Planning Statement

14t

Planning Statement

Proposed Mixed-Use Development at

403-405 Edgware Road London NW2 6LN

November 2020

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Site Description & Surroundings

3.0 Planning History

4.0 Pre-Application Engagement

5.0 The Proposed Development

6.0 Planning Policy Framework

7.0 Planning Assessment – Principle of Development & Proposed Uses

8.0 Planning Assessment – Scale and Height Considerations

9.0 Planning Assessment – Consideration of Other Planning Issues

10.0 Planning Conditions

11.0 Balance of Planning Issues & Conclusion

APPENDICES

A. Sequential Assessment

B. Expressions of Interest

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This Planning Statement has been prepared on behalf of AMAFHH Investments Limited (‘AMAFHH’) in relation to their proposal for a mixed-use development on the site which they own at 403-405 Edgware Road (‘the application site’).

1.2 The proposed description of development is:

Demolition of existing building and basements and replacement with mixed-use development (24,712 sq. m GIA) incorporating 17 storey building and 3 basements, comprising: flexible light industrial (Class E)/B2/B8 employment space (in accordance with Part 3 of Schedule 2 (Class V) of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended)); Class C1 Hotel (including ancillary gym, spa and swimming pool); Class F.1 Conference Centre; Class F.2 community hub; basement car parking accessed from Oxgate Lane (providing 76 car parking spaces); cycle parking; internal service yard; coach drop-off lay-by; management and back of house areas; plant; roof garden and outdoor terraces; public realm improvements and associated works.

1.3 This application is supported by the following documents:

• Duly completed forms and Ownership Certificates • Covering Letter • Planning Statement (this document) • Design & Access Statement • Healthy Streets Transport Assessment Statement • Framework Travel Plan • Site Management and Operation Strategy • Construction Logistics Plan • Townscape Visual Impact Assessment • Noise Impact Assessment • Air Quality Assessment • Heritage Assessment • Phase I Geoenvironmental Desk Study & Preliminary Basement Impact Assessment Report • BREEAM Pre-Assessment & Sustainability Report • Energy Report • Energy Strategy - BRUKLOutput Doc (Be Lean & Be Clean) • Energy Strategy - BRUKLOutput Doc (Be Green) • Energy Strategy - GLA Carbon Emission Reporting Spreadsheet • Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy • Condition Report on Structure • Landscape Management & Maintenance Plan • Ecology Assessment • Arboricultural Impact Assessment • Statement of Community Involvement • CIL Questions • Drawings (as detailed in the schedule below)

Drawing Description Drawing Number Rev Date Scale Site Location Plan EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-100-110 1 25.10.2020 1:1250 @A4

Site Location Plan EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-100-110 1 25.10.2020 1:1250 @A4 Existing Ground Floor Plan EDG-TOD-ZZ-00-DR-A-200-200 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Existing First Floor Plan EDG-TOD-ZZ-00-DR-A-200-210 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Existing Second Floor Plan EDG-TOD-ZZ-00-DR-A-200-220 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Existing Roof Plan EDG-TOD-ZZ-B2-DR-A-200-230 1 29.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Existing Basement -1 EDG-TOD-ZZ-B2-DR-A-200-201 1 09.12.2019 1:200 @A1 Existing Basement -2 EDG-TOD-ZZ-B1-DR-A-200-202 1 09.12.2019 1:200 @A1 Existing Elevations EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-300-100 1 28.10.2020 1:200 @A2 Existing Courtyard Elevations EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-300-101 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Proposed Site Plan EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-100-130 1 01.09.2020 1:1250 @A1 Proposed Ground Floor EDG-TOD-ZZ-00-DR-A-200-100 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Proposed First Floor EDG-TOD-ZZ-01-DR-A-200-101 1 07.10.2020 1:200@A1 Proposed Second Floor EDG-TOD-ZZ-02-DR-A-200-102 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Proposed Third Floor EDG-TOD-ZZ-03-DR-A-200-103 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Proposed Podium EDG-TOD-ZZ-04-DR-A-200-104 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Proposed Typical Hotel Floor EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-200-105 1 07.10.2020 1:100 @A1 Proposed Fifteenth Floor EDG-TOD-ZZ-15-DR-A-200-106 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Restaurant / Terrace Lounge Proposed Roof Plan EDG-TOD-ZZ-20-DR-A-200-107 1 07.10.2020 1:250 @A1 Proposed Basement -1 EDG-TOD-ZZ-B1-DR-A-200-010 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Proposed Basement -2 EDG-TOD-ZZ-B2-DR-A-200-020 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Proposed Basement -3 EDG-TOD-ZZ-B3-DR-A-200-030 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Proposed South East Elevation EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-300-301 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Proposed South East Elevation EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-300-302 1 07.10.2020 1:500 @A1 (Streetscape) Proposed Edgware Road EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-300-303 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Elevation Proposed Edgware Road EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-300-304 1 07.10.2020 1:500 @A1 Elevation (Streetscape) Proposed Oxgate Lane EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-300-305 1 28.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Elevation Proposed Oxgate Lane EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-300-306 1 28.10.2020 1:500 @A1 Elevation (Streetscape) Proposed South West EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-300-307 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Elevation Proposed South West EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-300-308 1 07.10.2020 1:500 @A1 Elevation (Streetscape) Proposed Section AA EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-400-401 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Proposed Longitudinal EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-400-402 1 07.10.2020 1:500 @A1 Section AA Proposed Section BB EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-400-403 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Proposed Longitudinal EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-400-404 1 07.10.2020 1:500 @A1 Section BB Proposed Section CC EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-400-405 1 07.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Proposed Longitudinal EDG-TOD-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-400-406 1 07.10.2020 1:500 @A1 Section CC Landscape Proposal 6570_L_200 A 00.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Landscape Proposal – Roof 6570_L_201 A 00.10.2020 1:200 @A1 Terrace Hardscape Plan 6570_L_202 A 00.11.2020 1:100 @A1 Planting Plan 6570_L_203 A 00.10.2020 1:100 @A1

1.4 This suite of documents demonstrate that the application proposals accord with development plan policy and that there are significant material considerations which weigh in favour of development.

1.5 This Planning Statement is structured as follows:

• Section 2 ‐ Site Description & Surroundings: This section describes the site and surrounding area, providing context for the proposed development

• Section 3 – Planning History: This section discusses the planning history of the application site.

• Section 4: Pre-Application Engagement: This section summaries pre-application engagement carried out on the proposed development, discussing on the pre- application responses received from LB Brent and TfL, and other stakeholders (including local residents and businesses) following public consultation on the application.

• Section 5 ‐ The Proposed Development: This section describes the proposed developments.

• Section 6 ‐ Development Plan Framework: This section provides a commentary on the development plan and NPPF, together with other material considerations.

• Section 7 - Planning Assessment - Principle of Development and Proposed Uses: This section evaluates the proposed development against the relevant policies of the development plan and national planning policy/guidance and material considerations.

• Section 8 - Planning Assessment – Scale, Massing & Design Issues: This section goes beyond the principle of the proposed uses, and assesses the other plnning issues associated with the proposed development.

• Section 9 - Planning Assessment – Consideration of Other Planning Issues: This section goes beyond the principle of the proposed uses, and assesses the other plnning issues associated with the proposed development.

• Section 10 ‐ Planning Conditions: This section outlines the planning conditions volunteered by the applicant.

• Section 11 ‐ Balance of Planning Issues & Conclusion - This section balances the benefits of the proposal against all planning issues.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION & SURROUNDINGS

The Application Site 2.1 The application site is located within LB Brent, adjacent to its eastern boundary, which adjoins the LB Barnet. The site is located within the Staples Corner ‘Strategic Industrial Location’ at the junction of Edgware Road (A5) and Oxgate Lane, with the existing building fronting onto both streets. To the north of the site are the junctions of the A406 with the M1, and the A41 (to the north east). The locaiton of the site is illustrated in Figure 1 (below):

Figure 1: Site Location

2.2 The redlined application site, measuring 0.43 ha (4,322 sqm), includes both the developable area in Amafhh’s ownership (which measures 0.3 ha / 2,898 sq. m) and adjoining highway land (required to facilitate public realm improvements and for the coach lay-by and vehicle access into the basement car park). The developable area currently accommodates a three- storey flat roofed building built around a central (open) parking area. The building, which has been vacant and in a state of disrepair for several years, was constructed between 1937 and 1939 and, for the majority of its life was used as offices and laboratories.

2.3 Vehicular access to the site is via an access from Oxgate Lane, in the north west corner of the site, where there is a small servicing road adjoining the western edge of the site. This access is unable to accommodate larger goods vehicles entering and exiting the site in a forward gear. As a consequence, all larger delivery vehicles to the site either have to stop within the highway and potentially obstruct the free-movement of vehicles or, as is more commonplace, have to manoeuvre within the highway to reverse into the building from Oxgate Lane.

2.4 The existing building was designed with a bomb-proof bunker (in the basement) with upper floor offices (the history of the existing building is described in the supporting ‘Heritage Assessment’). The building comprises the following areas:

Figure 2: Existing Building Floorspace FLOOR B1(a) Class Use (Offices) (Sq. m) GIA GEA Basement -2 1,056 1,374 Basement -1 1,189 1,500 Ground Floor 1,507 1,621 First Floor 1,460 1,559

Second Floor 1,460 1,559 GRAND TOTAL 6,672 7,613

2.5 As illustrated in the supporting ‘Heritage Assessment’ and ‘Conditions Survey’ the sub- basement (Basement -2) has been flooded for many years, making this part of the building unusable.

2.6 The property is in a poor state of repair and most notably in connection with the long- established flood damage in the basements. As illustrated in the submitted ‘Condition Report on Structure’ (prepared by Parmarbrook), there is extensive evidence that the ground floor slab contained reinforcement and cast-in fixings that are corroding throughout the floorplate, such that the slab’s structural integrity has been compromised for the purposes of building refurbishment. The leaching displayed on the soffit of the ground floor slab also provides a strong indication of chemical attack to the concrete. The extent of this attack could be far- reaching, with large areas of the sandwich slab requiring replacement. In conclusion, the building condition survey indicates that the ground floor slab has reached or is fast approaching the end of its design life. Parmarbrook recommend that, the replacement of the existing basement structure, the ground floor slab and the roof slab, and as it is structurally not feasible to retain the existing structure for re-use, that the building has reached the end of its usable life.

2.7 Parmarbrook have concluded that the refurbishment of the existing building (to serve a new purpose as commercial space) would require the building to have a design life of at least 60 years. Parmarbrook are of the view that it is not economically viable to refurbish the building when it is so close to the end of its life. In conclusion, the findings of the building condition report are that the complexity of modification required (to the basement structure, ground floor and roof slab) make it unfeasible to retain the existing structure for reuse.

2.8 In further support of this issue, cost consultant (BTP) have estimated that the necessary refurbishment works (in line with the structural engineer’s recommendations and the requirements of building regulations) would cost approx. £28 million.

2.9 Current rental values for this type of multi-storey office building are inadequate to commercially fund the refurbishment of the building. It is also axiomatic that any commercial return would be wholly inadequate to fund the necessary repair and maintenance costs that have been identified in the Parmarbrook assessment. Even with refurbishment the existing building will not command sufficiently high rents to justify a programme of refurbishment. As such the cost of the necessary refurbishment works significantly exceed the capitalised value of the refurbishment of the property.

