planning report GLA/1496d/02 29 October 2018 2 Geron Way, Cricklewood in the Borough of Barnet planning application no. 17/6714/EIA

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

The proposal Demolition of the existing building and erection of a new building for use as a waste transfer station for reception, bulking and onward transportation of household and municipal waste.

The applicant The applicant is Barnet Council and DB Cargo (UK) Limited.

Key dates Stage 1 considered: 12 February 2018 Barnet Council Planning Committee: 5 September 2018

Strategic issues Waste transfer facility: The applicant has confirmed that all waste that is brought to, and bulked on, the site will be transferred for processing within London, thereby contributing to the Mayor’s self-sufficiency targets, set out in London Plan Policy 5.16 and draft London Plan Policy SI8. With regard to the re-provision of existing waste sites that are to be redeveloped in the Brent Cross Masterplan area, the Council has confirmed that the site will re-provide the numerical capacity of three existing waste sites but will not re-provide the capacity of the PB Donoghue site as this not due to be redeveloped until Phase 4. In this regard, the Council will consider the re-provision of this site’s capacity in due course. As such, concerns raised at consultation stage regarding a shortfall in numerical capacity has been addressed. Outstanding issues relating to urban design and transport have been resolved.

The Council’s decision In this instance Barnet Council has resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Recommendation That Barnet 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 that he is to be the local planning authority.

Context

1 On 8 November 2017, the Mayor of London received documents from Barnet Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses.

2 The application is referable under Category 2B of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

• Category 2B1: Waste development to provide an installation with capacity for a throughput of more than – (b) 50,000 tonnes per annum of waste produced outside the land in respect of which planning permission is sought; and

• Category 2B2: Waste development where the development occupies more than one hectare.

3 On 12 February 2018, the Mayor considered planning report D&P/1496d/01, and subsequently advised Barnet Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 58 of that report could address these deficiencies.

4 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 5 September 2018, Barnet Council (hereafter, the Council) resolved to grant planning permission in accordance with officer’s recommendation, and on 18 October 2018, advised the Mayor of this decision. 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 Barnet Council to refuse planning permission under Article 6, or issue a direction, under Section 2A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with Article 7 of the 2008 Order, that he is to act as the local planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected application.

5 The environmental information for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 has been taken into account in the consideration of this case.

6 The Mayor’s decision on this case, and the reasons, will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Consultation stage issues summary

7 At the consultation stage Barnet Council was advised that, whilst the application was broadly supported in strategic planning terms, it did not comply with the London Plan for the following reasons:

• Principle of development: The use of the site, which lies within the Brent Cross Cricklewood (BXC) redevelopment area, as a waste facility has been established through the extant planning permissions for a larger facility. Given this context and the location of the site, the principle of a waste facility on the site is accepted; however, further details are required to justify the nature of the facility.

• Waste facility: The proposed facility would bulk waste before transferring it on elsewhere; there is no processing or sorting capacity proposed on the site. The London Plan and draft London Plan encourage secondary processing on all new waste sites to improve London’s self-sustainability and to meet recycling targets. Furthermore, under page 2 the BXC redevelopment, five existing waste facilities will be redeveloped; the re- provision of these existing facilities is required by conditions attached to the BXC masterplan permission, draft London Plan Policy S19 and London Plan Policy 5.17. The applicant is proposing to re-provide some of this existing capacity on the proposed site; however, the proposed facility will only be considered to provide this capacity if, as a minimum, any existing processing capacity is re-provided. The applicant must confirm the processing capacity of the existing waste sites to be re-provided in the proposed facility. In addition, the following are required: the employment benefits and social value of the proposals, in line with draft London Plan Policy SI8; the origins and destination of waste; and the details of the acoustic fence.

• Urban design: Further information is required on the proposed polycarbonate roof to understand how it will work in situ. The applicant should also maximise active frontages to animate the large walls and must provide further details on the acoustic fence between the site and the residential development to the south.

