land at capitol way report by HC120911003827

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 24

									                                                            planning report PDU/2136/02
                                                                                      5 May 2009

                                                           land at Capitol Way
                                                          in the London Borough of Brent
                                                         planning application no. 08/2823


Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers)
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and
2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal
Mixed-use scheme comprising 460 residential units, replacement bulky goods retail
floorspace, community/health facility, and 1,022 sq.m. additional office/retail floorspace,
together with parking and landscaping, play and amenity space.

The applicant
The applicants are Royal Asset Management and Kitewood Estates, and the architect is
Dunnett Craven.

Strategic issues
The issues raised regarding affordable housing, children’s play space, inclusive design,
climate change mitigation and adaptation, and transport have all been satisfactorily
addressed.

Recommendation
That Brent Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself,
subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to
direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context
1       On 21 October 2008 the Mayor of London received documents from Brent Council
notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above
site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under the following Categories of the
Schedule of the Order 2008:

       1A: “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or
        houses and flats”.

       1B: “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or
        houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building…outside Central
        London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 sq.m.”.



                                                                                               page 1
       1C: “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building…more than 30 metres
        high and outside the City of London”.

2       On 25 November 2008 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2136/01, and
subsequently advised Brent Council that the application did not comply with the London
Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 75 of the above-mentioned report; but that the
possible remedies set out in paragraph 76 of that report could address these deficiencies.

3       A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard
to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and
guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. On 7 April 2009 Brent
Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission, and on 16 April 2009 it
advised the Mayor of this decision. The referral was completed and acknowledged on 23 April
2009. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London)
Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Brent Council
under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Brent Council under Article 7
that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the
application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 6 May 2009 to notify the
Council of his decision and to issue any direction.

4     The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website
www.london.gov.uk.

Update
5       At consultation stage Brent Council was advised that the application did not comply
with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 75 of the above-mentioned report;
but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 76 of that report could address these
deficiencies:

       Housing: A financial viability assessment was required to confirm that the application
        delivered the maximum feasible proportion of affordable housing. In addition, flat
        layouts illustrating that 10% of the units will be wheelchair accessible or easily
        adaptable were required, as well as design revisions to the courtyard spaces to ensure
        adequate space and facilities were provided for the expected child population,
        particularly younger children.

       Inclusive design: The applicants were required to revise the design of the courtyards to
        ensure that they are accessible by all from all access points.

       Climate change mitigation and adaptation: An investigation into possible additional
        renewable energy technologies was required, and if feasible, further measures should be
        included within the development.

       Transport: The applicants were required to reduce the level of car parking provision
        for the retail element, provide changing and shower facilities for cyclists, and further
        modelling work as detailed in the report. Further discussion was also required with TfL
        regarding transport contributions and travel plans.

Scheme update

6     Following discussions with Council officers the scheme has been amended. The main
changes since the Mayor’s previous consideration of the scheme are as follows:



                                                                                           page 2
   -   A reduction in residential units from 462 to 460.

   -   A reduction in commercial floorspace from 8,016 sq.m to 7,116 sq.m.

   -   Design and landscaping revisions.

Housing

7       As requested at consultation stage, the applicants have submitted a full viability
assessment which demonstrates that the proposed affordable housing level (at 36% by units and
40% by habitable room) represents the maximum reasonable amount. The Council has secured
this provision through the legal agreement.

8      Further information was required regarding play provision. Whilst the design of the
courtyard spaces were recognised as being of a high quality, it was not apparent how the use of
them for play and recreation had been maximised, in order to provide the required level of play
provision in accordance with the London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Providing
for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation’. The applicants have responded
positively and have further revised the design of the courtyards in response to comments made
by GLA officers. The scheme will include 1,263 sq.m. of play space, which will comprise both
dedicated play areas and innovative design of the courtyards to provide additional play
opportunities, as well as general recreation. Features set within the general courtyards include
climbing beams, stepping stones, chimes, rocking pads and water features. The overall
approach to play and recreation is strongly supported. The Council has adequately secured the
provision of play provision and landscaping through condition.

9      As requested at consultation stage, the applicants have also provided typical flat layouts
to demonstrate that 10% of the units will be easily adaptable for wheelchair users. This is
acceptable.

Inclusive design

10      At consultation stage, concern was raised regarding inclusive design, in particular the
design of the courtyards, which did not provide ramped access to all areas, from all of the cores.
The applicants have responded positively and have amended the scheme to provide ramped
access to the courtyards.

Climate change mitigation and adaptation

11     The applicants’ approach to climate change mitigation and adaptation was broadly
supported at consultation stage, although further justification regarding the quantum of
renewables was required, including an investigation of the technical viability of ground source
cooling. The applicants have provided sufficient information, which demonstrates that the
proportion of renewables has been maximised, and on balance the overall strategy responds
positively to London Plan policies.

Transport for London
12      Transport for London raised a number of issues at consultation stage, including the
need for a reduction in the level of car parking, the submission of a car parking management
strategy, confirmation of the total number of cycle parking spaces for staff of the health centre,
and the need for further trip generation and modelling work. A final version of the travel plan,
a bus stop audit survey and a financial contribution to improve bus network capacity, walking
and cycling facilities were also requested.


                                                                                          page 3
13      The level of car parking for both the retail and residential use is still considered to be
high. However, TfL recognise that this level of car parking does not exceed the maximum
standards as set out in the London Plan, and is therefore in accordance with London Plan
Policy 3C.23 Parking Strategy (including Annex 4). To ensure that the level and impact of car
parking is monitored a car parking management strategy has been submitted by the applicant,
the content of which is considered to be acceptable. The strategy has been secured through the
legal agreement. Should a controlled parking zone be introduced, the rights of the residents of
the development to apply for parking permits will be removed. This has also been secured
through the legal agreement and is welcomed by TfL.