2.10 In summary, the existing building is unsuitable for reuse by light industrial, general industrial or storage and distribution users without substantial renovation and, most importantly, in the absence of substantial structural work. The physical condition of the building ensures that it is physically obsolete, in a poor state of repair and uneconomic to refurbish. The premises have reached the end of their economic life and cannot compete (in both the sale or rental market) with other more modern or updated properties with better facilities within the locality.

The Surrounding Area 2.11 The land directly to the south east and south west is occupied by ‘Wing Yip’ and includes an oriental cash and carry and ‘China House’ Business Centre (the latter being located directly to the south of the application site). The business centre is a prominent landmark designed in

an ‘oriental’ architectural style, with a height of 4 storeys. Tenants within the business centre include a dental surgery, herbal healthcare centre, café, as well as offices.

2.12 In 2016 Wing Yip converted and extended the building (Wingate House) directly to the west of the application site. Of note is that this development (secured under application Ref. 15/3534, approved on 7th December 2015) included the introduction of the new private roadway/access connecting Oxgate Lane to the Wing Yip site, and the Council’s acceptance that Wingate House is able to operate as an independent Class B1 use. Following completion of these works Wingate House is currently occupied by Starsign Fabrics (a fabric wholesaler).

2.13 To the north of the application site (north of Oxgate Lane) is the Oxgate Centre, originally comprising 10 commercial units, although several of have been amalgamated. These units are currently occupied by a range of light industrial/trade units tenants, including Harrison Varma Joinery, The English Cheesecake Company, Magnet Trade Centre, GSF Car Parts, Ekong International (UK) Ltd, Euro Presentations, and London Data Exchange Ltd.

2.14 Further to the west of the proposal site is the heart of the Staples Corner industrial estate. This comprises a range of employment spaces of different sizes, with a high proportion of trade counter type businesses. Current businesses in this location include food manufacturing, vehicle repair, storage and building supplies.

2.15 In addition, Oxgate House, located to the north west of the site, has been vacant for several years following occupation by British Bathroom Centre, is to be converted into artist studios (by ‘Artistic Spaces’). This conversion is expected to provide 75 studios in 2020 (comprising 1,672 sq. m of space) and a further 150 studios in 2021 (comprising 5,574 sq. m of space). These studios will range from 5 to 80 sq. m.

2.16 To the east of the site (east of the A5), is the Staples Corner Retail Park which includes tenants such as Currys PC World, Smyths Toys, Dunelm, SCS, Harveys, Homesense and Decathlon and the ‘Flip- Out’ trampoline centre (in a former cinema building).

2.17 Of further note is that the Staples Corner Industrial Estate’s Edgware Road frontage (within which the proposal site is situated) comprises a range different uses, many of which fall outside of B Class uses (which is the use encouraged within Strategic Industrial Locations). For example, the Edgware Road frontage includes the following uses (from south to north):

• Shell Petrol Station – incorporating a Spar convenience store (Sui Generis); • Hanover House (Class C3 Residential); • BP Petrol Station – incorporating a Londis convenience store (Sui Generis); • Openplan Design - Kitchen, Bathroom and Bedroom Showroom (Class A1); • Splend Car Rental (Sui Generis); • China Houses Business Centre (Class B1a – but including other non-industrial uses); • 403-405 Edgware Road (the application site) – vacant offices (Class B1(a)); • Harrison Varma Joinery Ltd (Class B1(c) Light Industrial) • The English Cheesecake Company Ltd (Class B1(c) Light Industrial) • Magnet – Kitchen showroom (Class A1) • JJ Roofing (Class B8, but with ancillary retail sales); • Topps Tiles (Class A1); • Screwfix (Class B8, but with ancillary retail sales), • Jaguar Land Rover Car dealership (Sui Generis).

2.18 It is estimated that only 200 metres (i.e. 23%) of the Staples Corner SIL’s 850 metre Edgware Road frontage is in Class B1b/B2/B8 (industrial/warehousing) use.

The Wider Context

Staples Corner Growth Area 2.19 The application site is located with the Staples Corner Growth Area, as allocated in the submission Draft Brent Local Plan (December 2019). This document identifies the Council’s intention to transform the area into a new mixed use community linked to the new Brent Cross West station (which will open in 2022) and the Brent Cross Cricklewood Regeneration Area (in the London Borough of Barnet - described below and later in this report). The vision for the area (set in in draft Local Plan) includes the delivery of:

• New employment space that meets 21st century needs • New homes • Social infrastructure (including new community facilities) • Significant improvements to the townscape on Edgware Road (which is identified as an intensification corridor) • Introduction of tall buildings (of up to 20 storeys in height)

2.20 As explored later in this document, the proposed development reflects the aims and aspirations of the Growth Area, would not prejudice the policy aspirations of the emerging Draft Brent Local Plan and can act as an early catalyst to help deliver regeneration in the area.

Brent Cross Cricklewood Regeneration Area 2.21 Further to the east and south-east of the proposal site, east of the A5 and Midland Railway line, is the ‘Brent Cross Cricklewood’ (‘BXC’) Regeneration Area. This area benefits from outline planning permission, granted in October 2010, for a major mixed-use development (both to the north and south of the A406). At its closest, the boundary of BXC Regeneration Area is approximately 100 metres from the proposal site.

2.22 The BXC outline approval, granted in October 2010, includes 7,500 homes, 4,000,000 sq. ft (370,000 sq. m) of offices, four parks, transport improvements and a 592,000 sq. ft (55,000 sq. m) extension to the Brent Cross Shopping Centre. This planning permission allows a cluster of tall buildings (up to 25 storeys/100 metres tall) within approx. 225 metres of the AMAFHH applicaiton site and a new railway station within approx. 165 metres. In January 2020 it was announced that the contract to design and building the station had been appointed to Volker Fitzpatrick, with the station expected to be operational in May 2022.

2.23 Following the original 2010 planning permission a series of subsequent planning approvals have been granted on the site. The most pertinent are described below:

• 2014 Section 73 Permission (Ref. F/04687/13): In 2014 a revised (S73) outline planning application was approved which split the BXC site along the North Circular Road, so that a third development partner might take the lead in delivering the southern portion of the site. In 2015, Barnet Council selected Argent Related as its preferred development partner for Brent Cross South.

• 2016 Infrastructure Transfer Application (Ref. 16/7489/CON): In November 2016 the BXC development partners submitted an application to enable the transfer of six infrastructure items from the Brent Cross North part of the development to Brent Cross South. The items transferred were strategically important to the Brent Cross South development.

• 2017 Re-phasing Application (Ref. 17/2694/CON): The 2014 (S73) permission anticipated that the first substantive phase of Brent Cross South (BXS) would be an area immediately to the south of the Holiday Inn, in the northern part of the Whitefield Estate.

2.24 Work on the Brent Cross South Development (comprising the part of the regeneration area south of the A406) is progressing. At the time of writing, in addition to the station construction works, three reserved matters approvals have been granted, relating to Plots 11, 12 and 13. These related to residential developments (with ground floor commercial uses) of up to 13 storeys in height.

2.25 Plot 14 (which includes residential development together with a new public square) was the subject of public consultation in early 2020, and we understand a reserved matters application is to be submitted on this shortly. At the time of writing, the developers are undertaking a public consultation exercise in relation to the latest residential plot to come forward within the BXC scheme (Plot 15). This Plot will comprise four buildings which will deliver 280 homes and four retail units on the ground floor.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The existing building on the application site was constructed for the admiralty and armed services between 1937 and 1939. The sub-basement was designed as a bomb-proof structure in the event that Whitehall became unusable.

3.2 Whilst the building was occupied by a small party of naval and civilian staff (from mid-1939), it was never used for its intended purposes and remained a ‘stand-by’ structure until 1944, when it ceased to be operational. Full details of the history of the existing building are included in the supporting Heritage Assessment.

3.3 From 1944 the building was occupied by the Health and Safety Executive (‘HSE’), who used the building as offices and a laboratory. The HSE’s occupation of the building Included use of the first basement (Basement -1), which, as illustrated in Figure 3, included offices, meeting rooms, a lecture hall, social club and ancillary storage.

Figure 3: Health and Safety Executive Layout Plan of Basement -1 (Plan Prepared 1993)

3.4 Research suggests that the HSE did not reconfigure (or potentially use) the sub-basement, as plans produced upon their vacation of the building (in the early 1990’s) show the sub- basement in its original ‘bunker’ layout.

3.5 Following the HSE’s vacation of the property, agents acting on behalf of the landlord sought to regularise its planning use. This included securing a ‘Lawful Development Certificate’ (Ref. 92/1425) granted on 13th October 1992, which established the “Use of building above basement floor for offices and research purposes (B1 Use)”. Furthermore, on 15th December 1992 a ‘Lawful Development Certificate’ (Ref. 92/1762) was approved which established the “Proposed Use of Basement for B1 Use”.

3.6 The latter LDC approval does not identify the precise nature of the ‘B1’ use. However, given that both of the LDC applications were submitted by the same agent (Fibbens Fox Associates), during a similar timeframe, and since the description for both applications when registered by the Council was as “B1 purposes”, it is logical and reasonable to assume that the LDC for the basements also relate to the use of this space for ‘offices and research purposes. Conversely, it cannot have been the Council’s intention to acknowledge (though approval of the LDC) that the basements could be used more widely in Class B 1 (e.g. for light industrial purposes), since that was not the use being undertaken in the property prior to the

1992 LDC approval (since the HSE were clearly using the building as offices and laboratories, and not for light industrial use).

3.7 On 14th September 1993 planning permission (Ref. 93/0696) was granted for “change of use to B8 (storage and distribution) and erection of extensions at 1st and 2nd and 3rd floor levels (over courtyard), erection of mansard roof extension and creation of side vehicle access to courtyard.” The mansard roof being an additional fourth storey. Condition 3 of this permission stated:

“The premises shall solely be used as a distribution warehouse within Class B2 [sic], and for no other purposes. All sales shall be to trade account holders. Goods shall be displayed for sale only and no customer shall collect from the store, all goods being delivered.”

3.8 This 1993 planning permission was never implemented and has lapsed.

3.9 At some point after the 1993 change of use planning permission was issued, the ground and part of the first floor were occupied by two carpet retailers, operating from the property without a lawful planning permission. In addition, several other unlawful and transient uses (largely offices) have operated from the site at various times since the 1990s, but these uses have since vacated the building.

3.10 Based on the above evidence it is clear that, for the majority of its life, the building has been used as offices (Class B1(a)), as confirmed by the 1992 lawful development certificates, and this remains its lawful use. This position was recognised by the planning officer in the pre- application (Ref. 19/0171/PRE) written response dated 18th October 2019, which stated “Though there have been intermittent unlawful uses in recent years the building is currently vacant. Its lawful use is B1”.

3.11 The building’s lawful B1(a) use is particularly pertinent in this instance since such a use is not compliant with the list of appropriate uses for ‘Strategic Industrial Locations’ as set out in the adopted London Plan (at Policy 2.17 and Paragraph 2.79) and in the draft London Plan (at Policy E4 and E7), which require SIL uses within use class B1(c), B2 and B8. This is explored in greater detail elsewhere within this report.