• Transport: Further information is required on the following: the proposed vehicle movements to and from the site; and the design of the highway, particularly at the junction of Geron Way and Edgware Road. Strategic planning and guidance update

8 The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in July 2018.

9 Draft London Plan (consultation draft December 2017, incorporating early suggested changes published August 2018) which should be taken into account as explained in the NPPF. Update

10 Since the consultation stage, GLA officers have engaged in discussions with the applicant, the Council and TfL to address the outstanding issues. Having regards to this, an assessment against the outstanding strategic issues raised at the consultation stage is set out below. Furthermore, as part of Barnet Council’s decision, various planning conditions have been proposed to address the above concerns and to ensure that the development is acceptable in strategic planning terms.

Principle of development

11 The principle of the land use was accepted at consultation stage, due to its transport links, proximity to similar industrial and non-residential land uses as well as the extant planning permission on the site for a significantly larger waste facility.

Waste transfer facility

12 At consultation stage, GLA officers expressed concern regarding the nature of the waste facility, notably that the proposed facility was ‘transfer only’, whereby waste was brought to the site (within municipal waste collection vehicles) before being transferred elsewhere and did not contain any secondary processing capacity. The London Plan and draft London Plan express the encourage the provision of secondary processing on all new waste sites to contribute towards the targets, set out within London Plan Policy 5.16 and draft London Plan Policy S18, which aim to make London self-sufficient for household, industrial and commercial waste by 2026 and manage 100% of the capital’s waste within its administrative boundaries.

13 GLA officers have since had significant engagement with the applicant in order to ensure compliance with the London Plan and draft London Plan waste policies. Due to space and cost constraints as well as the requirements of the North London Waste Authority, it is not proposed to page 3 provide any secondary processing on the site; however, the applicant has confirmed that all waste that passes through the waste transfer station will then be transferred to other sites within London, which has also been corroborated by the North London Waste Authority. Whilst the final destination within London may alter, it is expected that residual waste would be transferred to the Edmonton EcoPark energy from waste facility (once it becomes operational), the dry recyclables to Biffa in Edmonton or to Bywaters in Bromley-by-Bow and food waste to ReFood in Dagenham. The North London Waste Authority has confirmed these destinations in writing. With regard to the source of waste, it has been confirmed that the waste will be sourced from local households or businesses, as part of the municipal collections.

14 In addition, the site can be considered to contribute towards London’s recycling targets, as set out in the draft London Plan and London Environment Strategy, through facilitating the bulking of recyclables for on-ward transport, elsewhere in London. In order to ensure that waste that is sent on to an energy from waste plant is truly residual, the applicant has confirmed that there will be checks conducted on the site as waste is bulked.

15 In this context, whilst the site does not contain secondary processing on the site, as encouraged by London Plan Policy 5.16 and draft London Plan Policy SI8, the Council, the applicant and the NWLA have confirmed that all waste will be transferred to sites within London and it can, therefore, be said to be contributing to the net-self sufficiency targets, set out at London Plan Policy 5.16 and draft London Plan Policy SI8. Whilst this is acceptable in this instance due to the representations made by Barnet Council and DB Cargo (UK) Limited (the applicants) and the North London Waste Authority referred to above, the policy position remains to encourage secondary processing on all sites.

Wider waste capacity in the BXC area

16 As noted at consultation stage, Condition 41.5 of the BXC masterplan states that none of the existing waste sites in the Brent Cross masterplan area can be redeveloped until their capacity has been re-provided either within the Waste Handing Facility or at such other suitable site. The present ‘drop in’ planning application proposes to reduce the capacity of Waste Handling Facility, approved under the BXC masterplan, from 600,000 tonnes per annum (t/pa) to 260,000 t/pa. At consultation stage, it was reported that the total average throughput of the five existing waste sites was 353,587 t/pa (2013-2016) and, therefore, there would be a shortfall of c. 94,000 t/pa should planning permission be granted for the Waste Handling Facility.

