way to the north and Temple Road to the south.  The proposal was for the demolition of the existing Matalan building and the erection of two buildings ranging up to 9 storeys predominantly for purpose-built student accommodation housing 826 bed spaces alongside two commercial units; one along Cricklewood Broadway and a smaller unit along Longley Way.  The development comprised a private courtyard and a publicly accessed pedestrian street running north and south between the two blocks.

 

Attention was drawn to the Supplementary Report detailing revisions in the plans and elevations including a reduction in the massing of the building to the western side, as well as a revised roof profile, the enlargement of cycle storage, reduction of the post room and updated landscaping along Temple Road, which would allow retention of the existing parking alignment.

 

The Chair thanked Lena Summers for introducing the report.  As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then moved on to the representatives who had registered to speak in relation to the application. 

 

The Chair advised that as he had been informed (prior to the meeting) that the first speaker Lauren McLaughlin (who had registered to speak online in support of the application) had been unable to join the meeting due to travel disruption we had asked for the representations submitted to be read out on her behalf by the Governance Team at the meeting with the following points highlighted:

 

• The Committee was advised that Lauren McLaughlin lived a few streets away from the current Matalan site, having resided in the area for 5 years and deeply cared about the future of the neighbourhood.

 

• Expressing her full support for the planning application for Stoll Square, she had felt the application represented a considered and thoughtful proposal that would significantly enhance the local area.

 

• Currently, the site was disused and run-down and was not felt to contribute anything positive to the community, having become a hotspot for littering and fly-tipping with the feeling of being neglected.

 

• In contrast, the new development included green spaces, environmentally conscious materials and public areas that local residents could actually use and enjoy.  It was felt the plans showed a real effort to create something modern, sustainable, and community focused with it highlighted that more green planting areas and better-designed public space was needed in the area.  It was pointed out this reflected not only the need to consider how an area looked but also how it felt to live there.  When an area was cared for and invested in, people tended to treat the area better.  As such Laren McLaughlin strongly believed the proposal would help reduce litter and improve the general atmosphere for everyone.

 

• Highlighting the area as a key route into Central London it was not felt the current site created a good impression attracting traffic, noise and pollution.  In comparison, the proposed development included bike facilities, considered planting and peaceful areas that were far more welcoming, cleaner and healthier for the local environment.

 

• The proposals were also felt to provide a clear economic benefit supporting the high street, local café’s, shops and businesses and as such was felt to provide the kind of responsible regeneration needed within the area.

 

• In closing her comments, Lauren McLaughlin had advised that she was aware many local residents felt the same with the development replacing an underused, unattractive site with something that offered real long-term value for the community and delivering strong visual, social, environmental and economic improvements to the area.

 

As Lauren McLaughlin was not present to respond to any questions, the Chair advised that the comments submitted would be noted and then moved on to invited Ben Tansley (who had registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee in relation to the application as representative of NorthWest Two Residents Association.  The following points were highlighted:

 

• Mr Tansley advised that whilst not opposed to development he was concerned at the scale of the current proposals within the application with the 9-storey frontage on the Broadway highlighted as a key concern given its mass, small windows which the CGI showed were barely visible from further along the road.

 

• The top storeys were not set back and concern was also expressed regarding the roof styling with the development greatly in excess of anything else fronting the Broadway.  The 5 storey height against Temple Road was also felt to overwhelm and did not relate to the 2 storey terraced homes opposite and presented a bleak aspect.

 

• The proposed development was not in accordance with the Local Plan with members reminded of the need to ensure that the design principles previously established were reflected within any final decision in terms of the development reflecting the general character and scale of the high quality residential area to the south along Temple Road and on the opposite side of Edgware Road with heights up to 5 storeys therefore considered appropriate.

 

• It was also highlighted that the indicative capacity of 200 was exceeded by the previous scheme as well as this one.

 

• As a result, it was felt approval of the previous scheme should not be taken as establishing a new baseline, which could now be exceeded just as the application exceeded the Local Plan.  Members were reminded that the Planning Committee’s previous decision did not amend policy. The Local Plan was carefully considered and needed to remain the policy basis for considering the current application which it was felt needed to be considered as a new application on its own merits.

 

• Reference was also made to other local developments taking place, such as 249-289 Cricklewood Broadway and Hassop Road where permission was granted for up to 5 storeys, 194-196 Cricklewood Broadway where a 6 storey development was near completion, the B&Q site with up to 18 storeys and the 1-13 Cricklewood Lane site consisting of 6 storeys fronting Cricklewood Lane with 9 storeys behind it. 

 

• Lastly, it was pointed out that Brent Cross Town had approximately 1250-1300 units already consented for student accommodation and was situated less than 100 metres away.