3.12 Following the 2020 amendments to the Use Classes Order, the lawful use of the building moves from Class B1(a), to Class E. The consequences of this change are that the building can now be converted into the following uses under permitted development rights:

• Retail Shop • Financial and Professional Services • Café or Restaurant • Clinic/Health Centre • Creches / Day Nursery • Gyms • Indoors sport and recreation

3.13 In addition, the current transitional arrangements contained in the provision introducing Class E will (from 1st July 2021) authorise the change of use of Class E premises (within the identified limitations and conditions) to residential purposes pursuant to Class O of the GPDO.

4.0 PRE-APPLICATION ENGAGEMENT WITH COUNCIL

4.1 The application proposal has been subject to pre-application engagement with officers at LB Brent, between June and October 2019, together with key stakeholders (including Transport for London) and members of the public.

4.2 The details of the pre-application engagement and responses are summarised below, with further details (including in relation to feedback received on earlier incarnations of the development – dating back to 2015) are included in the Design and Access Statement (Section 5.0) and the Statement of Community Involvement prepared by Lexington Communications, which forms part of this application submission.

Brent Council’s Pre-Application Response 4.3 Amafhh’s formal pre-application was submitted to Brent Council on 27th June 2019, with a pre-application meeting held on 17th September 2019. The Council’s pre-application written response (Ref. 19/0171/PRE) was issued on 18th October 2019, with a further email of clarification (relating to tall building issues) dated 25th October 2019. In summary, the Council’s pre-application advice provided the following comments:

Principal/Policy Context 1) The existing building’s lawful use is B1; 2) B1a office space is only acceptable where it is ancillary to other industrial uses; 3) Industrial floorspace in use class B1, B2 and B8 would be consistent with SIL policy; 4) Hotel and conference centre are not SIL compliant uses and contrary to policy; 5) Draft London Plan requires intensification of industrial sites to achieve a plot ratio of 0.65; 6) The proposed level of floorspace does not take into account the basement levels, therefore, the proposal results in a loss in industrial floorspace; 7) Evidence will be required to show the specification of proposed industrial floorspace is suitable to meet occupier requirements, informed by market testing; 8) Draft London Plan allows the intensification of uses in SILs as part of a plan-led process in collaboration with the GLA, and not through ad hoc planning applications; 9) Draft Brent Local Plan identifies Staples Corner as a Growth Area capable of intensification and co-location, subject to a masterplanning approach. Prior to the masterplan, no redevelopment, particularly of non-industrial/residential will be permitted; 10) The proposal is not part of a wider masterplan-led approach and could prevent the delivery of a more comprehensive scheme; 11) In sequential test terms the site is out of centre and a sequential assessment will therefore be required; 12) Subject to a sequential test, hotels will be acceptable where they do not compromise the achievement of housing targets (which for Staples Corner is 2,200 dwellings); 13) There is a need to provide social infrastructure, including new community facilities at Staples Corner, but this should be established through a masterplanning exercise. 14) A wider masterplanning exercise is needed to demonstrate the proposals do not compromise this target in conjunction with the need to increase industrial floorspace.

Transportation 15) If a PTAL of 4 is applied (following the opening of the new railway station) the parking needs for the hotel use would be operational and disabled parking only, if the PTAL remains a 3 then 28 spaces are justified.

16) The proposed150 parking spaces is likely to result in travelling by car being the most attractive option, contrary to policy and likely to have a significant impact on the existing operation of the highways; 17) The proposed number of parking spaces should be significantly reduced; 18) Whilst the new station would be around 600 metres from the site [Contour Planning observation - the shortest walking walk to the station is 410 sq. m], with the route being an intimidating environment, with poor surveillance, thus a Heathy Streets assessment of surrounding pedestrian and cycling facilities will be required; 19) No details of cycle parking provided; 20) Proposed 11 metre vehicle turntable in servicing area would not enable larger servicing vehicles to use the facility; 21) There is limited scope for more than one service vehicle to service the site from the proposed servicing area at any one time; 22) At least two coach parking spaces will be required; 23) No details provided of where coaches will park overnight.

Design/Townscape 24) The area is not one identified for fall buildings and the surrounding townscape is predominantly low scale (generally three storeys in height); 25) The proposed development would be extremely prominent; 26) The application will need to demonstrate an exemplary standard of design, architecture, material , sustainability and quality of structure which would enhance its context.

Heritage 27) The building is locally listed, thus the LPA will need to make a balanced judgement having regard to the loss of the asset of significance; 28) A Heritage Statement should accompany the application, to justify its loss; 29) The LPA’s preference would be that the underground bunker should at least be retained; 30) Details of the extent of damage of the existing building should be included in the planning application; 31) An application for demolition might trigger a statutory spot listing application.

Summary 32) There are significant concerns relating to compliance with existing and emerging development plan policy; 33) There are also significant transport issues which need to be addressed; 34) Heritage and townscape issues also need careful further assessment.

4.4 In a subsequent exchange of emails (on 24th and 25th October 2019), the planning officer acknowledged the emerging Local Plan’s emphasis on Staples Corner as a growth area and its references to tall buildings, and recognising that “there is probably scope for a taller building [on the site], subject to quality design and townscape enhancement…”

TfL Pre-Application Response 4.5 Amafhh’s transport consultant (TPA) entered into pre-application discussions with Transport for London as part of the pre-application consultation. This included a meeting, followed by written advice dated 7th September 2020.

4.6 Key points raised by TfL to the proposals are as follows: 1) In general, TfL were supportive of the proposed public realm improvements, but noted the application is required to demonstrate how the proposed development will comply

with TfL’s Healthy Streets approach. 2) The scheme needs to consider the need for Legible London signage to improve wayfinding to the new station and other amenities in the area, especially given the nature of the development proposed. If improvements are necessary, it is expected that a contribution would be secured via a Section 106 agreement. 3) TFL were pleased that the scheme seeks to improve the streetscene in Oxgate Lane, including improved footway conditions and street trees in the vicinity of the site. The expectation is that all existing streets trees are retained and protected through conditions. 4) The public realm improvements should encompass the removal of clutter on the footway, including the existing phone cabinet and advert in Edgware Road. 5) TfL expects that the scope of the public realm/highway improvement works will be secured through a Section 278 Agreement with Brent Council, and will include at least the renewal of the adjoining footway. 6) The proposed vehicle ramp would need to be suitably controlled for intended users. 7) A safety audit is recommended given the access points close proximity to a bus stop. 8) The applicant should consider reducing the width of the vehicle access points. 9) Concern that the level of car parking was not appropriate for the employment uses. 10) Adequate provision is required for on-site Blue Badge Parking. 11) Active electric vehicle charging points are required to accord with London Plan standards. 12) TFL expect the Council to seek a contribution towards the cost of consultation and implementation of a controlled parking zone, if required. 13) Further details are requested for the arrangements and location for ‘drop offs’ including private hire/taxi and for disabled people. 14) The submission documents should set out how the proposed Coach Layby will be enforced. 15) TFL would expect access for cyclists to be segregated from vehicles accessing the basement. 16) TFL would seek a contribution towards bus capacity enhancements. 17) A Framework Travel Plan should be produced in accordance with TFLs guidance. 18) The application must be accompanied by a Delivery and Service Plan in either full or outline, which should demonstrate that the three loading bays are sufficient and suitable to accommodate the expected trip generation of delivery and servicing vehicles. 19) Tracking diagrams will be expected to show that vehicles will be able to both enter and exit in forward gear. 20) The application must be accompanied by a Construction Logistics Plan. 21) The development will be liable to Mayoral CIL as well as Borough CIL.

Feedback from Public and Stakeholder Engagement 4.7 Throughout the pre-application stage the application proposals have been subject to wider consultation with the Brent community and other stakeholders. This included an online public exhibition in May and June 2020, which was widely advertised via resident letter and social media, leading to over 2,400 website visits. In addition, meetings have taken place with neighbouring landowners (i.e. Wing Yip and Aberdeen Standard – the latter on behalf of the owners of the Oxgate Centre).

4.8 The engagement has been thorough and beneficial, and culminated in proposals that have been generally well received by the local community and other stakeholders.

4.9 Full details on the extent of the public engagement and the feedback received are set out

in the supporting ‘Statement of Community Involvement’ (SCI). However, in summary, the SCI identified the following key findings:

• The overwhelming response from the public consultation was positive, with 21 out of 23 respondents (who provided written comments) indicating support for the proposals. Conversely, only 2 responses said they objected to the scheme on the grounds of parking and traffic generation.

• The 21 responses that supported the scheme believed that the proposals offer a number of opportunities including providing much needed commercial opportunities and revitalising the area.

• Respondents had specific requests, such as providing space for existing businesses, independent businesses, start-ups and large chains (such as supermarkets or restaurants).

• A number of responses supported the community hub element of the proposals, which were seen as community asset. Similarly, some respondents also wanted to see the commercial elements of the scheme to provide community benefits such as opportunities for existing businesses, jobs and space for small businesses.

• Respondents praised the design of the proposal and it was felt that the modern designed building could help regenerate and uplift the local area.

• Respondents wished to see the proposal benefit young people; backed the use of the site for a hotel; and praised the need to improve transport lines.

• A few comments raised concerns about the likely parking problems that the development may cause and the potential for additional traffic generation.

Response to Pre-Application Feedback

4.10 Throughout the five years of engagement with LB Brent (and other stakeholders) Amafhh have listened to the feedback received and, where considered appropriate (and viable), have made changes to the scheme.

4.11 Before summarising these changes, it has consistently been Amafhh’s view, that their proposals could act as a catalyst for the wider regeneration of Staples Corner industrial estate, with the development becoming a landmark building which would help delineate Staples Corner as the gateway to Brent (as well as to central London – for those traveling past on the A5 and midland mainline). At the time, the response which Amafhh received was that Brent Council had no intention of regenerating Staples Corner, and that the area should remain a low-density industrial location.

4.12 Despite this negative feedback, Amafhh has continued to promote the site in this manner and now finds that, the messages that it has been delivering for over 5 years, have been accepted by the Council, with Staples Corner being identified as growth area. In this regard the emerging Local Plan acknowledges the public transport benefits arising from the nearby Brent Cross West station, and recognises the area is capable of intensification, supported by the introduction of a range of complimentary uses. Furthermore, contrary to previous feedback that Amafhh received concerning the building heights acceptable at Staples Corner, the draft Local Plan recognises the area is now capable of accommodating taller

buildings of up to 20 storeys in height. As a consequence, Amafhh finds its proposals have moved from being at odds with the Council’s previous polices (and vision) for Staples Corner, to a new policy climate where there is a presumption in support of regeneration and an intensification of the scale of development and nature of uses suitable in the area.

4.13 Since receipt of the pre-application response (on Scheme 4, in October 2019), further scheme changes have been made in response to comments and observations raised in dialogue with planning officers, Brent’s senior leadership team and other key stakeholders.

4.14 The form and nature of the scheme, together with its design and access solutions, are described in later sections of this Statement. However, Figure 4 (below) illustrates how the scheme has evolved and responded positively to the feedback received.

