Alperton House and Units 9 & 10 Abercorn

planning report GLA/4346/02 13 May 2019 Alperton House and Units 9 & 10 Abercorn Commercial Centre in the London Borough of Brent planning application no. 18/4199

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 buildings and erection of 4 buildings ranging in height from 14 to 23 storeys, comprising 474 residential units, a new public house, retail floorspace, workspace and office, together with associated public realm improvements and landscaping with delivery of canal side walkway, new access arrangements, car and cycle parking, servicing and refuse and recycling facilities.

The applicant The applicant is Redrow Homes Ltd, Family Mosaic Home Ownership (Part of Peabody Trust) and Proudreed Real Estate Limited and the architect is Stephen Davy Peter Smith Architects Ltd.

Key dates • Pre-application meeting: 28 September 2017 and 27 June 2018. • Stage 1 report: 18 February 2019. • Committee meeting: 10 April 2019.

Strategic issues Principle of development: The redevelopment of the site for mixed uses is set out in the Local Plan and locally adopted Alperton Masterplan SPD and is supported in general compliance with London Plan and draft London Plan policies (paragraph 8). Re-provision of industrial capacity: A total of 1,921 sq.m. and approximately 320 sq.m. of yard space is to be re-provided, which is less than the benchmarked industrial capacity; however, in view of the site’s allocation for mixed use redevelopment and the plan-led and master planned approach, on balance, the proposed quantum of industrial capacity is acceptable (paragraphs 9-10). Affordable housing: The scheme would deliver 35% affordable housing by habitable room (with grant), comprising London Affordable Rent and shared ownership, which GLA officers have robustly interrogated and determined to be the maximum level of affordable housing. Early and late stage review mechanisms are being secured in the Section 106 legal agreement (paragraphs 11-12). Urban design, climate change mitigation and transport: Outstanding matters have been appropriately resolved through additional information or are being secured by condition or the Section 106 agreement (paragraphs 13-25).

The Council’s decision In this instance Brent Council has resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a s106 legal agreement.

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 that he is to be the local planning authority.

page 1

Context

1 On 8 November 2018, 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 Categories 1A, 1B and 1C of the Schedule to the Order 2008:

• Category 1A: “Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats, or houses and flats”. • Category 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 or buildings— outside Central London and with a total floorspace of more than 15,000 square metres.” • Category 1C: “Development which comprises or includes the erection of a building of (c) more than 30 metres high and is outside the City of London.”

2 On 18 February 2019, the Mayor considered planning report GLA/4346/01, and subsequently advised Brent Council that the application did not yet comply with the London Plan and draft London Plan for the reasons set out in paragraph 58 of the above-mentioned report.

3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case regarding 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 10 April 2019, Brent Council resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions and completion of a s106 legal agreement and on 30 April 2019 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 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. The Mayor has until 13 May 2019 to notify Brent 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. Consultation stage issues summary

5 At the consultation stage Brent Council was advised that the application did not comply with the London Plan and draft London Plan for the following reasons:

• Principle of development: Whilst the principle of the plan-led and master planned mixed use redevelopment of this largely LSIS site is supported, the applicant should seek to re-provide a total of at least 2,875 sq.m. of industrial capacity in line with draft London Plan E4. • Affordable housing: The development would deliver 35% affordable housing by habitable room, which is subject to robust interrogation by GLA officers to ensure that the maximum level of affordable housing is provided. Early and late stage reviews must be secured. • Urban design: The residential quality is generally high, and the layout and height and massing respond well to the existing and emerging context. The articulation, however, should be simplified and the Council’s planning officers should seek to secure key details

page 2 including facing materials, window reveals, balconies and rooflines to ensure an exemplary quality of architecture is delivered. • Climate change mitigation: Carbon dioxide savings for both the domestic and non- domestic elements fall short of the policy targets and as such the applicant should consider the scope for additional measures aimed at achieving further carbon reductions, including the maximisation of on-site PV installation. Any remaining regulated CO2 emissions for the domestic element should be met through a contribution to the borough’s offset fund. Further details on how SuDS measures at the top of the drainage hierarchy would be included are also required. • Transport: The trip generation should be revised in line with London Plan Policy 6.3 and draft London Plan Policy T4. A further 67 long-stay cycle parking spaces should be provided and a parking design and management plan, full residential and commercial travel plan, final construction logistics plan and delivery and servicing plan secured. Strategic planning policy and guidance update