 

The Chair thanked Ben Tansley for addressing the Committee and invited members to ask any questions they had in relation to the information presented.

 

• When asked what would be more of an appropriate development, Mr Tansley said a development with no more than 5 storeys.  Any more storeys and the development would be drastic and stark, towering above Cricklewood Broadway, taller than neighbouring building and not in-keeping with the area.

 

• The Chair highlighted the housing crisis in London and that tall storeys may need to be built in order to meet housing targets.  Whilst recognising the need identified Mr Tansley stated that in his view the proposed development was imposing and disproportionate and negatively impacted residents of Temple Road and those passing through.

 

• Further clarification was sought on whether the view and height of the proposed development effected the residents of Temple Road.  Mr Tansley replied that the site was directly opposite residents’ homes.

 

• As Mr Tansley was a member of the NorthWestTwo Residents Association, Members asked whether this organisation were against or for the previous planning application for this site.  Mr Tansley explained that the association was in agreement with the plans when the proposal was reduced from 9 storeys to 7 following community engagement. Members were also keen to explore what scale of development would be felt to be more appropriate by the Resident Association with Mr Tansley advising that the first planning application was felt to be more suited; not only in scale and massing but also in the type of tenures being offered for households, something nearby developments were not offering.

 

• The Chair highlighted that the provision of student accommodation was identified as a need and also to alleviate pressure on local housing.  Mr Tansley highlighted that there was a lot of student accommodation being built locally.  The area did not have a high density of students and a lot of student accommodation was being built close together.

 

The Chair thanked Ben Tansley for responding to the Committee’s queries and then

moved on to invite Mark Pender (who had registered to speak as the Applicant’s Agent) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who highlighted the following points:

 

• As the applicant’s Planning Consultant, Mark Pender explained that the originally consented scheme had not been bought forward due to a change in market conditions and viability considerations.  As a result, the current proposal now included 826 student bed spaces made up of individual rooms and clusters with two 2 commercial units.

 

• The scheme was policy compliant in regard to affordable accommodation as 289 rooms (35%) would be affordable rent.  The height and massing were broadly the same as the consented scheme with a few areas being marginally taller and a few marginally lower.

 

• In terms of outlook, privacy, daylight and sunlight the proposal had achieved a high standard of accommodation.  There were no north facing rooms and dual aspects units were proposed at each corner.

 

• The current proposals ‘green’ credentials including the landscaped central avenue connecting Longley Way and Temple Road, a new pocket park and over 52 new trees.  These helped in achieving an urban green factor of 0.49, a biodiversity net gain of 180% compared to the 10% requirement and a CO2 reduction of 60% compared to the 35% requirement.

 

• A detailed supply/demand assessment had been prepared, which concluded there was a significant need for more student bedspaces in London and indeed Brent. It also identified that in 2023 740 Brent homes were occupied by students.  To further demonstrate need, a meeting with Middlesex University and Sheffield Hallam University revealed that both were interested in the development.

 

• Whilst recognising the current application was not providing conventional housing, the Committee was reminded that the application was seeking to make use of an under-utilised site that would still contribute towards the Council’s housing targets with the 826 rooms proposed equivalent to 330 dwellings and also potentially releasing existing family homes occupied by students in Brent.

 

• Whilst acknowledging that some residents on the opposite side of Cricklewood Broadway had raised concerns including overlooking/privacy and the impact on the railway terraces conservation area it was pointed out that the nearest home on Grafton Terrace was just under 40m away, therefore it was over double the 18m habitable room to habitable room distance set out in the Local Plan.  Compared to the consented scheme, there would also be no balconies on this elevation and no rooftop garden.

 

• With regard to the conservation area, it was pointed out that Council officers and those at the GLA considered there to be less than substantial harm with the significant public benefits also detailed in the Committee Report.

 

• In concluding his representations, Mark Pender hoped the Committee would therefore agree with the recommended approval of the application.

 

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

 

• The Chair added that moving away to study for the first time could be stressful and asked how the scheme had been designed to ensure students were able to mix and socialise.  Mak Pender replied that the scheme consisted of two primary elements; a student unit with individual rooms comprising a shower room and a kitchen.  Approximately 80% of the rooms were made up of clusters comprising 8 rooms each.  Each cluster had a communal lounge/kitchen area for socialising.  In addition, on the ground floor there were a number of communal areas including workspaces, private and mixed.  Outside the building, there was a landscaped boulevard and a pocket park, again providing further opportunities to mix and socialise with fellow students.

 

• The Chair asked if there was any detailed evidence to support the assertion that this scheme may assist in releasing family homes currently occupied by students.  Ed Fisher, Consultant replied that studies had been carried out by the property sector by companies like Savills and there was evidence to suggest that there was a need for this type of student accommodation.

