Zenith House II, Edgware Road, Colindale
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
planning report PDU/1447b/02 8 February 2011 Zenith House II, Edgware Road, Colindale in the London Borough of Barnet planning application no. H/04167/10 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 Detailed planning permission is sought for 309 residential units in the form of 292 flats and seventeen mews houses, 1,611 sq.m. of office (B1) or community (D1) floorspace and 97 sq.m. retail (A1 or A3). The proposal comprises two and three storey mews houses, a 6-storey perimeter block around a central landscaped courtyard, a seven storey street block fronting Edgware Road and a sixteen storey tower. 226 residential car parking spaces, 335 cycle parking spaces and refuse storage are proposed at basement level, with vehicular access from Colindeep Lane. The applicant The applicant is Genesis Housing Group, and the architect is Pollard Thomas Edwards architects. Strategic issues Having regard to the details of the application, the matters set out in the committee report and the Council’s proposed conditions, the outstanding issues relating to housing, urban design, children’s play space, inclusive design, climate change mitigation and transport have been satisfactorily addressed. The Council’s decision In this instance Barnet Council has resolved to grant permission subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement. 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 direct that he is to be the local planning authority. Context 1 On 27 October 2010 the Mayor of London received documents from Barnet Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site page 1 for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Categories 1A and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008: ”Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats or houses and flats” and “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building…more than 30 metres high and outside the City of London.”. 2 On 30 November 2010 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/1447b/01, and subsequently advised Barnet Council that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 86 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 88 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. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 19 January 2011 Barnet Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission for the revised application, and on 31 January 2011 it 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 Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to 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 13 February 2011 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 the consultation stage Barnet Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 86 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 88 of that report could address these deficiencies: Housing: the applicant should demonstrate that the three-bed intermediate units will meet the London Plan affordability criteria. Urban design: the applicant should address the concerns raised in respect of materials, wind levels, cycle access and the design of the retail unit. Inclusive design: the applicant should seek to provide additional blue badge holder parking spaces. Children’s play space: the applicant should seek to provide additional on-site play space for the under 5’s. Climate change mitigation: an estimate of carbon dioxide savings compared to a Building Regulations 2010-compliant scheme should be provided, along with further information in respect of the proposed quantum of PV panels relative to the available roof space. Transport: heads of terms for a car and cycle parking management plan including introduction of parking controls, pedestrian and cycling improvements and a revised travel plan need to be provided. Housing 6 The proposed level of affordable housing, tenure split and mix of units were considered compliant with the London Plan but further information was sough to demonstrate that the three- page 2 bed intermediate units would meet the London Plan affordability criteria. The applicant has confirmed that assuming a minimum share of 25% and 2.75% rent on the unpurchased equity, the three-bed intermediate units would be affordable to households whose annual income is in the range £18,000 to £74,000 in accordance with the definition of affordable housing set out in the London Plan. This is acceptable. Urban design 7 At consultation stage, concern was expressed about the orientation of the small shop on Edgware Road. The applicant has subsequently reoriented the shop to provide a frontage with direct access to Edgware Road. The split-level layout of the shop is accessible and will offer entrances at both street and residents’ levels. The changes are therefore supported. 8 In response to officer concerns that the use of two similar colours of brick throughout the development may result in monotonous facades, the applicant has provided additional information in respect of the materials strategy. This explains how the mews blocks will differ from the tower and mansion block elements of the scheme. Whilst the concerns related specifically to repetition over long elevations, the detailed facade panels provided appear interesting and have alleviated concerns that materials could be unsuitable. 9 The three southernmost mews flats, which are located above the parking ramp, were previously underpinned by a blank brick facade. The applicant has revised the materials used on the ground floor elevation, replacing some brick with hardwood louvers and defined planter box locations. These improvements are welcomed. 10 Wind mitigation was identified as a concern at the consultation stage, but it is acknowledged that the provision of landscaping and additional mitigation measures (as a condition of approval) would be appropriate. The Council did not address this within its committee report or draft conditions of approval. However, there is an opportunity to incorporate mitigation measures within the landscaping plan, which would be assessed as a condition of approval. The applicant and Council should seek to minimise wind conditions and maximise mitigation as recommended within the wind study, for the benefit of future residents and users. Although this situation is not ideal, mitigation unable to be achieved through landscaping could be managed as minor amendments to the approved scheme. 11 Cycle access arrangements have not been altered. At consultation stage, the applicant was requested to provide further information justifying the convoluted access from site boundaries to the basement level. Specifically, cyclists using the central lifts would need to turn their bikes sharply to exit the lift areas. Although the information provided by the applicant clarifies routes at ground level, this does not improve basement access. However, measurement of the plans by officers has indicated that while cycle access would be difficult, it would be achievable. Cycle storage areas would also be directly visible from the lift area exits, which is welcomed. 12 The design revisions to the scheme are appropriate and all outstanding design matters have been resolved. However, additional work on wind mitigation is recommended at the discharge of conditions stage. Inclusive design 13 The applicant was asked to revisit the basement layout plan to provide eight extra accessible parking spaces, in order to ensure compliance with revised Lifetime Homes standards (July 2010). As a revised basement plan has not been forthcoming, the Council has imposed a condition requiring a revised car parking layout providing 39 accessible spaces to be submitted and approved prior to commencement of development. In practice this is likely to involve the widening of standard bays to accessible standards, thereby maintaining the overall 226 spaces. Supply and page 3 demand for the accessible spaces will be managed through the parking management plan, which has also been secured by condition. This aspect of the scheme is now acceptable. Children’s play space 14 At consultation stage the scheme did not comply with London Plan policy 3D.13 because it did not provide adequate on-site play space to meet the needs of the under 5’s expected to reside in the development. 15 This issue had not been satisfactorily addressed in time for committee. The applicant has, however, produced a draft revised courtyard plan which demonstrates that through some relatively straightforward alterations to the courtyard layout, it is possible to meet the minimum requirement for 440 sq.m. of under 5’s playspace on site. The landscaping condition provides scope to require a revised layout and the Council has committed to consult the GLA on the discharge of this condition in order to ensure our concerns are addressed.