17 It has since been confirmed by Barnet Council that the largest existing waste sites, PB Donoghues, will not be re-provided on the present site; rather, its re-provision will be considered in due course, in accordance with the BXC masterplan permission, as it falls within phase 4 and is not expected to be redeveloped until 2028. Table 1, 2 and 3 below provide a comparison between the understanding of the re-provision requirement at consultation stage, at present as well as the proposed development’s maximum and operational capacity. As such, as indicated in table 2 below, the Council states that the proposed facility re-provides the capacity of three existing waste sites, in accordance with the requirements of condition 41.5. For the avoidance of doubt, when the Council does come to seek replacement capacity to enable the PB Donoghue site to be redeveloped, in accordance with condition 41.5, it should contain additional processing capacity in the first instance. The Council has not stated at what point Upside Railway Yard will be redevelopment and the Council must ensure suitable capacity is re-provided for this site prior to the redevelopment of the site.

18 As discussed above, whilst the site does not re-provide processing capacity, the proposal is considered to be acceptable due to the evidence discussed above in paragraphs 10 – 13.

page 4

Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Requirement for replacement Requirement for replacement waste capacity waste capacity Capacity on proposed waste

site (tonnes per annum) As reported at Consultation Replacement capacity Stage (May 2018) (October 2018) Average Average Maximum Existing waste throughput Existing waste throughput (nb. design Operational amendments would site name per annum, site name per annum, be required to 2013 - 2016 2013 - 2016 accommodate) PB Donoghue 113,781 McGoverns 37,079 195,000 260,000

Cripps 8,711 Cripps Skips 8,711

McGoverns 35,037 Hendon Waste 137,325 Transfer Hendon Waste 137,325 Total 183,115 Transfer Upside Railway 58,733 *Not accounted for within Yard* masterplan permissions Total 353,587

Urban design

19 Following the Mayor’s Stage 1 consultation response, the applicant has revised elements of the design in response to the wider consultation responses received. Additional screening is now proposed to be erected along Geron Way to further conceal the building and to introduce a degree of visual interest into what would otherwise be a blank facade. In addition, the applicant has provided examples of where polycarbonate roofing has been used. Further, whilst the positioning of offices remains on the north eastern corner of the building, it is acknowledged that the positioning will result in some passive surveillance out onto the Geron Way, which is supported as it will enhance perceptions of safety for people using that area. On balance, GLA officers consider that the applicant has responded to design concerns and, as such, there are no outstanding issues.

Transport 20 It is acknowledged by the GLA and TfL that the operational requirements of the North London Waste Authority have changed over time and a rail linked facility is no longer required; however, in order to ensure that the site is sufficiently “future proofed”, Barnet Council has confirmed there is space within the adjacent railway land, which is within the control of Network Rail, to accommodate a rail head should one be required.

page 5 21 TfL do note, however, that the same Network Rail land is also being considered as a potential location for platforms for a station stop on the proposed West London Orbital train line, which is currently being promoted by West London Alliance and is identified in Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018). Separately, Barnet Council is considering how best to integrate West London Orbital with the new Thameslink Station. TfL confirms they are working with Barnet Council on this aspect and, on balance, the proposals are acceptable. 22 At consultation stage, TfL officers raised concerns regarding the safe operation of the A5 (Edgware Road), which forms part of the Strategic Road Network, particularly in accordance with ‘Vision Zero’ and the impact on vulnerable road users. Following discussions, it is proposed to insert new signals on the A5/ Geron Way junction, which will help improve the safe operation of the A5. In addition, other measures are secured by condition will also help improve the safe operation of the site. 23 The Healthy Streets assessment shows that the new signal junction provides an overall benefit against the Healthy Streets indicators, in accordance with draft London Plan Policy T2, including ensuring buses can safely turn into Geron Way using the new signal junction, which is important for the accessibility of the new train station for all users of the local transport system. 24 TfL welcomes the draft conditions on demolition and construction; highways and access. Subject to these being imposed, TfL has not identified any strategic transport objection to the proposed development. Response to consultation – initial consultation