14      Following comments made at consultation stage, the applicants have confirmed that a
total of five cycle parking spaces will be designated for use by staff of the health centre. This is
considered to be in accordance with London Plan Policy 3C.22. Cycle parking for all uses is in
accordance with TfL cycle parking standards.

15     As requested at consultation stage, the applicants have submitted additional trip
generation and modelling work. This work is acceptable. A final version of the travel plan has
also now been submitted and reviewed by TfL. This is now considered satisfactory and has
been secured through the legal agreement. TfL would welcome being consulted on further
amendments to the travel plan when they are submitted to the council.

16      The applicants have submitted a bus stop audit survey, which identified a total of seven
bus stops to be upgraded. The total financial contribution has been capped at £70,000. In
addition, a cumulative financial contribution of £200,000 has been secured in the legal
agreement to improve the bus network and to provide additional capacity to cope with
additional demand generated by this, and other committed and proposed, development within
the vicinity of the site. The contribution is payable upon commencement of development and is
index-linked from the date of committee. This is welcomed by TfL and is in accordance with
London Plan Policy 3C.20. A financial contribution of up to £100,000 towards local cycle and
walking routes has also been secured by the Council. This is welcomed by TfL and will assist in
implementation of London Plan Policies 3C.21, and 3C.22.

17      Should this application be granted planning permission, the applicants are reminded
that this does not discharge the requirements under the Traffic Management Act 2004. Formal
notifications and approval may be needed for both the permanent highway scheme and any
temporary highway works required during the construction phase of the development.

Response to consultation
18      The Council consulted various statutory and non-statutory organisations as well as
local occupiers/owners.

Local owners/occupiers

19     Eleven responses from local residential occupiers and/or land owners were received by
the Council, ten of these raised objections to the proposal, citing the following grounds:

      Design: height; loss of sunlight; density, and loss of privacy and outlook for existing
       residents.

      Housing: level of affordable housing.

      Transport: increase in cycle users will be dangerous; congestion; impact on public
       transport; parking problems; impact of Stag Lane junction insufficiently investigated,
       and excessive cycle spaces.

                                                                                            page 4
        Other: insufficient school places; insufficient health provision; increase crime and
         antisocial behaviour; increase in flooding; increase in air and noise pollution;
         construction impact on existing properties; loss of industrial land, and insufficient
         public consultation.

20       One response was received in support of the proposal.

21      Several the responses raise issues of a local nature. The Council has assessed the local
issues surrounding loss of daylight and sunlight, overlooking, and construction impacts on
existing properties and has concluded that the proposals would not result in an unacceptable
impact. The Council and TfL have assessed the applicants’ transport assessment and have
secured measures to address any negative impact on the existing highway network. The
number of cycle spaces is in accordance with TfL’s minimum cycle parking standards, and is
therefore acceptable. The Council has concluded that local schools have the ability to expand to
meet the requirements of this development and the Council has secured £2,347,800 from the
applicants to, in part, be spent on education (in addition to local park improvements,
sustainable transportation and air quality). The application also includes space for use by a
community or health centre, and also includes a creche. In addition, the proportion of
affordable housing was the subject of a viability assessment and is acceptable.

22      In terms of design and density, the scheme was supported by the Mayor in the
consultation report, and has been accepted by the Council. As detailed in the Mayor’s
consultation report, whilst the scheme is above the density guidelines within the London Plan,
the proposal responds well to the design policies of the London Plan and is considered to be of
a high quality. Particular attention has been paid by the applicants to residential amenity,
including the provision of dual aspect, ‘scissor’ units. The proposal provides adequate and well-
designed amenity and play spaces, which have been revised and improved following comments
by GLA officers. The built character of the surrounding area is urban, comprising a mix of
large-scale commercial buildings on the Edgware Road frontage, with lower scale residential
streets away from Edgware Road. The site is close to two development sites, which have
planning permission for high-density mixed-use schemes with tall elements on Edgware Road.
The scheme therefore relates well to its emerging context. The site is within walking distance
of three Underground stations and is served by nine bus routes. The applicants have also
provided an assessment of the surrounding community, health and social facilities to
demonstrate that the development will not place undue pressure on existing facilities. As
discussed above, the Council has secured mitigation measures to expand schools to meet the
needs of this development, and has accepted the density of the proposal.

23      In addition to representations from local residential occupiers and/or land owners,
letters of objection were received from Barry Gardiner MP (Brent North) and Cllr Robert
Dunwell. The comments of Cllr Robert Dunwell are considered in paragraph 27 to 30 below.
The issues raised by Barry Gardiner MP largely reflect those discussed above and have been
addressed in paragraphs 21 and 22.

Statutory and non-statutory bodies

24     In addition to local occupiers, a number of statutory and non-statutory organisations
were consulted. The organisations, and their comments, are summarised below:

        The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment: gave support for the
         proposal, stating that scheme is an “intelligent solution to create a pleasant space for living
         in an area that presently appears hostile to residential accommodation. This scheme could serve
         as an example for future redevelopment of vacant retail parks”. However, CABE did raise
         concerns regarding the space between the car park and the retail store. Although

                                                                                               page 5
        CABE acknowledge that this space includes a successful approach to landscaping,
        which will help to turn it into a well-designed area, they raised concerns regarding the
        movement of visitors and deliveries between the shop and the car park, that could
        potentially compromise the quality of the space.

       Environment Agency: raised no objections to the proposal. However, requested a
        condition requiring details of the proposed sustainable drainage system.

       Thames Water: has stated that the existing waste water infrastructure is insufficient
        to accommodate the needs of the application. Consequently, Thames water has
        requested a condition requiring a drainage strategy be submitted. In addition, in
        response to concerns regarding the increase in foul water flow, Thames Water has also
        requested a condition requiring an impact study of the existing infrastructure to
        determine the magnitude of any additional capacity required.

       London Borough of Barnet: raised no objection to the principle of the proposal but
        raised some concerns regarding the out-of-town nature of the proposal, the residential
        density, the height and massing of the development and concerns regarding impact on
        traffic.