Figure 4: Summary of Scheme Evolution in Response to Feedback Feedback Response to Feedback Rationalisation and The original scheme (Scheme 1) proposed 5 different land uses (e.g. school, Reduction in Number medical centre, conference centre, gym and spa and residential), with of Land Uses concerns being raised that this would cause conflict between the uses. The application scheme has rationalised this to 3 uses (i.e. a hotel, incorporating a gym, spa and conference centre; community hub; and ‘industrial’ floorspace). Scale of B Class In response to concerns that the scheme needed to be compliant with the Floorspace SIL policies, a significant amount of ‘industrial’ floorspace has been incorporated into the development. This level of provision has increased from zero in Scheme 1, 1,375 sqm in Scheme 2, 3,160 sq. m in Scheme 3, 4,717 sq. m in Scheme 4, to the final figure of 4,879 sq. m in the application scheme. In addition to increasing the amount of employment floorspace, the evolution of the scheme has relocated this floorspace within the building, ensuring that part of it is located on the ground floor (where it has direct access to the service yard), as well as on the first and third floors and in the rear ‘Podium’ building. Furthermore, the majority of employment floorspace has its own entrances, thus ensuring it is physically separated from the other proposed uses. Type of B Class In response to comments that the inclusion of offices (formerly in Class B1a) Floorspace within the flexible employment floorspace would be contrary to SIL policy, the application scheme no longer includes office floorspace. Instead, flexible employment uses will be limited to light industrial, general industrial and storage and distribution uses, making the employment SIL compliant. Removal of The scheme’s evolution includes the removal of the previously proposed Residential and Focus residential use, and its replacement with a hotel (together with an increased on Employment level of flexible employment floorspace) will help maximise employment creation. Focus on Community Whilst early schemes included a community hall (which could be hired by Uses local groups), the provision of community facilities has evolved to include the retained community hall, together with ‘a community hub’ which is designed to support local community needs. Reduction in The height of the building has been reduced. Scheme 1 was 27 storeys in Proposed Building height, compared to the application scheme, which is 17 storeys (68.75 m) Height in height (amounting to a reduction of 10 floors). The new height of the building is 31.25 m below the 100 metre buildings already approved in the nearby Brent Cross Cricklewood development. Servicing The scheme has evolved, such that the original roadside servicing Arrangements arrangements (include in Scheme 1) have been replaced with an internal

service yard (within the building), with this yard increasing in size from 232 sq. m (in Scheme 2), to its latest size of 436 sq. m. In addition, the size of the vehicle turntable has increased from 11 metres in Scheme 4, to 12 metres in the application scheme (the latest size being capable of accommodating a 12.3 m rigid HGV). Reducing Car Parking In response to comments regarding the scale of proposed car parking, the level of on-site provision has been reduced from 166 spaces (in Scheme 1) to 76 spaces in the application scheme. This represents a reduction of 55%. Enhancing public The evolution of the scheme has included ensuring that the application realm and scheme includes active frontages onto both Edgware Road and Oxgate opportunities for Lane, together with significant improvements to the public realm around the active frontages building.

5.0 THE PROPOSAL

5.1 This section summarises the nature of the proposed development. Further detail is provided within other application documents, including a full set of visual and illustrative material (comprising plans, sections, elevations, verified views and CGI’s), the Design and Access Statement, Transport Assessment, and Site Management and Operation Strategy.

Nature of Proposed Land Uses and Floorspace

5.2 The application proposal relates to the demolition of the existing building and replacement with an employment focussed mixed-use development amounting to 24,712 sq. m GIA (25,413 GEA). The proposed development would incorporate the following land uses:

• Flexible employment space (Class E/B2/B8): 4,879 sq. m GIA • Hotel (Class C1): 140 bed hotel, including restaurants and café, gym, health spa and swimming pool – 10,753 sq. m GIA • Conference Centre (Class F.1): including 2 No. Halls, together with shared lobby and reception areas – 1,162 sq. m • Community ‘Hub’ (Class F.2): 1,859 sq. m GIA

5.3 In compliance with the planning policies relating to ‘Strategic Industrial Locations’ the applicant proposed the following restrictions on how the flexible employment space would operate:

• Class E use of the flexible employment space would be restricted to ‘light industrial’ and ‘research and development’ uses (which were formerly within Class B1(c) and B1(b) respectively); • No less than 50% of the flexible employment space would be used for ‘light industrial’ and/or ‘research and development’ uses; • No more than 25% of the flexible employment space would be used for Class B2 (general industrial) use; • No more than 25% of the flexible employment space would be used for Class B8 (storage and distribution).

5.4 In addition, the development includes the following back of house and supporting elements:

• Basement car parking (76 No. spaces), together with cycle storage capable of accommodating 50 No. cycles): 3,666 sq. m GIA • Back-up management and plant facilities: 1,958 sq. m GIA • Dedicated internal service yard: 436 sq. m GIA • Several outdoor amenity spaces (comprising a podium terrace, sky-garden and two private terraces) (these would have a combined area of 1,364 sq. m) • Coach drop-off on Oxgate Lane • Public realm improvements, including regraded area in front of the building (introducing 3 steps (each with a depth of 350mm) and a 1:10 gradient ramp) to provide level access into the building • Provision of 16 No. short stay cycle parking spaces (split between the Edgware Road and Oxgate Lane public realm areas)

5.5 The existing and proposed floorspace on the site is illustrated as follows:

Figure 5: Schedule of Existing and Proposed Floorspace Existing Proposed Floorspace Floorspace Uplift Floorspace GIA GEA Net* GIA GEA GIA GEA Use (SQM) (SQM) (SQM) (SQM) (SQM) (SQM) (SQM) Offices (Class E) 6,672 7,613 Flexible Employment (Class 4,097 4,879 E/B2/B8) Hotel (Including conference centre, 8,504 10,753 gym/spa, swimming pool and restaurants)

Conference Centre (including shared lobby 869 1,162 and reception areas) Community Hub (Class F.2) 1,445 1,859 Plant 1,172 Management / BOH 786 Parking (Car & Cycle) 3,666 Service Yard 436 GRAND TOTAL 6,672 7,613 14,915 24,713 25,413 18,041 17,800

Net Excludes Toilets, Stair/Lift Cores, Common Areas/Corridors, Plant & BOH Elements

Layout

5.6 The layout of the site is illustrated in the supporting application plans, with the proposal comprising the following elements:

3 No. Basement Levels: 5.7 Constructed over three floors, this part of the development would replace the existing two basements and comprise a total area of 7,143 sqm. Given the depth of structure around the existing ‘bunker’ in the sub-basements (including approximately 1.5 metre of structure between the top of the sub-basement and the bottom of the existing basement) the floor level of the proposed Basement -3 would be similar to the existing level of Basement -2.

5.8 Basement -3 (2,291 sq. m GIA) would be used to accommodate the hotel gym/spa (1,636 sq. m GIA), which would include treatment rooms, changing rooms and a swimming pool (measuring 17 by 6.5 metres). Basement -3 would also accommodate a large area of plant (755 sq. m). This basement would be connected to upper floors by two lift/stair cores, one of which would connect directly with the hotel reception and upper floors of hotel accommodation (including guest bedrooms), with the second stair/lift core connecting Basement -3 to the top of the Podium Building (and all intervening floors).

5.9 Basement -2 (2,281 sq. m GIA) would comprise 1,939 sq. m GIA of car parking (accommodating 42 parking spaces), together with back of house floorspace. The parking area would be accessed via a ramp from Basement -1. This basement would also include a cycle store (85 sq. m - capable of accommodating 30 cycles and also including 2 No. showers for cyclists). The cycle store would be accessed using a cycle lift, which would connect Basement -2 with the staff entrance (on the ground floor).

5.10 Basement -1 (2,371 sq. m GIA) would include 1,727 sq. m of car parking (providing 34 spaces) and cycle storage space (33 sq. m - capable of accommodating 20 cycles). The cycle store would be accessed using a cycle lift, which would connect Basement -1 with the staff entrance (on the ground floor) and with the cycle store in Basement -2. In addition, Basement -1 would include back of house accommodation, some of which would be used by the hotel. The car parking area would be accessed via a ramp from the ground floor. This basement also includes a ramp providing access to Basement -2.

Podium Building: 5.12 This 4-storey element of the scheme (8,200 sq. m GIA - comprising 4 floors) would cover the majority of the existing building’s footprint. It would accommodate flexible Class E/B2/B8 floorspace (located on the ground floor, first and third floors - amounting to 3,885 sq. m); the hotel entrance/reception and galley area (836 sq. m); conference centre (1,162 sq. m GIA); community floorspace (1,362 sq. m GIA); the internal service yard (436 sq. m) accessed from Oxgate Lane; 520 sq. m of back of house and plant space; and the vehicle ramp to Basement-1. The top of the podium would provide an outdoor terrace (amounting to 907 sq. m), with a further two outdoor private terraces located in other parts of the podium building (amounting to 185 sq. m).

Hotel Building: 5.13 This element, which would involve 13 floors rising out of the podium building, would include the main element of the hotel (7,824 sq. m). Ten of these floors would be used to accommodate hotel guest accommodation (amounting to 140 rooms), together with a hotel lounge (591 sq. m); roof top restaurant (703 sq. m) and outdoor roof space (272 sq. m).

Podium Pavilion Building: 5.14 This element of the development would comprise three floors, two of which would be used for flexible employment floorspace (amounting to 1,515 sq. m GIA), with one floor (on Level 1) used as a community hub space (497 sq. m). Access to this part of the development would be from an entrance on Oxgate Lane. In addition, this part of the building would also be accessible using the lift/stair core in the south west corner of the site (which would be accessed from the staff entrance in the southern elevation).

Access and Parking

Pedestrian Access 5.15 Access to the site for pedestrians would be taken from both Oxgate Lane (where 2 No. access doors would be located) and from Edgware Road (where 3 No. access doors would be located). A further entrance (for staff) would be provided within the southern elevation, access via a pedestrian route which runs adjacent to this elevation.

5.16 To ensure that each individual operation would be able to function without impeding on the operation of the other uses, access points to each of the uses would be largely independent.

5.17 Full details on each access door are described in the ‘Design and Access Statement’ and ‘Site Management and Operation Strategy’.

Vehicle Access 5.18 Vehicle access to the proposed development would be taken from Oxgate Lane, providing access to both the underground car park in addition to the service area. Access from Oxgate Lane will be provided via two simple priority accesses, one providing access to the two-way

vehicle ramp into the underground car park (in a similar location to the existing vehicular access) whilst the second would provide access to the service area.

5.19 The access to the underground car park is proposed to be two-way at ground level to ensure that vehicles are able to and enter the site without delay, minimising any delay that may occur and influence the operation of Oxgate Lane. A barrier-less system will be used, such an Automatic Number Plate Recognition, to manage and enforce the use of the car park. The design of the access arrangements has been undertaken to consider pedestrian priority where possible, to ensure a consistent pedestrian environment along the site’s frontage to Oxgate Lane.

5.20 The proposed access arrangements are detailed in the supporting Healthy Street Transport Assessment (Drawing No. 1808-16 PL01).

5.21 In keeping with the 20mph speed limit on Oxgate Lane, 2.4m x 25m visibility splays would be provided at both entrances. The proposed access dimensions and visibility splays are presented in the Healthy Street Transport Assessment (Drawings No’s 1808-16 PL02 and 1808- 16 PL03).