Response from neighbours

25 The Council advertised the application locally through newsletters and through letters. In response to the initial consultation, the Council received 439 public representations from neighbours, including 438 objections and 1 letter of support. 26 The primary reasons for objection are as follows: • Principle of the development; • Location of the proposed development; • Amenity impacts, including air quality, noise, smell and appropriate design parameters to address these impacts; • Environmental impacts, including impact on local ecology, Gladstone Park and green infrastructure; • Traffic and Network impacts; • Monitoring and enforcement; • Lack of consultation; and • Policy impacts. 27 In addition to the individual neighbourhood responses, three petitions were received: petition 1, which contained 550 signatures; petition 2, which contained 202 signatures; and petition 3, which contained 78 signatures. 28 Upon the receipt of additional information, the Council conducted further consultation and notified all those who had previously made representations in response to the initial public consultation exercises as well as all statutory and non-statutory organisations. As a result of this further round of consultation, the Council received 44 additional representations, all of which objected to the proposal, and two additional petitions, with a total of 174 signatures.

page 6 29 In addition to responses from neighbours, the following elected members objected to the proposals: • ( Member for Barnet and Camden) objects to the proposals due to the impact on local residents, the principle of development, traffic impacts and concern about the number of waste sites in Cricklewood. • Cllr Anne Clarke (Childs Hill) objected on the grounds of the strength of the community opposition to the proposals, the traffic impact and the cumulative impact on the site. • Cllr Lia Colacicco (LB Brent Councillor) objected to the proposal due to proximity to her ward, the location, impact of residential amenity and the impact of the highways network. • Cllr Parvez Ahmed (LB Brent) objected to the proposal • Cllr Liz Dixon (LB Brent) objected to the proposal due to traffic impacts, local objection and impact upon quality of life. Response from statutory consultees and other organisations • Brent Council – Object to principle of development, the location of the application, the highways impact and the environmental impact. • Environment Agency – No objection to the application, as amended. • Natural England – No objection to the application. • National Grid – No objection, subject to the inclusion of an informative in relation to the gas pipeline identified on the site. • North London Waste Authority – No objection but have written to confirm that the proposed development is a replacement for the existing Hendon Waste Transfer Station and is required as a strategic facility to receive a range of waste collected by London boroughs. • Brent Cross Consultative Access Forum – Confirmed that the proposed development did not raise any concerns from an access perspective. • London Fire Brigade – No objection to the application, as amended. • Dollis Hill Residents’ Association – Object to the application due to traffic impacts, the number of large vehicles and the location. • NorthWestTwo Residents Association – Objects to the proposed development on the following grounds: positioning of the facility, including the lack of rail connection; proximity to residential development; traffic and highways impacts; impact upon cycling infrastructure; and environmental benefits. The RA also objected to the additional information, due to the difference between the maximum throughput and the expected operational throughput as well as the proposed signalised junction. • Fordwych Residents’ Association – Objects to the proposal due to the traffic and highways impact, opening hours, air pollution, impact upon quality of life and strength of local objection. 30 It is noted that, having considered the above consultation responses, Barnet Council has provided specific responses within its Committee Report. Having had regard to these, GLA officers are satisfied that the statutory and non-statutory responses to the Council’s consultation process do not raise any material planning issues of strategic importance that have not already been considered at consultation stage, and/or within this report. Section 106 heads of terms

page 7 31 There is no section 106 agreement proposed for the planning application. Article 7: Direction that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority

32 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 which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at consultation stage. There are, therefore, no sound planning reason for the Mayor to take over this application.

Legal considerations

33 Under the arrangements set out in Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, the Mayor 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. The Mayor may also leave the decision to the local authority. 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. Financial considerations

34 Should the Mayor direct refusal, he would be the principal party at any subsequent appeal hearing or public inquiry. Government Planning Practice Guidance emphasises that parties usually pay their own expenses arising from an appeal. 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 whether the Mayor has acted unreasonably will be the extent to which he has taken account of established planning policy. 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

35 The strategic issues raised at consultation stage regarding the principle of development, urban design and transport have been satisfactorily addressed, and appropriate planning conditions have been secured. As such the application complies with the London Plan and draft London Plan, and there are no sound reasons for the Mayor to intervene in this case.

for further information, contact GLA Planning Unit: Juliemma McLoughlin, Chief Planner 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] John Finlayson, Head of Development Management 020 7084 2632 email [email protected] Katherine Wood, Team Leader – Development Management 020 7983 4743 email [email protected] Vanessa Harrison, Principal Strategic Planner (Case Officer) 020 7983 4467 email [email protected]

page 8