• On 24 July 2018, the Government published the Revised National Planning Policy Framework. This was further revised in February 2019. Update

6 Since the consultation stage, GLA and TfL officers have engaged in discussions with the applicant and the Council with a view to addressing the above matters. Furthermore, as part of Brent Council’s draft decision on the case, various planning conditions and obligations have been proposed to address the above concerns and ensure that the development is acceptable in planning terms.

7 The scheme has been amended to address concerns raised within both the Stage I report and by Brent planning officers. The key amendment in response to the Stage I report is a reconfigured layout of the commercial workspace in Block B to facilitate the provision of additional industrial capacity.

Principle of development

8 At the consultation stage, the principle of redeveloping the site for mixed uses was supported in general compliance with London Plan and draft London Plan policies and the local policy objectives for the Alperton Growth Area.

Re-provision of industrial capacity

9 In response to representations at Stage I seeking additional industrial capacity, the applicant has converted 469 sq.m. of proposed B1a office floorspace to B1b/c industrial floorspace, increasing the total industrial floorspace proposed to 1,921 sq.m. and approximately 320 sq.m. of yard space. This amount is still short of the benchmark of 2,875 sq.m. industrial capacity set out in the Stage I report.

10 Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that most of the site has been allocated for mixed use development, comprising residential, food and drink, and workspace (including a proportion of managed affordable workspace) through the Council’s use of a plan-led and master planned approach. In this allocation there was no requirement for the provision of genuine industrial capacity; therefore, on balance, the proposed quantum of industrial capacity (with 76% provided as managed affordable workspace) is acceptable in this instance. To ensure affordability, long-term use and local access to the proposed affordable workspace, various commitments are being secured via conditions and legal obligation, including rent at no more than 50% of local market rates.

page 3 Affordable housing

11 Further to Stage I, the affordable housing offer of 35% by habitable room (61%:39%) social/intermediate, with grant, has been verified as the maximum level and will be robustly secured by way of the Section 106 legal agreement. Early and late stage review mechanisms are secured similarly in line with London Plan Policy 3.12 and draft London Plan Policy H6.

12 The proposed rents (London Affordable Rent) and the household income cap eligibility criteria for shared ownership units set out in the London Plan, draft London Plan and the Mayor’s Affordable Homes Programme Funding Guidance, are also being secured in the Section 106 agreement.

Urban and inclusive design

13 As requested at Stage I, the LPA has secured a condition requiring that further details of materials, including facing materials, window reveals, balconies and rooflines are reviewed on site and approved in writing by the LPA to ensure exemplary quality. An informative relating to a fire strategy has been included.

Climate change mitigation Energy strategy

14 At Stage 1, the carbon dioxide savings did not meet the targets for domestic and non- domestic buildings and the applicant was required to consider additional carbon reduction measures. In addition, further information relating to PV, overheating, future proofing, CHP, site- wide heat neatwork and ASHP centralised plant were raised.

15 The applicant has submitted revised BRUKL sheets, which demonstrate an on-site reduction of 32 tonnes of CO2 per year in regulated emissions compared to a 2013 Building Regulations compliant development is expected for the non-domestic buildings, equivalent to an overall saving of 36%. This is an improvement on the 31% previously expected.

16 In relation to cooling, the applicant was required to investigate and adopt further passive measures (in line with the Cooling Hierarchy) and to demonstrate that the actual building’s cooling demand is lower than the notional. The applicant has reduced the glazed area, which reduces the cooling demand, so the actual is lower than the notional; and has provided updated BRUKL sheets and CO2 emissions that reflect the change in glazing and reduction in cooling demand.

17 On the issue of maximising PV, the applicant has proposed to install 34.1kWp of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels, which will be installed at a shallow angle on the roof spaces and would be connected to the residential landlord systems. They have provided a roof layout and confirmed that the CO2 reduction expected from the specification as 15 tonnes. Drawings indicating that sufficient plant room space for the heat exchangers and associated equipment for future proofing have been provided as requested at Stage I and a commitment to future proofing the development has been secured by planning condition.