Car Parking Provision 5.22 Parking spaces (76 No.) would be provided in Basement -1 and Basement -2. This parking provision would be split between the main uses on the site as follows:

• Class E/B2/B8: 24 No. spaces • Community Hub: 32 No. spaces • Hotel/Conference Centre: 20 No. spaces

5.23 In accordance with the London Plan requirements, there will be 16 No. active electric car parking spaces with a further 8 No. passive electric car parking spaces.

5.24 Of the 76 No. parking spaces, 5 No. will be blue badge spaces, available for disabled users. These would be located close to the lift core, such that they are easily accessible.

Cycle Parking Provision 5.25 The application proposes 50 long-stay cycle parking spaces, located in two separate cycle stores located in Basement -1 and Basement -2. Access to the cycle stores would be via the staff entrance (in the southern elevation) which provide access to a dedicated cycle lift. One of the cycle stores (in Basement -2) will include 2 No. showers for use by cyclists.

5.26 In addition, a further 16 No. short-stay cycle parking spaces would be provided within the public realm area. This would comprise 3 No. cycle hoops (capable of accommodating 6 No. cycles) within the Edgware Road public realm, and 5 No. cycle hoops (capable of accommodating 10 No. cycles) in the Oxgate Road frontage, near to the coach lay-by. These latter set of hoops would incorporate individual lettering within their design, with the 5 hoops spelling out the word ‘BRENT’. This will help reinforce the message that the site is a gateway to Brent.

Coach Lay-by 5.27 A coach layby, sufficient to accommodate 2 No. parked coaches, would be provided adjacent to the site in Oxgate Lane. To accommodate this, existing on-street car parking would be removed.

5.28 It is not expected that coach pick-up/drop-off use of the lay-by will be required between 11.00 and 14.00 hours. During this period the lay-by would be available for short stay servicing vehicles (with a max 20-minute waiting time).

5.29 It is also expected that the coach lay-by would be used by the shuttle bus service (comprising a mini-bus sized vehicle) which Amafhh would operate between the site and Brent Cross West station (between 09.00 and 22.00 hours).

5.30 Further details on the design and use of the coach lay-by are set out in the Transport Assessment and Site Management and Operation Strategy.

Servicing and Delivery Access 5.31 The proposed design incorporates a dedicated ‘internal’ service yard (436 sq. m), which would be located to the rear of the ground floor, and accessed from Oxgate Lane. This area would be used for servicing all uses within the building. It would incorporate a turntable (capable of accommodating 12.3 metre rigid vehicles) to allow vehicles to enter and exit the service yard in forward gear.

5.32 The service yard would be capable of accommodating 3 No. HGV vehicles parked within demarked service bays (each capable of enabling loading and off-loading from the rear of the vehicles from the goods set down area). These 3 No. HGV service bays would be in addition to the vehicle using the turntable.

5.33 Further details on the configuration of the service yard, and how it would operate, are set out in the supporting ‘Transport Assessment’ and ‘Site Management and Operation Strategy’.

Waste Storage and Collection 5.34 Waste storage for all commercial elements of the development would be accommodated within a single ‘waste store’ located on the ground floor, with direct connection to the service yard.

5.35 The waste store would have an area of 82 sq. m, and would be capable of accommodating approximately 30 No. 1110 L wheelie bins.

5.36 Collection of refuse/recycling material would take place using the internal service yard. Refuse vehicles would be able to access the site in forward gear, and turn using the vehicle turntable, thus enabling them to exit in forward gear. After turning, collection vehicles would be able to park within the unloading bay directly adjoining the waste store.

6.0 PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

6.1 Section 38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the policies within the statutory development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

6.2 The following section summarises the pertinent policies against which the proposal should be assessed, with a more detailed review of the policy framework included in Appendix A

National Planning Policy Framework (2019)

6.3 Paragraph 11 confirms the presumption in favour of sustainable development remains at the heart of the framework.

6.4 Paragraph 38 confirms that planning applications should be approved which improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

6.5 Paragraph 80 advises that significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity.

6.6 Paragraph 86 requires local planning authorities to apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses.

6.7 Paragraph 109 states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

6.8 Paragraphs 117 and 122 states that planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land.

6.9 Paragraph 118(c) identifies substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land.

6.10 Paragraph 121 encourages Local Authorities to take a more positive approach to applications which seek alternative uses of land, particularly where this would not undermine the economy.

6.11 Paragraphs 124 and 127 recognise that the development of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve.

Statutory Development Plan

The London Plan (March 2016, Updated January 2017) • Policy 2.7 directs boroughs to address constraints and opportunities in the economic growth of outer London, so that it can rise above its long-term economic trends.

• Policy 2.17 seeks to promote, manage and, where appropriate, protect the strategic industrial locations (SILs). The SILs are identified are being used for industrial and related capacity, including general and light industrial uses, logistics, waste management and environmental industries (such as renewable energy generation), utilities, wholesale markets and some transport functions. The policy advises that development proposals within or adjacent to SILs should not compromise the integrity or effectiveness of these

locations in accommodating industrial type activities.

• Policy 4.4 seeks to ensure a sufficient stock of land and premises to meet the future needs of different types of industrial and related uses, including for good quality and affordable space.

• Policy 4.5 identifies a need to improve the range and quality of provision especially in outer London, including to achieve 40,000 net additional hotel bedrooms by 2036.

• Policy 4.7 introduces the sequential approach for town centre uses.

• Policy 5.2 requires development proposals to make the fullest contribution to minimising carbon dioxide emissions.

• Policy 6.1 encourages development accessible by existing or proposed public transport infrastructure.

• Policy 6.3 requires the effects of development to be assessed on transport capacity.

• Policy 6.10 seeks to bring about an increase in walking in London.

• Policy 6.13 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with maximum parking standards.

• Policy 7.7 advises that tall and large buildings should not have an unacceptably harmful impact on their surroundings.

• Policy 7.8 seeks to preserve London’s heritage assets and historic environment.

• Policy 7.9 requires the significance of heritage assets to be assessed when development is proposed.

London Borough of Brent Core Strategy (Adopted July 2010) 6.12 Policy CP1 sets out the strategy for growth, including the protection and modernisation of Strategic Industrial Locations for industrial and warehousing uses, with a requirement to achieve new job creation and skills training.

6.13 Policy CP3 notes that Staples Corner is one of several commercial areas that will be promoted as strategic industrial/ business locations where redevelopment for incompatible uses will be resisted, new sustainable development for business and industry will be encouraged, and investment in new infrastructure, such as transport improvements will be secured.

6.14 Policy CP5 seeks to ensure that major development schemes are successful in establishing places where people wish to live and work. The policy advocates vertical mixing of uses.

6.15 Policy CP6 supports higher densities in areas of good public transport accessibility (including where PTAL levels would be raised as a result of development or through committed transport improvements). Furthermore, use of the highest or exemplary design standards can help achieve higher densities.

6.16 Policy CP16 identifies the sequential order for new ‘town centre’ uses

6.17 Policy CP19 requires all development to contribute towards achieving sustainable developments, including climate change mitigation and adoption. This includes achieving a non-residential BREEAM ‘ Excellent’ rating.

6.18 Policy CP20 seeks to protect Strategic Industrial Locations designated for industrial employment uses characterised by use classes B1, B2 and B8 , or Sui Generic uses that are closely related. The Policy advises that the regeneration of Strategic Industrial Locations is supported where proposals will not undermine the employment land hierarchy. Redevelopment will be expected to:

• Maximise opportunities to move freight by non-road means (such as water and rail) and minimise the impact of industrial and employment use on the road network. • Provide opportunities for skills training, and employment for local people. • Provide new employment floorspace that is fit for modern usage for a range of B use classes including business parks, ‘starter’ and ‘move on’ units for small and medium enterprises, and studios for artists and cultural and creative industries. • Intensify land use, including the efficient movement and use of loading and delivery areas. Deliver significant environmental improvements in terms of the public realm and landscaping of employment areas and industrial estates; and • Minimise and mitigate any impact from development upon surrounding land uses.

6.19 Policy CP23 protects existing community and cultural facilities and promotes new multi- functional community facilities.

Brent Development Management Policies (Adopted November 2016)

6.20 Policy DMP1 recognises that development will be acceptable provided it meets the other policies in the plan, including relating to issues such as location, scale, density, material, design, parking provision, impact on surroundings, sustainability benefits, impact on heritage assets, ecological issues, no loss of community facilities, etc.

6.21 Policy DMP6 notes that visitor accommodation and attractions will be encouraged in Wembley Strategic Cultural Area and in town centres in accordance with the sequential approach, and permitted when not compromising the supply of land for new homes on allocated housing sites and the Council’s ability to meet its housing targets.

6.22 Policy DMP7 seeks to protect heritage assets. Development proposals affecting heritage assets to be supported by detailed analysis and justification of the potential impact.

6.23 Policy DMP12 requires development to provide parking consistent with the Council’s parking standards.

6.24 Policy DMP13 requires the provision of servicing facilities in all development in compliance with the Council’s standards. Developers are required to provide the optimum servicing and delivery arrangements for new developments and, wherever possible servicing should be provided off the highway.

6.25 Policy DMP14 supports the continued provision of employment sites, including employment land within a SIL. SIL land will only be released where:

a. it is a low-quality employment site identified as suitable for release in the Employment Land Demand Study; and b. it can be shown to be integral to and delivered as part of a wider comprehensive housing-led regeneration scheme with substantial benefits to Brent, providing at least 50% affordable housing, and consistent with the wider objectives of the Development Plan and/ or is of strategic significance to London; or c. when it delivers social and physical infrastructure of a substantial scale, for example secondary schools, for which there is a significant identified Brent need and which cannot reasonably be provided on other sites in the Borough.

6.26 For developments falling under criteria a) the development shall incorporate employment uses providing an efficient use of land on approximately 20% of the site area.

Emerging Planning Policies

Intend to Publish (ItP) London Plan – December 2019 6.27 The current 2016 Plan (The London Plan consolidated with alterations since 2011) is still the adopted Development Plan, but the Draft London Plan is a material consideration in planning decisions. Policies contained in the Intend to Publish (ItP) London Plan (December 2019) that are not subject to a direction by the SoS carry significant weight and the remaining policies carry moderate weight.

6.28 Policy GC1 seeks to build strong and inclusive communities.

6.29 Policy GC2 seeks to make the best use of land, including promoting development of brownfield land, particularly in Opportunity Areas and to prioritise sites which are well- connected by existing or planned public transport. Similarly, this policy supports the exploration of intensification of land to support additional workspaces and to promote higher density development, particularly in locations that are well-connected to jobs, services, infrastructure and amenities by public transport, walking and cycling.

6.30 Policy GC5 wishes to see sufficient employment and industrial space in the right locations to support economic development and regeneration.

6.31 Policy D9 requires development proposals for tall buildings to address visual impacts, the views of buildings from difference distances (long-range, mid-range, immediate views) and for the architectural quality and materials to be of an exemplary standard.