 

• Members asked if there was a management scheme in place for the accommodation.  Mark Pender confirmed that a student management plan had been submitted and had been seen by the student accommodation specialist.

 

• Clarification was sought on whether a similar student management plan had been implemented elsewhere.  The Consultant replied that the company selected to carry out the student management plan was one of the largest in the country and managed around 40,000 students.  The company had thorough experience of implementing student management plans including logistical aspects including security, cleaning, H&S, pastoral care, parking and starters and leavers. 

 

• Members asked how long the tenure was for the student accommodation.  The Consultant explained that the tenure was for 38 weeks for affordable accommodation, which could increase to 51 weeks.

 

Further clarification was sought on where students were likely to seek accommodation once their initial tenure had ended, given concern this may have an impact on demand for private sector rented accommodation.  The Consultant stated that typically students went home during the summer holidays but if they wanted to stay, they would be able to extend their tenancy, subject to the rate being confirmed.  Mark Pender advised that whilst not providing conventional housing student accommodation scheme did have the ability to contribute towards delivery of housing targets.  A formula was used to establish how many conventional homes a student accommodation scheme would equate to and in this instance, the figure was 330 new homes.

 

• Members asked if a financial contribution had been considered which could be utilised for the provision of affordable family housing, for which there was significant need for.  The Consultant advised that a financial contribution was not considered, as the policy was for affordable student accommodation.  Mark Pender added the policy was compliant with the London Plan and that the client would be maintaining the freehold interest and intended to provide affordable student accommodation.

 

• Having highlighted an objection from Barnet Council, Mark Pender clarified that this has been from their Heritage Officer with the Council itself having not objected to the scheme.  The objection related to the proposed elevation at Cricklewood Broadway.  Members were advised, however, that the GLA and Brent Council officers had reviewed the proposals and concluded the scheme to result in less than substantial harm with numerous public benefits.  There was no longer any impact causing limited daylight hours, the buildings were not close together and privacy was maintained for residents.  The storeys were lower at the junction of Temple Road and overall, it was felt to be a positive scheme.

 

• Further clarification was sought on the breaches identified in terms of Policy, for example in relation to dual aspect and sunlight with members also seeking detail on the average cluster size and how they compared to previous applications.  Mark Pender replied that the clusters were just over 80% cluster units and under 20% individual units.  Julian Williams, Scheme Architect said that the design of the building was simple and rational with regular steps and in line with student needs.  There were 662 rooms within 82 clusters and 164 individual rooms.

 

• As a final issue, members queried the changes made since the pre-application stage.  Mark Pender highlighted that these included improved changes to the landscaping as well as lowering the boundary to 3m at Stoll Close and internal changes to fire and privacy.  The Scheme Architect relayed how the planning application had been subject to input from Brent Council’s design team, resident input and via two Quality Review Panels.  One of the key changes was the development of pocket parks within the units.  Also, all students could benefit from shared facilities and amenity space on the ground floor.  Additionally, two courtyard spaces offered further amenity spaces, which was part of offering students a mixture of landscaping spaces in the private areas of the development as well as the shared public spaces. 

 

The Chair thanked Mark Pender and his team 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:

 

• Members sought clarification regarding the cluster sizes of the development and asked if a there was currently any developments with 9 cluster units.  In response, Victoria McDonagh (Development Management Service Manager) confirmed that the Watkin Road development had 9-10 cluster units with a communal kitchen and was comparable.  More traditional residential schemes contained clusters of 8 to allow for socialising.  Additionally, unlike a traditional residential scheme, criteria was not specific for student accommodation and room sizes had been compared to other schemes with communal provision also available to enable students to be able to socialise and meet.

 

• Members welcomed the inclusion of two commercial units in the scheme and asked if not occupied whether one could be used as a GP surgery, pharmacy or community hub.  Lena Summers, (Principal Planning Officer) explained that the application was for an open class E, which included retail, commercial and a gym and there was scope to vary the consent if needed.

 

• Members queried the adequacy of the available bike storage facility proposed within the development which John Fletcher (Team Leader – Development Control, Transport Planning) confirming that if required further bike stands would also be available at Willesden Green and Cricklewood Stations.  Bicycle usage would, however, continued to be monitored.

 

• Members sought clarification on paragraph 17 on Page 39 of the Committee Report stating that London Policy H15A supported purpose-built student accommodation provided that at the neighbourhood level, the development contributed to a mixed and inclusive neighbourhood and asked if this scheme met that criteria.  Victoria McDonagh explained that this referred to an over concentration of student accommodation.  When comparing to other existing purpose built student accommodation, there were 9433 existing bed spaces of which 8434 were in the Wembley growth area.  No other similar schemes had been granted in the area covered by the application and student accommodation was needed.  The students would add to the local economy and the scheme would not lead to an over concentration in the borough.  Student accommodation contributed to a mix in society as well as to the regeneration of the area.