18 At Stage I the use of CHP was not supported. The submission of a revised energy statement following the detailed design has been secured by condition and, as part of the process, the applicant has committed to comprehensively investigating the use of heat pump options. This revised strategy will be reviewed by the GLA prior to final sign off. Finally, a financial contribution to the carbon off-set fund, to be paid in two stages following the submission of a revised energy statement and post-completion submission of energy statement review, is being secured via the Section 106 legal contribution.

page 4 Flood risk, sustainable drainage and water efficiency

19 Additional details setting out how SuDS measures at the top of the drainage hierarchy would be included in the scheme were requested at Stage I. The applicant has responded indicating green / brown roofs are proposed and bioretention / rain gardens can be incorporated into the landscaping scheme at the next design stage. Further information relating to exceedance flow paths and attenuation calculations has been provided as requested at the initial consultation.

20 The strategic issues raised at Stage 1 relating to climate change mitigation have been appropriately addressed through the submission of additional information, and planning conditions and legal obligations. The proposal is therefore acceptable in accordance with the London Plan and draft London Plan.

Transport

21 At Stage 1, concerns were raised about the mode share within the submitted Transport Assessment (TA); the impact of the development on the bus network and Alperton Station; the amount of cycle parking; and, the agent of change principle in relation to Alperton Bus depot.

22 Following a review of mode share splits within the Transport Assessment against recent development that have come forward within the Wembley/Alperton Growth Area, the mode share and trip generation assessment presented is acceptable. In order to mitigate to mitigate the impact of the development on the surrounding bus network, a financial contribution towards enhancing the bus network within the vicinity of the site is being secured via the Section 106 legal agreement. Based on the trip generation assessment, a contribution towards enhancing Alperton Station was not required. In line with draft London Plan policy D12, the applicant was requested to demonstrate how the development would mitigate against the noise associated with the nearby Alperton Bus Garage. A condition to provide details of the sound attenuation measures proposed has been secured.

23 Long-stay cycle parking provision is in accordance with current London Plan standards. The applicant has increased the provision of short-stay cycle parking spaces on site, totalling 26 above draft London Plan standards. A condition to secure further cycle parking space, subject to demand, has been secured.

24 The submission of a revised travel plan is being secured through the Section 106 legal agreement. In addition, a delivery and servicing plan, construction logistics plan, car parking management plan, disabled parking and electric vehicle charging points have been secured through planning conditions.

25 As a result of these commitments, the strategic issues raised at Stage 1 have been appropriately addressed and the proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of its impact on strategic transport. Response to consultation

26 The application was advertised by site and press notices, and over 830 consultation letters were sent to neighbouring owners/occupiers in November 2018. The Council has received ten letters objecting to the application and two in support. The points of objection are summarised in paragraph 28 below. The positive impact the proposed development would have on the enhancement of the local area, a publicly accessible canal side and improved conditions for boats, both moored and visiting, were identified as reasons for supporting the application.

27 The representations received by the Council with regards to the application have been set out in detail in the Council’s planning committee report and full copies of the individual representations have been made available to the Mayor as part of the statutory referral process.

page 5 28 Other issues raised by the consultations, including amenity groups, are outlined below:

Objection • Land uses: Loss of land for employment, residential and community uses; loss of offices and temporary school. • Design: Concerns about the height, size and design of the buildings; and the development will negatively impact on the character of the area. • Transport: Insufficient parking; increased congestion; overspill car parking into industrial estate; increased demand on public transport services; and, number of parking spaces and access arrangements into and out for the site not shown on the plans. • Amenity/contaminated land: Loss of privacy; overlooking; noise and pollution; and, asbestos from existing buildings could become air borne and damage health of nearby workers • Social and economic: Pressure on social services, including schools, GPs and dental surgeries; loss of earnings for existing business units and decrease in value of property; dumping by the canal and anti-social behaviour; and, increased opportunity for crime. • Other: Fire safety associated with high rise buildings; block signal to satellite antenna and TV aerial for nearby businesses; and, proposal fails to comply with planning policy and guidance.