6.32 Policy S1 ensures that the social infrastructure needs of diverse communities are met.

6.33 Policy E2 encourages boroughs to support the provision, and where appropriate, protect a range of B Class business space to meet the needs of micro, small and medium sized enterprises and that development of B Use Class business uses should ensure that the space is fit for purpose having regard to the type and use of the space. Criterion C of this policy states: “Development proposals that involve the loss of existing B Use Class business space (including creative and artists’ workspace) in areas identified in a local Development Plan Document where there is a shortage of lower-cost space or workspace of particular types, uses or sizes, should:

1) demonstrate that there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for business purposes, or 2) ensure that an equivalent amount of B Use Class business space is re-provided in the proposal which is appropriate in terms of type, use and size, incorporating existing businesses where possible, and include affordable workspace where appropriate (see Policy E3 Affordable workspace)”.

6.34 The supporting justification to this policy (paragraph 6.2.7) confirms that “if business space is demonstrated to be obsolete or surplus to requirements it should be redeveloped for housing and other uses”.

6.35 Policy E3 recognises that planning obligations may be used to secure affordable workspace (in the B Use Class) at rents maintained below the market rate for that space for a specific social, cultural or economic development purpose.

6.36 Policy E4 supports the need for sufficient land and premises to make provision for: light and general industrial uses; storage and logistics/distribution; secondary material and waste management; utilities infrastructure; sustainable transport functions; wholesale markets; emerging industrial-related sectors; flexible (B1/B2/B8) hybrid space to accommodate services that support the wider London economy and population; low-cost industrial and related space for micro and SMEs - taking into account strategic and local employment reviews, industrial land audits and potential for intensification, co-location and substitution.

6.37 The Policy aims to avoid any net loss of industrial floorspace capacity within designated SIL (and LSIS). Although it is recognised that any release of industrial land in order to manage long-term vacancies should be facilitated through the processes of industrial intensification, co-location and substitution (see Policy E7).

6.38 The policy prioritises the retention and provision of additional industrial capacity. Any release of industrial land and should be focussed on locations that are (or are planned to be) well- connected by public transport .The principle of no net loss of industrial floorspace capacity applies to overall areas of SIL and not necessarily to individual sites within them. Development proposals for large-scale (greater than 2,500 sqm GIA) industrial floorspace should consider the scope to provide smaller industrial units suitable for SMEs, in particular where there is a local shortage and demand for such space

6.39 Policy E5 requires SILs to be managed proactively through a plan-led process to sustain them as London’s largest concentration of industrial, logistics and related capacity for uses that support the functioning of London’s economy. Criterion D of the policy states:

“Development proposals for uses in SILs other than those set out in Part A of Policy E4… should be refused except in areas released through a strategically co-ordinated process of SIL consolidation. This release must be carried out through a planning framework or Development Plan Document review process and adopted as policy in a Development Plan or as part of a coordinated masterplanning process in collaboration with the GLA and relevant borough”.

6.40 Policy E7 requires development plans to be proactive and encourage intensification of uses in Use Classes B1c, B2 and B8. The policy notes that as part of the 'intensification' of SILs, Council's should facilitate the consolidation of the SIL to support the delivery of other uses,

such as social infrastructure, or to contribute to town centre renewal. Such intensification must not undermine or compromise the integrity or effectiveness of SIL.

6.41 Policy E10 recognises the need to strengthen London’s visitor economy, including through new hotels. In outer London this includes town centres and opportunities areas which are well serviced by public transport.

6.42 Additional modifications have been made following the publication of the Intention to Publish London Plan. Accordingly, there are still some questions over the validity of the key employment policies within the London Plan, in terms of their compliance with the NPPF. Following the EiP, the Inspector concluded that the approach to meeting those needs set out in E4 to E7 is aspirational but may not be realistic and that this appears to be inconsistent with paragraph 7 of the NPPF which requires that sufficient land of the right type is availability in the right places at the right time to support growth and innovation. In other words, the policies are currently worded may be considered not to be sufficiently flexible in their approach.

6.43 Accordingly, the proposed modifications include the following: • To replace the need to ‘retain’ sufficient land to ‘provide’ sufficient land. • Include the support for boroughs to seek to deliver intensified floorspace capacity in either existing and/or new appropriate locations supported by appropriate evidence. • To recognise that where industrial land vacancy rates are currently well above the London average, boroughs should be encouraged to assess whether the release of industrial land for alternative uses is more appropriate if demand cannot support industrial uses in these locations. And, where possible, a substitution approach to alternative locations with higher demand for industrial uses is encouraged.

6.44 The proposed modifications also remove the requirement in Policy E7 to “deliver an increase (or at least no overall net loss) of capacity in terms of industrial, storage and warehousing floorspace with appropriate provision of yard space for servicing”

6.45 Modifications are also proposed to paragraph 6.7.2 which removes the first part of this paragraph which previously stated “whilst the majority of land in SILs should be retained and intensified for the industrial type functions set out in Part A of Policy E4, land for industry, logistics and services to supports London Economic function”. Other references to ‘no net loss of industrial floorspace’ have also been removed from elsewhere within the plan.

6.46 Policy T1 directs developments to support the delivery of the Mayor’s strategic transport directive in that 80% of all trips in London should be made by foot, cycle or public transport by 2041. Similarly, Policy T2 supports the Healthy Streets approach in reducing car reliance, increase walking, cycling and the use of public transport.

6.47 Policy D1 seeks to ensure tall buildings are sustainably developed in appropriate locations and are of the required design quality and Policy D8 Tall Buildings urges boroughs to set their own definition of tall buildings. The Plan does not specifically require tall buildings in any designated areas. When not defined at borough level, it provides the following definitions:

• “Tall buildings are generally those that are substantially taller than their surroundings and cause a significant change to the skyline.” • “Where there is no local definition, the policy applies to buildings...over 30m in height.”

Emerging Brent Local Plan Regulation 19 Publication Draft (March 2020)

6.48 The Regulation 19 Publication Plan together with the Proposed Modifications make up the submitted local plan which is currently undergoing examination.

6.49 Policy DMP1 requires the following in all development proposals: • Quality design that complements the locality; • Satisfactory means of access for all with appropriate parking, servicing and no adverse impact on the surrounding movement network; • Conserving and where possible enhancing heritage assets; • Having no detrimental environmental impacts • Where possible enhancing community facilities or other land/buildings for which there is an identified need.

6.50 Policy BP2 supports securing sufficient physical and social infrastructure on and off site to aid the Staples Corner Growth Area. The policy states that the Council will support the “transformational change of Staples Corner to provide co-location/intensification and a wide range of new business premises fit for modern day occupiers in association with a new mixed use community.”

6.51 Policy BEGA2 expands on the Council’s proposals for the new Staples Corner growth area. This policy includes the following pertinent comments:

• Staples Corner is a suitable location for a wide range of new business premises fit for modern day occupiers in association with a new mixed-use community; • The intensification of development is acceptable and, provided employment uses are retained/ replaced (and ideally intensified), mixed-use development which introduces uses on upper floors will be acceptable (provided sufficient physical and social infrastructure on and off the site is provided); • The future development potential of Staples Corner is to be subject of a ‘Masterplan’ prepared by the Council, which will identify the appropriate mix of uses and the form of expected development; • Staples Corner is a suitable location for tall buildings; • There is a need to “create a high-quality pedestrian connection from Brent Cross West station [over the A5] to Staples Corner and the wider area”; • Non-industrial uses may now be possible in the area. • Social and physical infrastructure requirements are encouraged and would be fully drawn out in any future masterplan related to the residential capacity of the site.

6.52 Policy BD1 requires all new development to be of the highest architectural and urban design quality. This policy also supports innovative contemporary design.

6.53 Policy BD2 advises that all tall buildings are directed to the locations shown on the policies map in Tall Building Zones, intensification corridors, town centres and site allocations. The design of buildings in these areas would need to fit in with local character. The policy also requires all tall buildings to be positive additions to the skyline that would enhance the overall character of the area.

6.54 Policy BE1 requires a minimum of 10% of total floorspace within major developments exceeding 3000 sqm to be affordable workspace in the B use class, in named areas, including

Staples Corner.

6.55 Policy BE2 states that within Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL) and Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS) development will be supported where it intensifies employment uses and accords with certain area specific principles. The policy states:

“On these sites intensification through co-location will be supported, subject to a comprehensive masterplan approach produced with or agreed by the council demonstrating the following will be achieved:

• conformity with London Plan policy E7; • a net increase in employment floorspace; • a mix of B1(b), B1(c), B2 and B8 employment floorspace will be delivered reflective of borough needs, including start-up space, move on space; • proactive engagement with existing businesses to seek to retain them on site where possible, and support for any businesses that cannot be incorporated to relocate off site; • 10% of employment floorspace to be affordable workspace; • the development is of a high-quality design and will result in sustainable development, well served by community facilities and open space; and • any potential conflicts between uses can be mitigated and a high standard of amenity achieved”

6.56 Policy BE2 is one of the key policies being challenged within the current Brent EiP. The Examination correspondence at the time of writing (Response of the Council in relation to Matter 6 – Economy and Town Centres), contains the LPAs justification of the quantum of employment need for the Borough over the plan period, in response to a question raised by the Inspector over the whether this had been clearly defined within the Plan. This is as a result of the need identified within the Local plan being at variance with the evidence base that supported the draft London Plan.

6.57 One of the key outcomes of this document, is that the LPA recognise that there is a clear opportunity to intensify designated industrial sites and improve their functionality and ability to accommodate future growth sectors (Para 6.2.5).

6.58 In addition, paragraph 6.4.3 recognises that due to issues like new permitted development rights, it is likely that no matter how protective the Local Plan policies are of industrial uses, the Council is likely to be faced with the prospect of some uncontrolled loss of industrial premises or premises. Therefore, the document confirms that the Council will look to include the 0.65 plot ratio in its policies for SIL (Staples Corner) and LSIS sites subject to co-location and proposed the following modification to Policy BE2:

“……a net increase in employment industrial floorspace resulting in a minimum 0.65 plot ratio or the existing floorspace total, whichever is the greater, across the masterplan area;”

6.59 Policy BE2 is also proposed to be further modified to take into account changes to the use class order as follows:

“…a mix of research and development B1(b), light industrial B1(c), B2 general industrial and B8 storage and distribution employment floorspace will be delivered reflective of

borough needs, including start-up space, move on space;.”

6.60 Policy BE9 supports future hotel provision within town centres provided they:

• do not significantly compromise the supply of land for new homes on allocated housing sites and the Council’s ability to meet its housing targets; • are inclusive and accessible, with applications for detailed planning permission accompanied by Accessibility Management Plans; • are not occupied by any resident for 90 consecutive days or more; and • create active ground floor frontages.

6.61 Policy BT1 requires developments to provide access for all. A specific requirement of the sustainable travel element of this policy is to create a high-quality pedestrian connection from Brent Cross West Thameslink station to Staples Corner and the wider area. The policy also seeks to reduce traffic dominance and improve public realm

6.62 Policy BHC3 supports Brent’s culture and creative industries.

Supplementary Planning Documents & Evidence Base

Brent Design Guide (SPD1, November 2018) 6.63 This Supplementary Planning Document provides a number of design principles that the Council require new development to follow. Most pertinent to the proposals site are as follows:

• Principle 2: Development should respond to the local context and respect the existing character of the landscape, streetscape, architectural and historic environment.

