Barham Park Estate, Sudbury - Greater London Authority

More documents

Recommendations

Info

a commitment to best practice has not been made to ensure that the detailed design stage delivers a truly accessible proposal. 15 However, this matter is not of sufficient strategic importance to recommend a direction to refuse and it is accepted that Brent Council will work to secure the necessary level of accessibility at the detailed design stage. Transport 16 At the consultation stage Transport for London (TfL) raised a number of concerns regarding the details of the proposed development and transport assessment work. 17 Whilst the overall parking provision was agreed, it was requested that 20% of the parking provision (32 spaces) be designated as electric charging bays. Only two spaces have been offered. 18 A planning condition has been secured regarding the details of the cycle parking, but a pedestrian audit has not been provided and nor have improvements to pedestrian facilities been offered. TfL accepts that this relates to the local network and is content for any pedestrian improvements to be agreed with the Council at a later stage. 19 A travel plan has been secured within the draft section 106 agreement. Reference is made to the setting up of a car club to be secured by a planning condition, with further details such as the financial package for residents membership still to be provided. However, TfL is happy for this to be agreed with the Council. 20 On balance, TfL considers that the development proposals are generally acceptable in transport terms, although it is disappointing that the number of electric vehicle charging points do not meet the Mayor’s electric vehicle delivery plan or the draft replacement London Plan (October 2009). It is requested that the local authority and the applicants continue to work with TfL in relation to the section 106 commitments and discharge of the relevant planning conditions. Climate change 21 The applicants have provided further information on the district heating elements, the proposed CHP, cooling of commercial uses and the proposed renewable options. These elements are now acceptable. In addition, Brent Council has included a requirement within the draft section 106 agreement in order to deliver the approved energy strategy as follows: “[The applicant is required to] Offset 20% of the site's carbon emissions through onsite site wide heat network in conjunction with high performance building fabric as approved in the Energy Statement (11 November 2009), with compensation should it not be delivered”. 22 As such, the climate change matters have been satisfactorily addressed. Response to consultation 23 The application was advertised by site and press notices and consultation letters were sent to some 460 neighbouring properties. As a result of this consultation, seven letters of objection were received, which set out the following concerns: • The demolition of 89 Central Road to create an access is unacceptable. • Proposed emergency access should not be used in the future as an access road. • Impact on local property values (not a material planning consideration). page 4
• The provision of retail uses will have a negative impact on existing businesses on Harrow Road, Sudbury. • The proposals will result in a loss of light, privacy and outlook to properties which are north of the site on the opposite side of the railway. • The number, size and design of the buildings is unacceptable and increased population will lead to increased noise levels. • Traffic congestion and public transport issues. • The proposal fails to improve or enhance the character of the area. • Lincoln Harford Solicitors have objected on behalf of 50 existing residents to the proposed purchase of their properties by Notting Hill Housing Trust. 24 The Barham Park Residents’ Association also provided detailed comments on the proposals and while it supports the regeneration of the estate, its letter sets out a number of issues relating to design, wheelchair housing, parking, public transport and the proposed community centre. These are on the whole local issues which have been adequately dealt with by the Brent Council through the use of planning conditions. Other statutory consultees have responded as follows: • Network Rail: no objection but request conditions/informative be attached. • Thames Water: No objection subject to informatives. • Environment Agency: No objection subject to conditions. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority 25 Under Article 7 of the Order the Mayor could take over this application provided the policy tests set out in that Article are met. In this instance the Council has resolved to grant permission with conditions and a planning obligation which satisfactorily addresses that matters raised at stage I, therefore there is no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application. Legal considerations 26 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor has the power under Article 6 to direct the local planning authority to refuse permission for a planning application referred to him under Article 4 of the Order. He also has the power to issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. In directing refusal the Mayor must have regard to the matters set out in Article 6(2) of the Order, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, regional planning guidance, and the use of the River Thames. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London. If he decides to direct refusal, the Mayor must set out his reasons, and the local planning authority must issue these with the refusal notice. If the Mayor decides to direct that he is to be the local planning authority, he must have regard to the matters set out in Article 7(3) and set out his reasons in the direction. The Mayor must also have regard to the guidance set out in GOL circular 1/2008 when deciding whether or not to issue a direction under Articles 6 or 7. Financial considerations 27 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 03/2009 (‘Costs Awards in Appeals and page 5
Page 1 and 2: planning report PDU/2466/02 22 Febr
Page 3: Affordable housing 7 Further inform
Page 7 and 8: planning report 2466/01 6 January 2
Page 9 and 10: 7 Figure 1: The proposed developmen
Page 11 and 12: Affordable housing 17 The Mayor’s
Page 13 and 14: through the purchase of 38 market u
Page 15 and 16: important frontage. However, there
Page 17 and 18: link the existing commercial activi
Page 19 and 20: Blocks K, L, M, W, N, J and P, Q, S
Page 21 and 22: Transport 62 The site is currently
Page 23 and 24: 78 While it is accepted that there
Page 25 and 26: may decide whether to allow the dra

Barham Park Estate, Sudbury - Greater London Authority

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?