25     The Council has included a condition in response to the comments of Thames Water
and the Environment Agency.

26      The proposal seeks to reduce the overall quantum of lawful retail use on this site. Given
that this site is in an out-of-town location, but does have lawful permission for a large quantum
of commercial floorspace, the proposed reduction produces a land-use mix that is more in
keeping with London Plan objectives than at present, and as such is acceptable. The design of
the proposal is supported at the strategic level and accords with London Plan policies.
Although the scheme is high density, an assessment of the scheme at consultation stage
concluded that the density was acceptable. The Council has also concluded that the density of
the proposal is acceptable. Transport for London has assessed the impact of the proposal on the
strategic road network and public transport infrastructure and concluded that the scheme does
not have a serious impact, subject to detailed junction design.

Representations to the Mayor of London

27      In addition to representations made to the Council, a number of representations have
been made directly to the Mayor. Four letters of objection were received, including a petition,
which at the time of this report had 178 signatures. Of the four objections, one was received
from Brian Coleman AM, and one from Cllr Robert Dunwell. The following concerns were
raised:

       Density: scheme too dense, and height.

       Transport: insufficient parking spaces and a reliance on introducing a controlled
        parking zone; a reliance on a green travel plan and financial penalties to manage
        parking levels; impact on Capitol Way/Stag Lane and Capitol Way/Edgware Road
        junctions and operation of Capitol Way;

       Other: lack of an area masterplan; unsatisfactory consultation; improper behaviour at
        the site visit and committee meeting, and flooding risk.

28     Density: issues surrounding the density of the proposal have been addressed in
paragraph 22 above.

                                                                                         page 6
29      Transport: The use of travel plans is an established and supported method of managing
car parking levels and reducing the use of the private car. Travel plans for strategic
developments are required by London Plan Policy 3C.2. The development and adoption of a
travel plan is included within the legal agreement and will be the subject of further discussions
between the applicants and the Council. In addition, the implementation and management of
controlled parking zones is an issue for the local council. The restriction of new residents from
parking permits is also an established and supported method of managing parking levels.

30     Other: Whilst the development of a masterplan for the Edgware Road area by the
Council would be supported at the strategic level, its absence does not prevent an assessment of
the proposal against current strategic and local policies. The Council has stated that adequate
consultation has been carried out by the Council and the applicants, including the direct
consultation of neighbouring occupants and the use of site and press notices, in addition to the
applicants’ public exhibition and leaflet drop to 1,500 surrounding properties. Four meetings
with local stakeholders were held between August 2008 and November 2008. The Council has
secured the submission of a drainage strategy in response to concerns raised by Thames Water.

Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority
31      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
32      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
33     Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent
appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government guidance in Circular 8/93 (‘Award of Costs in
Planning and Other (including Compulsory Purchase Order) Proceedings’) emphasises that parties
usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal.

34     Following an inquiry caused by a direction to refuse, costs may be awarded against the
Mayor if he has either directed refusal unreasonably; handled a referral from a planning
authority unreasonably; or behaved unreasonably during the appeal. A major factor in deciding

                                                                                           page 7
whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of
established planning policy.

35      Should the Mayor take over the application he would be responsible for holding a
representation hearing and negotiating any planning obligation. He would also be responsible
for determining any reserved matters applications (unless he directs the council to do so) and
determining any approval of details (unless the council agrees to do so).



Conclusion
36      The concerns raised previously regarding affordable housing, children’s play space,
inclusive design, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and transport have been adequately
addressed.




for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit:
Giles Dolphin, Head of Planning Decisions
020 7983 4271 email giles.dolphin@london.gov.uk
Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions)
020 7983 4895 email justin.carr@london.gov.uk
Sarah Thomas, Principal Strategic Planner, Case Officer
020 7983 5751 email sarah.thomas@london.gov.uk




                                                                                       page 8
                                                         planning report PDU/2136/01
                                                                        25 November 2008

                                                        land at Capitol Way
                                                       in the London Borough of Brent
                                                      planning application no. 08/2823


Strategic planning application stage 1 referral (new powers)
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and
2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008

The proposal
Mixed-use scheme comprising 462 residential units, replacement bulky goods retail
floorspace, community/health facility, and 1,125 sq.m. additional office/retail floorspace,
together with parking and landscaping, play and amenity space.

The applicant
The applicants are Royal Asset Management and Kitewood Estates, and the architect is
Dunnett Craven.

Strategic issues
The principle of the redevelopment of the site for mixed-use, residential-led development is in
accordance with strategic planning policies. However, there a number of outstanding issues
that need to be addressed, including affordable housing, children’s play space, inclusive
design, climate change mitigation and adaptation, transport and employment
opportunities.

Recommendation
That Brent Council be advised that the application does not comply with the London Plan, for
the reasons set out in paragraph 75 of this report; but that the possible remedies set out in
paragraph 76 of this report could address these deficiencies.



                                                                                          page 9
Context
1 On 21 October 2008 the Mayor of London received documents from Brent Council
notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above
site for the above uses. Under the provisions of The Town & Country Planning (Mayor of
London) Order 2008 the Mayor has until 1 December 2008 to provide the Council with a
statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan,
and his reasons for taking that view. The Mayor may also provide other comments. This report
sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what decision to make.




2 The application is referable under the following Categories of the Schedule of the Order
2008:

       1A: “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or
        houses and flats”.

       1B: “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats, or
        houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building…outside Central
        London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 sq.m.”.

       1C: “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building…more than 30 metres
        high and outside the City of London”.

3 Once Brent Council has resolved to determine the application, it is required to refer it back
to the Mayor for his decision as to whether to direct refusal; take it over for his own
determination; or allow the Council to determine it itself.