• Principle 3.1: New development height, massing and facade design should positively respond to the existing context and scale; facilitating good urban design. a) Sites appropriate for tall buildings: Tall buildings will only be encouraged in areas identified as appropriate for tall buildings and be of outstanding design, following best practice guidance. b) Heights on all other sites: Building heights should positively respond to existing character. c) Bulk, scale and massing: Development massing should limit its visual impact by effectively breaking up facades, creating a varied roofscape and relating positively to existing surroundings.

• Principle 3.2 Development should ensure active frontage and maximise doors and windows to active ground floor rooms

• Principle 4.1 New development should create well-dimensioned perimeter blocks wherever possible, providing active frontage and maximising sunlight into amenity space

Brent Basement SPD (June 2017) 6.64 Whilst the SPD provides guidance on planning matters related to all basement development, the majority of the SPD is primarily relating to basements forming part of householder extensions. Some of the key requirements of this SPD which relate to commercial basements are as follows:

• Demonstrate that sustainable design standards are integral to the proposal, including its construction and operation. • Basement development impacting on heritage assets should conserve and enhance their significance. • Basements should avoid areas of flood risk, be designed to minimise risk from flooding and not contribute to flooding elsewhere.

Brent Tall Building Strategy (October 2019) 6.65 This document is part of the evidence base for the Brent Local Plan. It informs general and location specific policies on tall buildings (10 stories or more, or 30+ metres in height). At present it does not have the status of a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), however the council have indicated that this could be an option in the future.

6.66 The Strategy recognises the emerging Local Plan identification of Staples Corner as a Growth Area. It notes that the PTAL rating of the area will improve as a result of the Brent Cross West Station and that, as a result of this development and subject to good quality pedestrian links connecting Staples Corner to the station (over the A5), “the area is considered suitable for high density development”, Including a “Tall Building Zone” (which is identified on a plan included in the strategy – this shows Amafhh’s application site within the zone).

6.67 The strategy recognises that the area to the east of the Growth Area is most suitable for the core of tall buildings, since this will have the higher levels of PTAL and it is located in closer proximity to the Brent Cross Cricklewood tall building cluster on the east of the railway. The strategy suggests the area could accommodate buildings of 6 to 20 stories in height (approximately 18 to 60 metres), subject to a master planning assessment.

7.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT – PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT & PROPOSED USES

7.1 This section assesses the principle of the proposed development and the proposed land uses against the statutory development plan (as outlined in Section 6.0).

A) Principle of Development

Sustainable Development 7.2 A key function of the planning system is to secure sustainable patterns of development and regeneration through the efficient re-use of previously developed urban land, and through concentrating development in accessible locations. This is encapsulated in the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the NPPF (Paragraph 10-11).

7.3 The NPPF (Paragraph 8) identifies three overarching objectives (for achieving sustainable patterns of development) which are interdependent and need to be pursued equally. The proposed development meets these three key requirements for the following reasons:

• Social: The proposal seeks to maximise employment opportunities on the site, with flexible employment space designed for businesses to expand. The development also incorporates a community hub and leisure facilities, which will help support the local community, including providing opportunities for community support and advice, opportunities for community activities and gatherings and helping to improve the health of the community through use of the gym, spa and swimming pool. The proposed hotel accommodation further enhances facilities in the local area. The proposal also meets this requirement through its creation of a well-designed and safe built environment, with accessible services. Therefore, the proposed development will meet the current and future needs and support the community’s health, social and cultural well-being;

• Economic: The proposal will help contribute to a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by providing opportunities for significant employment (approximately 250 jobs) in a location recognised as being a key locaiton for industry and employment. The flexible employment space is designed to meet start-up and move on space including for businesses operating in the media/tech sectors, in line with the need to encourage innovation in the provision of employment, capable of meeting modern business needs. The proposed hotel/conference centre will support the wider Staples Corner industrial / commercial area and be of an appropriate scale, serving the needs of the local area, whilst also increasing expenditure in the area.

• Environmental: The proposal will contribute to protecting and enhancing the natural and built environment; including making effective use of a redundant brownfield site, enhancing the quality of the environment through a high-quality design, helping to improve biodiversity (through the introduction of new landscaping), minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change.

7.4 In light of the above, the application proposals comply with the principle of sustainable development.

Development of Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) 7.5 The NPPF encourages planning policies and decisions to help create the conditions in which

businesses can invest, expand and adapt (paragraph 80). Significant weight is placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development.

7.6 In accordance with London Plan Policy 2.17, the Council is seeking to protect ‘Strategic Industrial Locations’ for industrial employment uses, characterised by use classes B1c, B2 and B8 (or closely related Sui Generis uses) (although recent modification to the Publication Draft Local Plan proposes to amend the list of SIL appropriate uses to “a mix of research and development, light industrial, general industrial and storage and distribution floorspace”). As such, any proposals for uses outside of these categories will be resisted. The London Plan, however, allows the development in SILs for non-industrial or related uses where the proposals are part of a strategically co-ordinated process of consolidation. Furthermore, draft London Plan Policy E5 encourages the intensification of SILs.

7.7 Whilst the proposed development is located within a SIL , the site comprises a vacant building which has a lawful use as ‘offices and research purposes’, demonstrated by the Lawful Development Certificate approved in 1992 (Ref. 92/1425). This fact was acknowledged in the Council’s pre-application response (dated 18th October 2020).

7.8 This demonstrates that the building is not being used for industrial purposes in line with SIL policies, nor has it ever contributed to London’s reservoir of industrial land. Furthermore, as illustrated in the supporting ‘Condition Report on Structure’ and the ‘Heritage Assessment’, the existing building is in a dilapidated vacant state, and has largely been unused since the 1990s.

7.9 Notwithstanding the above, for the reasons explained in the following sections, the proposal would introduce a significant amount of SIL compliant industrial floorspace. In addition, the proposal includes a range of complementary uses, which will provide enhanced employment opportunities for the local area, and which will not be harmful to the site’s designation as SIL, nor to the operation of other businesses in the wider Staples Corner area.

No Net Loss of Industrial Floorspace 7.10 A key policy requirement in relation SIL locations is to ensure there is ‘no net loss of industrial floorspace’. This policy was first introduced in the December 2017 Draft London Plan (Policy E4, Criterion C), with the supporting text (Para 6.4.5) clarifying that the ‘no net loss’ approach applies to “overall areas of SIL and LSIS, and not necessarily to individual sites within them”.

7.11 Paragraph 6.4.5 also clarifies that this requirement will be based on “existing industrial warehousing floorspace on site or the potential industrial warehousing floorspace that could be accommodated on site as a 65% plot ratio”. In other words, if an individual SIL site does not currently provide ‘industrial or warehousing floorspace’, then the requirement for such uses to be introduced should be based on a 65% plot ratio (this latter issue is considered later in this section) .

7.12 Before considering the application proposal against the ‘no net loss of industrial floorspace’ and the ‘65% plot ratio’ requirements, it is important to understand that the ‘no net loss’ policy has been questioned by the Inspectors who examined the draft London plan. In their report (dated 8th October 2019) the Inspectors stated (at Paragraph 421) that London Plan’s approach to meeting industrial needs (including the no net loss requirement) “is aspirational but may not be realistic”. Furthermore, the Inspectors considered the London Plan’s approach was inconsistent the NPPF’s requirement for “sufficient land of the right types is

available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation and improved productivity”.

7.13 In response, the London Mayor indicated (in his formal ‘Response to Inspectors’ Recommendations’, dated December 2019) that he did not consider it necessary to remove the ‘no net loss’ requirement. Subsequently, the SoS wrote to the Mayor (on 13th March 2020) raising a number of concerns with the draft London Plan, including the use of the ‘no net loss’ requirement for existing industrial land sites. The SoS repeated the request that this requirement should be removed from the plan.

7.14 At the time of writing the draft London Plan remains unadopted, and it is not known how the Mayor of London proposes to resolve concerns over the ‘no net loss’ requirement.

Application of No Net Loss of Industrial Floorspace to Application Proposal

7.15 The London Plan’s clarification on how the ‘no net loss of floorspace’ should be applied was erroneously interpreted in the planning officer’s pre-application written comments (dated 18th October). The officer applied it to an individual site, rather than looking at the wider SIL (which is planned to benefit from a significant increase in industrial floorspace as a result of the Council’s decision to identify the area as a Growth Area, capable of co-location and intensification).

7.16 The pre-application response also wrongly concluded there would be a reduction in industrial floorspace on the application site (as a result of the proposals). As demonstrated in Section 3.0, it is inconceivable that the basement was in a different lawful use to the upper floors since, at the time, the two LDCs were approved, the building had been in single occupation by the ‘Health and Safety Executive’ (and that organisation was not a user of light industrial floorspace). As a consequence, the entire building benefits from a non-industrial lawful use, and therefore no proposal for the site can be considered to represent a net loss of industrial floorspace.

7.17 Notwithstanding, even if the Council still regards the basements as industrial floorspace (a fact which we dispute), as demonstrated in Figure 6 (below), the proposal would not result in a net loss in employment floorspace.

Figure 6: Assessment of Development Against ‘No Net loss’ of Industrial Floorspace’ Objective: Existing Building (On Site) Existing Floorspace Proposed Replacement Uplift In Floorspace Floorspace Scenario 1: Basements Are ‘Industrial Floorspace SIL Compliant ‘Industrial’ 2,245 sq. m 4,879 sq. m +2,634 sq. m Floorspace (Light Industrial, (Basement -1 & -2) General Industrial, Storage and Distribution) Other (Non-SIL) Compliant Uses 4,427 sq. m 13,774 sq. m (excluding +9,347 sq. m (Ground, First and BOH, car parking, Second Floors) servicing, plant) TOTAL FLOORSPACE 6,672 sq. m 18,653 sq. m Scenario 2: Basements Are NOT ‘Industrial Floorspace SIL Compliant ‘Industrial’ 0 sq. m 4,879 sq. m +4,879 sq. m Floorspace (Light Industrial, General Industrial, Storage and Distribution) Other (Non-SIL) Compliant Uses 6,672 sq. m (All floors 13,774 sq. m (excluding +9,347 sq. m and basements) BOH, car parking, servicing, plant) TOTAL FLOORSPACE 6,672 sq. m 18,653 sq. m

7.18 Figure 6 illustrates the proposed development would result in an increase in industrial floorspace on the site (and therefore in the Staples Corner SIL) of 4,879 sq. m (GIA), under our interpretation of the lawful use, or 2,634 sq. m of additional industrial floorspace under the Council’s interpretation of the lawful use. Whichever of these figures is correct, it is clear the proposal would not result in a net loss of industrial floorspace, thus it is compliant with draft London Plan Policy E4.

65% Plot Ratio Requirement 7.19 Draft London Plan Policy E4 (supported by Para 6.4.5) introduces the requirement that that replacement of industrial floorspace should be based on the principle of no net loss of floorspace or “potential industrial and warehousing floorspace that could be accommodated on a site as a 65 per centre plot ratio (whichever is greater)”.

7.20 Whilst the London Plan’s 65% plot ratio approach is currently being challenged by number of parties, including several London Boroughs (who claim it is not achievable in many industrial locations) and the SOS, Brent have recently (in August 2020) introduced this percentage requirement into their modifications to draft Local Plan Policy BE2, with the additional wording stating “…a net increase in industrial floorspace retailing in a minimum 0.65% plot ratio or the existing floorspace total, whichever is greater, across the masterplan area”.