Responses from statutory and additional consultees

• London Borough of Ealing: No objection. • Canal River Trust: No objection; however, the Trust requested alterations to landscaping and specific landscaping details, pre-commencement and post-construction conditions required to ensure waterway wall is not damaged, additional details in the construction management plan and a condition requiring that services, security and privacy enhancement measures for long term moorings be submitted for approval, prior to occupation. • Thames Water: No objection subject to an informative relating to groundwater discharge into the public sewer and a condition in relation to the surface water network. • Affinity Water: No comments received. • Metropolitan Police: Raised concerns about the layout of the ground floor and how the various users being workspace, office, residential, public amenity spaces and a public house interact with each other. • Wembley Central and Alperton Residents Association (WCARA): Objects to the application because of a lack of social infrastructure, increased pressure on public transport network, impact on traffic on Ealing Road, failure to secure section 278 works, and zero car policy will lead to congestion on surrounding streets. • Middlesex Branch of Inland Waterways Association (IWA): No objection; however, the association made observations in relation to the design of the proposed development, operational controls during the construction phase and the ongoing management of the completed development.

page 6 29 The issues raised in respect of principle of development, design, amenity and transport have been addressed in the Stage 1 report, this report and the Committee report. Matters relating to fire safety and satellite have been addressed through the imposition of conditions. In response to the comments from the Metropolitan Police in relation to secure by design, a site meeting was held with one of their Design Officers. Following this meeting, amendments have been made to the design, which have satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised about anti-social behaviour and how the various uses would interact on the site. The conditions and or informatives requested by Canal River Trust and Thames Water have been secured. Draft section 106 agreement

30 The draft S106 agreement includes the following provisions: • 35% affordable housing by habitable room, with 89 London Affordable Rent and 58 shared ownership units (61%:39%, social/intermediate tenure split); proposed affordable rents; income cap eligibility criteria for shared ownership units; • early and late stage financial viability reviews; • provision of 1,452 sq.m. of B1b or B1c floorspace as managed affordable workspace, disposed of to a recognised Affordable Workspace Operator at no more than 50 % of market rent; • private workspace marketing and meanwhile use strategy; • training and employment plan for Brent residents; • financial contribution of £230,000 towards improvements in One Tree Hill Park for off- site play provision for older children; • parking permit restriction; • highway works to Bridgewater Road and Ealing Road, and permissive public access through the site; • submission of a revised travel plan that achieves a “pass” rating using TfL’s ATTrBuTE programme and implementation of that plan, including reviews and including car club scheme; • financial contribution of £237,000 towards the introduction of Controlled Parking Zone in surrounding area; • financial contribution of £265,133 towards bus contributions, to be paid to Transport for London; • financial contribution of £55,000 towards the improvement of canal side, to be paid to the Canal & Rivers Trust; • submission of BREEAM Compliance Certificate, and carbon offset contribution to be paid in two stages based on a pre-construction energy assessment and a post-construction review; • surveys of television and radio reception in surrounding area, and any mitigation works agreed; • developer to be a member of the Considerate Constructors Scheme; and, • payment of the Council's legal and other professional costs.

page 7 Legal considerations

31 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

32 In this instance, the Council has resolved to grant permission with conditions and a planning obligation, which satisfactorily addresses the matters raised at consultation stage, therefore there are no sound planning reason for the Mayor to intervene in this case. Financial considerations

33 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.

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 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 strategic issues raised at consultation stage regarding the re-provision of industrial capacity, affordable housing, urban design, sustainable development/climate change and transport have been satisfactorily addressed, and appropriate planning conditions and legal obligations have been secured. As such the application, on balance, 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 the GLA Planning Team (Development Management): Juliemma McLoughlin, Chief Planner 020 7983 4271 email [email protected] John Finlayson, Head of Development Management 020 7084 2632 email [email protected] Allison Flight, Deputy Head of Development Management 020 7084 2820 email [email protected] Graham Clements, Team Leader 020 7986 4265 email [email protected] Andrew Payne, Case Officer 020 7983 4650 email [email protected]

page 8