4 The Mayor of London’s statement on this case will be made available on the GLA website
www.london.gov.uk.

Site description
5 The 1.5 hectare site is located on Edgware Road. The site is bounded to the east by
Edgware Road, part of the Strategic Road Network; to the south by Capitol Way and an Asda
superstore; to the west by industrial and retail uses; and to the north by a car showroom. The
site is currently occupied by a Wickes do-it-yourself store and an empty retail building
(comprising in total 11,522 sq.m. of retail floorspace), together with car parking.

6 The site has a public transport accessibility level of between three and two (on a scale
where one is low and six is high). The nearest London Underground station is Colindale, on
the Northern Line, which is located approximately ten minutes walk from the site. Burnt Oak
and Kingsbury, on the Northern and Jubilee lines respectively, are also close to the site.
Hendon Railway station is 3.2km from the site, providing national rail services into central
London. There is a total of nine bus routes that serve the surrounding area on Edgware Road
and Capitol Way providing services to Ruislip, Edgware and Watford.

Details of the proposal


                                                                                              page 10
7 Royal Asset Management and Kitewood Estates are seeking full planning permission for
the redevelopment of the site to provide 462 residential units, replacement bulky goods retail
(6,111 sq.m.), 1,925 sq.m. additional commercial floorspace, 706 sq.m. of community use
(specific use yet to be confirmed), 97 sq.m. of floorspace for a creche, car and cycle parking
together with landscaping and an energy centre.

                                           Image removed

Case history
8   There is no relevant strategic case history on this site.

Strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance
9   The relevant issues and corresponding policies are as follows:

 Mix of uses                      London Plan
 Retail                           London Plan; PPS6; PPG13
 Housing                          London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG; Providing for Children and
                                   Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation SPG
   Affordable housing             London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG
   Density                        London Plan; PPS3; Housing SPG
   Urban design                   London Plan; PPS1
   Access                         London Plan; PPS1; Accessible London: achieving an inclusive
                                   environment SPG; Wheelchair Accessible Housing BPG; Planning
                                   and Access for Disabled People: a good practice guide (ODPM)
 Sustainable development          London Plan; PPS, PPS Planning and Climate Change
                                   Supplement to PPS1; PPS3; PPG13; PPS22; the Mayor’s Energy
                                   Strategy; Sustainable Design and Construction SPG
 Regeneration                     London Plan; the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy
 Transport                        London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13
 Parking                          London Plan; the Mayor’s Transport Strategy; PPG13

10 For the purposes of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the
development plan in force for the area is the 2004 Brent Council Unitary Development Plan
and the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004).

11 The Brent Core Strategy and Site Allocations (informal pre-submission) and Development
Control Policies (preferred options) development plan documents are also material
considerations.

Mix of uses and retail
12 London Plan policies 2A.8, 3D.1 and 3D.2 seek to support town centres, and to encourage
retail, leisure and other related uses to locate within them. The site is not within a town centre.
Any proposals for intensification or expansion of retail facilities on this site would therefore be
assessed against the need to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres, in
accordance with London Plan policies 3D.2 and 2A.8 and Planning Policy Statement 6:
Planning for Town Centres.



                                                                                          page 11
13 The site currently has 6,290 sq.m. of bulky good retail floorspace. In addition, the site has
certificates of lawfulness for an additional 5,262 sq.m. The total permitted retail floorspace on
site is therefore 11,552 sq.m. The applicants are seeking planning permission for 6,111 sq.m. of
bulky good retail floorspace together with 1,925 sq.m. of retail, office and light industrial uses,
and 706 sq.m. of community use. The overall replacement commercial floorspace is 8,742 sq.m.
This is a 25% reduction in commercial floorspace on this site. Given that this site is in an out-
of-town location, but does have lawful permission for a large quantum of commercial
floorspace, the proposed reduction produces a land use mix that is more in keeping with
London Plan objectives than at present. The proposal is also in accordance with the Council’s
emerging site designation which identifies it for “mixed-use redevelopment for retail (bulky goods)
or for car showroom, with residential development above”. The Council should condition the 6,111
sq.m. retail floorspace restricting it to the sale of bulky goods only.


Image removed




                                                                                          page 12
 Housing
 Affordable housing

 14 London Plan Policy 3A.10 requires borough councils to seek the maximum reasonable
 amount of affordable housing when negotiating on individual private residential and mix-use
 schemes. In doing so, each council should have regard to its own overall target for the amount
 of affordable housing provision. Policy 3A.9 states that such targets should be based on an
 assessment of regional and local housing need and a realistic assessment of supply, and should
 take account of the London Plan target that 70% of affordable housing element should be social
 and 30% intermediate provision, and of the promotion of mixed and balanced communities. In
 addition, Policy 3A.10 encourages councils to have regard to the need to encourage rather than
 restrain residential development, and to the individual circumstances of the site. Targets
 should be applied flexibly, taking account of individual site costs, the availability of public
 subsidy and other scheme requirements.

 15 Policy 3A.10 is supported by paragraph 3.52, which urges borough councils to take account
 of economic viability when estimating the appropriate amount of affordable provision. The
 ‘Three Dragons’ development control toolkit is recommended for this purpose. The results of
 a toolkit appraisal might need to be independently verified.

 16 Brent Council has included a requirement within its Development Policies DPD (preferred
 option stage) that applicants provide the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing.

 17 The applicants’ proposed housing schedule is provided below.

                      One bed        Two bed        Three bed        4 bed           Total

 Private                    113             168              14                     295 (64%)

 Intermediate                   28             33                                    61 (13%)

 Social rented                  19             21            47              19     106 (23%)

 Total                      160             222              61              19              462
Housing schedule

 18 The proposal includes 36% affordable housing by unit (40% if measured by habitable room).
 The applicant should submit a financial viability assessment to demonstrate that the scheme is
 providing the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing as required by London Plan
 Policy 3A.10.