 

• Further details was sought on utilisation of the site and whether this was being maximised to meet needs in Brent.  It was noted that the previous application had been designed to propose residential homes rather than purpose built student accommodation site with details on how much weight was given to this.  Lena Summers explained that this was only one part of the site allocation and another part near the car park was not developed and could be used for conventional C3 dwellings.  The original site allocation set out 380 units and this application would (based on the formula outlined) be counted as contributing 330 units whilst also developing and improving the local area along with the associated benefits.  David Glover, (Head of Planning and Development Services) highlighted that the scheme was in line with regulations and in accordance with the development plan.  Victoria McDonagh added that housing delivery was for a range of accommodations types including self-contained and non-self-contained accommodation.  This scheme was in line with policy H15 of the London Plan as well as policy B7 of the Brent Local Plan, which related to non-self-contained accommodation with student accommodation also recognised as a London wide need and applied as such.

 

• Clarification was sought on how this scheme met the London Plan without a mix of tenures.  Victoria McDonagh said that when looking at the benefits, the scheme contributed to the wider housing targets by providing 35% affordable student accommodation.  Amongst other benefits, there would be enhancements to the public realm for all residents, an urban green infrastructure enhancement, employment and training opportunities and the regeneration of an under-utilised site.  Lena Summer added that the tallest part of the scheme was where Longley Way met Cricklewood Broadway and then the building reduced in height at the south.  The lower end of the building matched the frontage of the existing property next to it and the highest element was set away from the main site.  Members were shown a range of CGI that showed the different heights of the building.

 

• In response to concerns relating to daylight/sunlight internal targets Lena Summers advised the assessed levels had been deemed appropriate, as the type of accommodation was not lived in full term, most rooms were single aspect and it was recognised that the target was not met in the same way as C3 dwellings.

 

• Members identified that there was a need to balance the benefits of student accommodation in light of the current housing crisis and demand for that type of accommodation.  In response, David Glover outlined the location of the scheme as a benefit given its transport links to London and surrounding facilities with evidence of significant demand in London for student accommodation.

 

• In terms of the number of student accommodation sites being provided across the borough David Glover advised that any assessment included the impact on balance of the wider community within the local area and demand.

 

• Although members understood the need for student accommodation, it was noted that all 330 homes consisted of single bedrooms and were not family units and therefore asked if a financial contribution could be considered to contribute towards delivery of the Council’s wider housing targets.  In response, Victoria McDonagh pointed out that policy H15 did make reference to affordable student accommodation and that a payment in lieu would not be in line with the policy nor an obligation of the provider.  The scheme was viable and had benefits.

 

• Members highlighted that policy D9 was not compliant with the Tall Building Zone nor was it assisting with the housing crisis and it seemed like many developers were coming forward for student accommodation schemes, which may be deemed to be more viable than private housing schemes.  Whilst recognising the issue highlighted, members were reminded the scheme would be assessed as delivering an equivalent of 330 new homes to contribute towards the housing targets with students also contributing to the surrounding local economy.  David Glover stated that financial contributions had been secured on a number of occasions towards traditional housing due to very particular need but there was evidence of the need for affordable student housing.  Referring to the Committee report, Victora McDonagh pointed out this had referred to the London Plan acknowledging the role that purpose build student accommodation had in meeting housing needs both directly and indirectly through helping to alleviate pressures on traditional rented homes and, as such, counted towards housing supply and may also have a role in supporting wider housing delivery in an area.  There was a shift from the situation where in 2010, consumer surveys suggested that all-inclusive rented properties and brand quality was increasingly significant in student’s housing choices with dedicated sleeping, study and social spaces, which were well designed and maintained.  David Glover highlighted that students needed accommodation whilst they were at university and this reduced the demand on the private rented sector.  Policy D9, in relation to the Tall Building Zone was applied but was not the end point of consideration.

 

• Members asked if alternative massing options had been explored with Lena Summers advising this had been detailed within the Supplementary Report provide for the Committee.  Some of the changes made included the profile of the roof to be shunted in order to angle away from the neighbouring property.

 

• Clarification was sought on how nominations to the site would be managed.  Victora McDonagh advised that the S106 Agreement would include a Nominations Agreement with at least 50% room occupancy and also show evidence of universities nominated including the treatment of international students.

 

As there were no further questions from members the Chair thanked everyone of their contributions and then moved on to the vote.

 

DECISION

 

The Committee RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to:

 

(1)  The applications referral to the Mayor of London (Stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a satisfactory Section 106 legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the main committee report.

 

(2)  The conditions and informatives, as set out in the main and updated within the Supplementary Committee Report.

 

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: 5 For and 3 Against).