 Mix of units

 19 The London Plan Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance seeks to secure family
 accommodation within residential schemes, particularly within the social rented sector, and
 sets strategic guidance for councils in assessing their local needs. The applicant has responded
 positively in pre-application discussions with GLA officers and has provided a considerable
 amount of family social rented housing. Within the social rented provision, the scheme includes
 18% one-bed units, 20% two-bed, 44% three-bed and 18% four-bed. Overall the proposed mix is
 acceptable.



                                                                                        page 13
Tenure split

20 London Plan Policy 3A.9 states that affordable housing targets should be based on an
assessment of regional and local housing need and a realistic assessment of supply, and should
take account of the London Plan strategic target that 35% of housing should be social and 15%
intermediate provision, and of the promotion of mixed and balanced communities. The proposal
includes 23% social rent and 13% intermediate, representing a 37:63 split (29:71 by habitable
rooms). Notwithstanding the requirement to justify the proposed level of affordable housing,
the split is in line with strategic policy and is acceptable.

Density

21 London Plan Policy 3A.3 outlines the need for development proposals to achieve the
highest possible intensity of use compatible with local context, the design principles of the
compact city, and with public transport accessibility. Table 3A.2 of the London Plan provides
guidelines on density in support of policy 3A.3. Table 3A.2 provides a guidance range of 200-
450 habitable rooms per hectare for urban sites with a PTAL rating of two to three.

22 The proposal has a density of 851 habitable rooms per hectare. As requested by GLA
officers, the applicants have provided a detailed argument to justify the proposed density in
response to Policy 3A.3.

23 The scheme responds well to the design policies of the London Plan and is considered to be
of a high quality (see paragraphs 32 to 39 for detailed comment). Particular attention has been
paid by the applicants to residential amenity, including the provision of dual aspect, ‘scissor’
units. The proposal provides adequate and well-designed amenity spaces (notwithstanding
comments made in paragraphs 27 to 30 of this report). The built character of the surrounding
area is urban, comprising a mix of large-scale commercial buildings on the Edgware Road
frontage, with lower scale residential streets away from Edgware Road. The site is close to two
development sites which have planning permission for high-density mixed-use schemes with
tall elements on Edgware Road. The scheme therefore relates well to its context and does not
appear over-scaled. The site is within walking distance of three Underground stations and is
served by nine bus routes. The applicants have also provided an assessment of the surrounding
community, health and social facilities to demonstrate that the development will not place
undue pressure on existing facilities. Subject to the Council confirming this assessment, the
proposed density is acceptable.

Housing choice

24 London Plan Policy 3A.5 states that all new housing should be built to Lifetime Homes
standards and that 10% should be wheelchair accessible, or easily adaptable for residents who
are wheelchair users. The applicants have stated that all units will meet Lifetime Homes
standards and that 10% of the units will be easily adaptable for wheelchair users.

25 The access statement accompanying the application demonstrates accordance with Lifetime
Homes standards. However, the applicants have not demonstrated how 10% of the units will be
easily adaptable for wheelchair users. The applicants should submit flat layouts detailing how
the flats will be easily adaptable, using the standards within the Best Practice Guidance on
Wheelchair Accessible Housing.

                  26 The Council should condition both policy requirements.



                                                                                        page 14
                                            Image removed

Children’s play space

27 Policy 3D.13 of the London Plan sets out that “the Mayor will and the boroughs should ensure
developments that include housing make provision for play and informal recreation, based on the expected
child population generated by the scheme and an assessment of future needs.” Using the methodology
within the London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Providing for Children and Young
People’s Play and Informal Recreation’ it is anticipated that there will be approximately 220
children within the development, as detailed in the table below. However, the applicants have
assumed a lower child population than calculated by GLA officers. Clarification of the
applicants’ calculations is required. The guidance sets a benchmark of 10 sq.m. of useable child
playspace to be provided per child, with under-5 child playspace provided on-site. As such the
development should make provision for 2,220 sq.m. of playspace, at least 860 sq.m. of which
should be on-site.

                Age range                                Number of children

                Under 5 year olds                                              86

                5 – 11 year olds                                               81

                12 – 16 year olds                                              53

                Total                                                         220
              Expectant child population

28 The proposal includes 3,220 sq.m. of podium courtyard space, 560 sq.m. of which is
specifically designed as formal play space. The applicants have submitted a statement regarding
play, which illustrates both how the on-site play and amenity spaces will be designed, and the
location and suitability of the surrounding off-site provision.

29 The design of the courtyard spaces is of a high quality and a range of play equipment has
been provided. Whilst there is a deficit in formal play provision, the overall courtyard areas
within which the play spaces sit could provide adequate space for informal play and recreation.
The applicants should further consider the design of the courtyards to provide informal play
facilities to ensure adequate provision for play is provided.

30 In accordance with the guidance within the SPG, the applicants have identified a park
within 400 metres of the site, and playing fields within 800 metres, that can provide off-site
play and recreation provision for older children. The applicants have confirmed that the play
facilities at the nearby Grove Park (400 metres from the site) have recently been improved and
include a multi-use games area. The provision of adequate off-site facilities for older children is
therefore acceptable.

Summary




                                                                                              page 15
31 Whilst the housing component of the scheme accords with London Plan policies and
guidance on tenure split, housing mix and density, the proposals do not demonstrate that the
maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing has been provided, or that the development
will include 10% of flats as wheelchair accessible. Further design development of the internal
courtyards is also required to ensure that the proposals provide sufficient play opportunities for
the under 5’s. The application does not therefore comply with London Plan policies 3A.10, 3A.5
and 3D.13.



Design
32 Good design is central to all objectives of the London Plan and is specifically promoted by
the policies contained within Chapter 4B which address both general design principles and
specific design issues. London Plan Policy 4B.1 sets out a series of overarching design
principles for development in London. Other design polices in this chapter and elsewhere in the
London Plan include specific design requirements relating to maximising the potential of sites,
the quality of new housing provision, tall and large-scale buildings, built heritage and views.

Context, layout, scale and form

33 The proposal is appropriately founded on a robust analysis of the current and emerging
context for the site. The site lies within an area characterised by a eclectic mix of retail and
industrial warehouses, offices and residential development, all forming part of the Collindale
section of the Edgware Road corridor. The area is currently evolving towards a more
residential based mixed use, typified by large format commercial premises with residential
development above. This typology has been seen in consented schemes such as Oriental City
and Zenith House. The proposal would follow this development model having a series of large
and small retail units, with ancillary parking and servicing at ground floor, and residential
development and the associated amenity spaces above.

34 The proposal would create two aesthetically linked buildings with a new semi-public route
between them. The position of the route suitably responds, in part, to the potential to introduce
a new north-south route running through the plot to the north. The creation of such a route
would require minor works to the service road that currently crosses this and the Council
should ensure that provision for this is in place, should the site to the north be redeveloped.
The ground floor layout would appropriately position active retail frontage and residential
cores to the surrounding public routes with the parking and servicing space set behind and
accessed off Capitol Way. The double height entrance lobbies to both the affordable and private
residential units are supported.




                                                                                         page 16
35 The residential units above the podium are arranged to form perimeter blocks of around six
storeys above podium level and around 28 metres across. These would successfully enclose
these spaces whilst allowing good daylight and sunlight penetration to them and the residential
units. The access to the residential units would, after reaching podium level via lifts from the
entrance lobbies on Capitol Way, be via long corridors or across the courtyards. Whilst the
preference would typically be for cluster cores or short corridors, the position of residential
units over large format retail units necessitates the use of access corridors of above average
length given the depth of the retail units beneath and the absence of public access from the rear
of the site. This matter has been discussed the applicant who has amended the design to
introduce glazed breaks in the centre of these corridors to interrupt their length and allow
natural light in. This will alleviate some of the negative aspects of this type of residential
layout.

36 The scale and form of the proposal is appropriate to the context and nature of the scheme.
The two principal blocks on Capitol Way are well proportioned, with the oversized ground
floor level balanced by the four storeys of residential development above. The tower element, of
around nineteen storeys, is appropriately positioned on Edgware Road and is comparable in
scale to existing, consented and emerging proposals for this area.

                                           Image removed




Residential quality and landscape
37 The design of the scheme includes a large proportion of dual aspect units, which is
supported. All units have adequate private amenity space and access to the communal amenity
spaces. The application also provides improvements the pedestrian environment along Capitol
Way, including the addition of street trees. The details of these proposals should be agreed
with the Council.

Materials and facade treatment

38 The approach to the facades utilises a limited palette of materials. The Capitol Way
elevations would predominantly be in white render, with square punch windows and inset
balconies with glass balustrades. The lower part of the ground storey would be in London
Stock brick and the upper penthouse level would be in timber. The approach to the tower is
appropriately different, utilising a light coloured stone cladding as the principal material with a
brass coloured cladding wrapping it on the northern elevation and over onto the roof. This
approach is supported. However, the Council should ensure that the high quality materials on
which the design depends are secured by condition.

Summary

39 The proposed design is consistent with the design polices of the London Plan, including
policies 4B.1 and 4B.10.

Inclusive design




                                                                                          page 17
40 London Plan Policy 4B.5 requires developments to meet the highest standards of
accessibility and inclusion, and requires applicants to submit an access statement illustrating
how the principles of inclusive design will be met to ensure everyone can use the places and
spaces proposed comfortably, safely and with dignity. The applicants have not submitted
adequate information regarding access and inclusive design. Of particular concern is the use of
ramps and stairs to access the podium from the cores. This issue is exacerbated by the fact that
the current design does not appear to have ramped access to all of the courtyard, from all of the
cores. GLA officers have previously raised this issue with the applicants. It is imperative that
the scheme is designed so as to be accessible to all. The design of the podium and the access
arrangements therefore require further revision.

41 The application does not comply with London Plan Policy 4B.5.

Climate change mitigation and adaptation
42 The London Plan climate change policies as set out in chapter 4A collectively require
developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate change by minimising carbon
dioxide emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction measures, prioritising
decentralised energy supply, and incorporating renewable energy technologies with a target of
20% carbon reductions from on-site renewable energy. The policies set out ways in which
developers must address mitigation of, and adaptation to, the effects of climate change. Policies
4A.2 to 4A.8 of the London Plan focus on how to mitigate climate change, and the carbon
dioxide emissions reduction targets that are necessary across London to achieve this.




Sustainable design and construction

43 Policy 4A.3 of the London Plan requires all development proposals to include a
sustainability statement. Further guidance on this policy is given in the London Plan
Sustainable Design and Construction SPG. In addition, London Plan policies 4A.3, 4A.11,
4A.14 and 4A.16 require the inclusion of sustainability measures within developments.

44 In accordance with London Plan Policy 4A.3, the applicants have submitted a sustainability
strategy which details the sustainable design and construction measures that are proposed.
This demonstrates that the majority of the essential standards within the London Plan
Sustainable Design and Construction SPG, and the relevant London Plan policies, will be met.
Measures proposed include charging points for electric vehicles, a sustainable urban drainage
system including green roofs, water features and permeable paving, use of water-efficient
sanitary-ware, and rainwater recycling. The strategy is broadly acceptable.

Energy

45 Policies 4A.4-11 of the London Plan require a reduction in a development’s carbon dioxide
emissions through the use of passive design, energy efficiency and renewable energy measures.
The London Plan requires developments to make the fullest contribution to tackling climate
change by minimising carbon dioxide emissions, adopting sustainable design and construction
measures and prioritising decentralised energy, including renewables.


                                                                                        page 18
Baseline carbon dioxide emissions

46 The applicants have modelled the baseline emissions of the residential element using
appropriate software. However, the applicants have used existing benchmarks to calculate the
non-residential elements. The applicants should model the baseline emissions for the non-
residential element using building regulation approved software.

Energy efficient design – residential element

47 A series of energy efficient design measures have been proposed, including improved
insulation and air tightness beyond building regulations 2006 minimum requirements,
mechanical and heat recovery ventilation systems in appropriate dwellings, strategies to reduce
solar gains such as shading balconies and appropriate glazing, energy-efficient lighting, energy
metering and energy-efficient white goods. Suitable modelling has been used to demonstrate
that the measures will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by between 8% and 15% beyond
building regulations 2006 minimum requirements. This is acceptable and the Council should
adequately secure the measures proposed.

Energy efficient design – non-residential element

48 No specific energy efficient design measures have been proposed for the non-residential
element due to the need to adapt measures to fit the future tenants requirements. Therefore the
applicants have proposed a 10% improvement target (beyond building regulations 2006). The
use of targets is acceptable in this instance, particularly as the residential element will be the
greater contributor to the developments carbon dioxide emissions. The Council should
adequately secure the 10% target.




Connection to existing or proposed energy networks

49 There are no known plans to develop a district-heating network in the vicinity of the site.
However, there are a number of large development sites in the area, including the Zenith
House and Oriental City sites, which have the potential to link together with this site. In
recognition of this potential, the applicants have committed to facilitate future connections by
taking the pipe connection to the site boundary. This is welcomed. Both Brent and
neighbouring Barnet Council’s are strongly encouraged to ensure all developments in the area
are capable of linking to a district system, and should investigate the feasibility of an area-wide
approach.




                                                                                          page 19
Heating and cooling

50 The applicant is proposing a 230 kWe combined heat and power (CHP) unit that would
serve a communal heating network from a single energy centre. The unit will supply 100% of
the site’s domestic hot water requirements, 15% of the space heating requirements and 50% of
the site’s electricity requirements. The CHP unit will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a
further 22%. The Council should adequately secure the proposed plant and the provision of a
single heating network.

51 The use of tri-generation (CCHP) has been investigated by the applicants but has been
disregarded. This is accepted given the sites limited cooling requirements. However, the
applicants should demonstrate how comfort cooling will be provided, including an
investigation of the technical viability of ground source cooling.

Renewable energy

52 The applicants are proposing to install 200 photovoltaic modules, and a biomass boiler, that
will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a further 1% and 8% respectively. The applicant has
stated that no additional photovoltaic modules could be installed due to the roof space also
being used for green roofs. However, the applicant should provide further justification as to
why the two cannot both be provided, particularly as the development falls short of the London
Plan target for 20% carbon dioxide savings from renewables.

53 The limitations to the size of the biomass plant are accepted. The applicants have
adequately considered the storage requirements of biomass and have identified suitable
suppliers.

54 The Council should adequately secure the final agreed renewable energy proposal.

Transport for London
Car parking

55 A total of 452 car parking spaces are proposed on site, 174 of which are designated for the
retail, including eleven disabled spaces, and 278 for the residential aspect, including sixteen
disabled spaces. The residential parking ratio is 0.58 spaces per unit, which is in accordance
with London Plan Policy. However, the retail parking is excessive, and should be reduced in
accordance with London Plan Policy 3C.23. The applicant should also produce a car park
utilisation survey and car parking strategy. It will be important to ensure that residents do not
park in the allocated retail spaces. The proposal for five parking spaces for the car club is
welcomed. The total number of car parking spaces for the community use will need to be
confirmed. In addition, consideration should be given to a percentage of the car parking lease
cost being put towards public transport.

Cycle parking

56 The provision of 582 cycle parking spaces is in line with TfL’s minimum cycle parking
standards. Confirmation on the number of staff employed at the community centre will need to
be provided in order to ensure appropriate cycle parking facilities are included. In addition, the
provision of shower and changing facilities for staff at the retail units is required in accordance
with London Plan Policy 3C.22.



                                                                                          page 20
Walking

57 TfL welcomes the proposal for a new zebra crossing on Capitol Way. The formalisation of
the uncontrolled pedestrian crossing, 200 metres north of Capitol Way to further improve
safety and connectivity for pedestrians should also be considered.

58 The widening of footways surrounding the site is welcomed. However, there should be
appropriate segregation to reduce conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. The suggestion for
a mini roundabout at the junction of Capitol Way/Stag Lane is noted. Further information will
need to be provided on the impact of this on pedestrian movement.

59 A contribution may be sought from the applicants to improve conditions for walking and
cycling in accordance with London Plan Policy 3C.21.

Buses & bus priority

60 TfL considers that the total trips generated by this development will require additional
capacity on the bus network. TfL is in the process of pooling together contributions from a
number of developments in the Colindale and Edgware Road corridor in order to improve bus
frequency in the future. A contribution of between £200,000 and £250,000 will be sought
from the developer to increase the bus network capacity. This level of contribution is viewed as
appropriate when considered against those negotiated from other developments within the
area.

61 TfL expects the applicants to review all bus stops within a 400 metres radius of the site as
set out in TfL transport assessment best practice guidance. Where improvements are required
the applicants will be expected to fund the necessary works including improvement to
pedestrian links to bus stops.

Freight

62 The inclusion of a construction logistics plan and delivery and servicing plan is welcomed.
The commitment for Wickes to join FORS is strongly supported by TfL. There should be a
commitment to continuously monitor and review these documents to ensure a sustainable and
consolidated approach.

Trip generation & highway issues

63 TfL seeks clarification that the revised figures within the transport assessment addendum
have been included in the junction modelling.

64 TfL notes that the applicants have not included the committed developments as requested
previously, and the transport assessment does not provide a list of the selected sites. To assist
the applicants, Barnet Council has agreed to provide the necessary information for Zenith
House, Grahame Park and RAF East Camp.

65 TfL requires further justification for the selected junctions in the capacity assessment. TfL
considers that the A5150 and A5109 junctions should also be assessed. It has also been noted
by TfL that there is an error with the model for the Capitol Way/Edgware Road junction.
Modelling data will need to be confirmed by TfL to ensure that it has been prepared and
validated in accordance with DTO modelling guidelines 2006, including queue length surveys,
signal timing sheets and traffic survey data.


                                                                                         page 21
66 In the transport assessment it states that the Council would change the junction signal
timings to improve capacity. However, TfL are responsible for signal timings. Any proposal to
change signal timings will therefore need to be agreed by TfL. The transport assessment
should provide written details of the two modification proposals to the junction of Capitol
Way/Edgware Road in order to improve capacity and queuing.

Travel plan

67 TfL welcomes the submission residential and workplace travel plans as part of this
application. Having reviewed these documents TfL strongly requests that the content of the
document is discussed further with TfL so as to ensure that the applicant has considered TfL
guidance on travel plans.

London Development Agency
68 In accordance with London Plan policy 5F.1 the Council should be satisfied that it is happy
with the content of the applicants’ submitted URS statement on health care provision and in
particular that there will not be an overall deficiency in other community facilities as a result of
the number of households that this proposal will deliver. The LDA welcomes the provision of
706 sq.m. of community use floorspace, which should be secured by the Council. The applicants
should work with the Council to identify the type of community use that would be most
appropriate for the site.

69 The LDA recognises the role that high quality childcare, which is both accessible and
affordable, has in promoting equality in the workplace, by supporting the needs of low income
families as well as the needs of businesses in order to address a key barrier to employment. In
accordance with London Plan Policy 3A.18, the LDA welcomes the provision of a creche within
the development. The Council should apply appropriate development conditions that require
the provision of the crèche is linked with the phasing of the development.

70 The LDA welcomes the proposal to reprovide premises for the existing Wickes site, which
is also able to remain operational during construction. With regard to the proposed 1,925 sq.m.
of alternative retail, office and light industrial floor space, the applicant should be encouraged
to provide a variety of type, size and cost of space in order to meet the needs of all sectors
including SMEs, in line with London Plan Policy 3B.2.

71 In accordance with London Plan Policy 3B.11, the Council should encourage the applicants
to provide on-site training, or contribute towards the cost of construction training. This should
be secured and monitored by the Council through the legal agreement. In addition, during the
construction phase of the development, and in the completed scheme, the use of small and
medium size enterprises should be encouraged. The training of local people, and the
employment of local residents and businesses, promotes social inclusion and sustainable
development, plus local provision minimises the need to travel and the associated travel costs,
which can pose a major barrier to employment.



Local planning authority’s position
72 The Council has yet to consider a report on this proposal.




                                                                                           page 22
Legal considerations
73 Under the arrangements set out in Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of
London) Order 2008 the Mayor is required to provide the local planning authority with a
statement setting out whether he considers that the application complies with the London Plan,
and his reasons for taking that view. Unless notified otherwise by the Mayor, the Council must
consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order if it subsequently resolves to make a draft
decision on the application, in order that the Mayor may decide whether to allow the draft
decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6 of the Order to refuse the
application, or issue a direction under Article 7 of the Order that he is to act as the local
planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected
application. There is no obligation at this present stage for the Mayor to indicate his
intentions regarding a possible direction, and no such decision should be inferred from the
Mayor’s statement and comments.

Financial considerations
74 There are no financial considerations at this stage.

Conclusion
75 London Plan policies on mix of uses and retail, housing, design, inclusive design, climate
change mitigation and adaptation, transport and employment opportunities are relevant to this
application. The application complies with some of these policies but not with others, for the
following reasons:

      Housing: The applicant has not demonstrated that the maximum reasonable amount of
       affordable housing has been provided, that 10% of the units will be wheelchair
       accessible, or easily adaptable for a wheelchair user, or that sufficient on site play
       facilities for the under 5’s is being provided. The application does not comply with
       London Plan policies 3A.10, 3A.5 and 3D.13.

      Inclusive design: The design of the courtyard spaces does not allow for equal access by
       all. The application does not comply with London Plan Policy 4B.5.

      Climate change mitigation and adaptation: The proposal is broadly supported but it
       has not been adequately demonstrated that additional renewable energy technologies
       could not be incorporated, particularly additional photovoltaic modules and/or ground
       source cooling. The application does not comply with London Plan Policy 4A.7.

      Transport: A number of transport issues are raised including level of retail car parking,
       requirement for cycle shower and changing facilities, contributions towards
       improvements to walking and to bus provision, trip modelling, and travel plans. The
       proposals do not currently comply with London Plan policies 3C.23, 3C.22, and 3C.21.

76 On balance, the application does not comply with the London Plan. The following changes
might, however, remedy the above-mentioned deficiencies, and could possibly lead to the
application becoming compliant with the London Plan:




                                                                                       page 23
      Housing: A financial viability assessment is required, in addition to flat layouts
       illustrating 10% of the units will be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable, and design
       revisions to the courtyard spaces to ensure adequate space and facilities for the expected
       child population, particularly younger children.

      Inclusive design: The applicant should revise the design of the courtyards to ensure
       that they are accessible by all from all access points.

      Climate change mitigation and adaptation: An investigation into possible additional
       renewable energy technologies should be provided. If feasible, further measures should
       be included within the development.

      Transport: The applicant should reduce the level of car parking provision for the retail
       element, provide changing and shower facilities for cyclists, and further modelling work
       as detailed in the report. Further discussion is also required with TfL regarding
       transport contributions and travel plans.




for further information, contact Planning Decisions Unit:
Giles Dolphin, Head of Planning Decisions
020 7983 4271 email giles.dolphin@london.gov.uk
Justin Carr, Strategic Planning Manager (Development Decisions)
020 7983 4895 email justin.carr@london.gov.uk
Sarah Thomas, Principal Strategic Planner, Case Officer
020 7983 5751 email sarah.thomas@london.gov.uk




                                                                                         page 24

								
To top