7.21 As described earlier, since the existing building is not a SIL compliant use, then the 65% plot ratio is relevant to testing the level of industrial floorspace that should be reprovided.

7.22 Application of the 65% plot ratio to the application site would result in a policy requirement to provide 1,884 sq. m of industrial floorspace (i.e. 65% of 2,898 sqm). As illustrated in Figure 6 (above), the application proposes 4,879 sq. m of industrial floorspace. This level is more than 2.5 times larger than the 65% plot ratio policy requirement.

7.23 An alternative approach is to base the 65% ratio on all floorspace on the site (including upper floors and basements). Under this approach, it would be necessary to provide 4,337 sq. m of industrial floorspace (i.e. 65% of the existing buildings 6,672 sq. m floorspace). As illustrated in

Figure 6, the proposal introduces 4,879 sq. m GIA of industrial floorspace, representing 73% of the existing building floorspace (i.e. well above a 65% ratio).

7.24 This section has demonstrated that using a variety of different approaches to assessing the policy test of ‘No net loss of industrial floorspace’, in every case the proposed development represents an increase in SIL compliant floorspace on the site. Thus, in accordance with London Plan draft Policy E4 and draft Local Plan Policy BE2, the proposed development would not result in the loss of industrial floorspace. Instead it would contribute to London’s reservoir of industrial land in compliance with the original purpose and ongoing requirements of the Staples Corner Strategic Industrial Land.

Intensification and Co-Location of Uses 7.25 Draft London Plan Policy E7 introduces the principle of ‘intensification’ of Strategic Industrial Land where it facilitates the consolidation of SIL to support the delivery of residential and other uses, such as social infrastructure. This process is required to meet criteria set out in the policy and ensure that it does not undermine or compromise the integrity or effectiveness of the SIL. The draft London Plan suggests this approach should be considered as part of a plan- led process of SIL intensification and consolidation, or as part of a co-ordinated master planning process in collaboration with the GLA and relevant borough.

7.26 Before addressing whether development should be permitted at Staples Corner in advance of a proposed masterplan, it is important to establish that the principle of the proposed non- industrial uses (i.e. the hotel, conference centre and community hub/hall) are appropriate given the site’s SIL designation. This issue is identified since the suitability of such uses was questioned by the Council in initial pre-application discussions (although this issue was not raised in the Council’s formal pre-application written response dated 18th October 2020). More specifically, it was suggested that the policy objective (of co-location and intensification of uses in a SIL) only relates to residential uses and community facilities, and does not extend to other commercial uses, such as the proposed hotel and conference centre.

7.27 The policy response to this issue is as follows:

• Draft London Plan Policy E7 (Criterion B) states “Intensification can also be used to facilitate the consolidation of an identified SIL or LSIS to support the delivery of residential and other uses, such as social infrastructure…”. Whilst the policy refers to social infrastructure, use of the working “such as” does not exclude other uses;

• The supporting text which accompanies Draft London Plan Policy E7 (6.7.1) suggests that the intensification of SIL land could include “industrial activities (particularly light industrial) could be located with residential and other uses”;

• The GLA’s Practice Note (dated November 2018) on ‘Industrial intensification and co- location through plan-led and masterplan approaches’ describes ‘other uses’ forming part of the intensification and co-location of Strategic Industrial Land;

7.28 The Council’s pre-application comments that the only acceptable co-location uses in SIL (to facilitate intensification) are residential and community uses is a restrained and inaccurate assessment of the prevailing policy requirements as the policies are not prescriptive as to which uses are needed to support the intensification of industrial uses. Therefore, subject to compliance with other planning policies (such as the sequential test in relation to ‘main town

centre’ uses), there is no preclusion of a hotel and conference centre within a SIL.

Prematurity to and Impact on Future Masterplan 7.29 Having established that the proposed development would not harm the supply of industrial floorspace (and that it would increase the level of such floorspace, above the minimum policy requirements), the next key policy consideration is how the application proposal sits in the context of the policy framework’s requirement for non-SIL compliant proposals (in SILs) to be delayed or refused unless “in areas released though a strategically co-ordinated process of SIL consolidation” which should be “carried out through a planning framework or Development Plan documents review process and adopted as policy in a Development Plan or as part of a co-ordinated master-planning process in collaboration with the GLA and relevant borough”. (Draft London Plan Policy E5).

7.30 The requirement to prepare a Staples Corner masterplan was raised with Amafhh at the pre- application meeting held in June 2019, with officers indicating that work on this document would occur ‘in the near future’. However, despite several requests by Amafhh to obtain an update on the masterplan, at the time of writing work is yet to commence.

7.31 It will self-evidently take many months (if not years) for the Council to prepare a draft masterplan, consult with the key stakeholders, then refine the draft masterplan, before adopting it. Further delays, pending the preparation of the masterplan risk losing the significant investment which Amafhh intend to make at Staples Corner, and the benefits that this early development will bring (including its capacity to energise the wider development of the area, provide much needed community facilities and act as an exemplar for high- quality redevelopment, based on the core principles of retaining and extending employment uses in the SIL, whilst introducing complementary uses which will also create new employment).

7.32 Notwithstanding our concerns about the length of time it will take to produce the masterplan, we consider there are exceptional circumstances which justify the Council not delaying consideration of Amafhh’s proposal until a masterplan is in place. We explain this in the following sections.

A) The Existing Use is Non-SIL Compliant, Thus No ‘Release’ of SIL Land Is Proposed 7.33 As demonstrated earlier, the application site is not, and never has been, a SIL compliant use. Therefore, whilst the site is currently ‘washed over’ by the SIL designation, the existing land use does not contribute to London’s reservoir of industrial floorspace. Consequently, the introduction of new uses onto the site (whether SIL policy compliant, or not) cannot be seen as representing a ‘release’ of SIL land (since such a ‘release’ would only occur where its form and function is a SIL use).

B) The Application Site is Self-Contained and Cannot be Integrated with Other Sites 7.34 The application site is an ‘island site’, defined by four defensible boundaries. Two of the boundaries are formed by existing commercial buildings, located to the south and west of the site. These buildings, both of which are owned by Wing Yip, have been subject to significant investment in recent years, aimed at enhancing Wing Yip’s cash and carry operation. Thus, it is unlikely Wing-Yip would be interested in redeveloping their land, and disrupting their significant business operation (which is located on one of the largest single land ownerships in Staples Corner), to make way for new development as part of a masterplan.

7.35 The application site’s other two boundaries (to the north and east) are formed by highway land which accommodate two important roads. In this regard, Edgware Road provides a vital strategic road corridor connecting central London with north London and beyond (via the M1 motorway), and Oxgate Lane is one of the main vehicle routes into the Staples Corner industrial estate (and residential area to the west). It is inconceivable that any future masterplan for the area would consider relocating these two roads, since to do so would inevitably harm existing businesses operating in the industrial estate and harm the prospects of regenerating the Staples Corner industrial estate in line with the requirements of draft Local Plan Policy BE2 and BEGA2.

7.36 The above illustrates that the application site is a small island site with fixed boundaries. The site area cannot be physically increased, without blighting one of Staples Corner’s largest private landowners, who operate one of the largest businesses in the industrial estate (Wing Yip). As a consequence, the redevelopment of Amafhh’s site prior to the adoption of a masterplan would not prejudice how the masterplan (for this part of Staples Corner) would be designed, since the site area and form can not change.

C) The Proposal Would Not Harm The Purpose and Objectives of the Masterplan to Guide How a Residential Community can be Introduced into Staples Corner 7.37 The draft Local Plan indicates that the masterplan is needed to address the challenge of introducing approximately 2,200 residential dwellings into the Staples Corner SIL, whilst ensuring that the area is suitable to accommodate residential communities (including through provision of social intra-structure). Furthermore, the masterplan is needed to consider how residential uses will come forward without detriment to existing and future industrial businesses operating in the SIL.

7.38 Whilst this masterplan led approach is consistent with the London Plan, is it not relevant to the application proposals since they do not include any residential accommodation. Consequently, the key purpose of the masterplan (i.e. to guide residential development and protect existing businesses) would not be affected by the application proposal (which involves an entirely commercial development, aimed at creating employment and economic growth).

7.39 Furthermore, the Council need not be concerned that the determination of a commercial scheme, in advance of the masterplan, would be harmful to (or prejudice) the delivery of 2,200 new dwellings within the Staple Corner SIL. This is because the application scheme is entirely self-sustaining (i.e. it is not reliant on the provision of social infrastructure, or other infrastructure, before it can be developed) and since the application site area is too small to prejudice the identified housing target.

7.40 In relation to this latter point, to achieve 2,200 dwellings across the SIL, it will be necessary to achieve a density of 47 dwellings per hectare. When this density is applied to the application site (which has an area of 0.3 ha), the expectation would be for the site to yield only 14 dwellings (representing 0.6% of the identified housing numbers for the Staples Corner Growth Area). This illustrates that the proposed development will not prejudice the Council’s aspirations for achieving a significant volume of residential development within the SIL (thus the masterplan does not need to rely on the application site helping to achieve the housing target).

7.41 In summary, the application proposal would not harm or prejudice the masterplan since:

• The application site is an ‘island’ site which cannot be joined with adjacent land to deliver wider comprehensive development; • The impact on delivering 2,200 new homes would be imperceptible due to the application site’s small size; • The application proposal is self-sustaining and introduces commercial (employment generating) uses which are not reliant on any social or other infrastructure which may be identified in a master planning exercise. • The application proposal represents significant investment in Staples Corner, which is expected to be a catalyst for future redevelopment in the area. Delay in bringing forward this development could result in the loss of this investment.

D) The Council’s Vision for the Masterplan Area is Already Known, and Subject to Other Planning Policies 7.42 Whilst the current policies encourage the preparation of the masterplan before other uses are introduced, there are other planning policies (both adopted and in draft) which provide clarity on how the Council envisages the Staples Corner area to be developed.

7.43 The Council’s vision for the redevelopment of the Staples Corner area is already described (in some detail) in the emerging Local Plan, and supporting evidence base. In this regard the Local Plan (and evidence base) identify:

• the need for job creation and the protection of existing businesses; • the need employment floorspace capable of meeting the needs of modern businesses in the 21st Century; • the number of residential dwellings that Staples Corner is expected to deliver (2,200); • the heights and location of taller buildings; • the need to connect in with the Brent Cross West station; • the need for townscape and environmental improvements in the area; and • the desire to see high quality new development.

7.44 All of these issues have been assessed in this Planning Statement. Therefore, there is no need to wait for a masterplan which will only repeat these issues, whilst exploring how they can be delivered and how existing businesses can be protected. In relation to the issue of delivery, Amafhh are developer owners of their site and therefore they are able to deliver their proposals without any third part input. Furthermore, since Amafhh’s site is a long-term vacant building, there is no impediment or concern as to the impact of the proposed redevelopment scheme upon any existing operation or business within the site.

Precedent 7.45 Despite the policies seeking to prevent non-SIL uses (on SIL land) in advance of a masterplan, there are examples of Brent Council allowing non-industrial uses in advance of a master planning exercise. Examples of this are described below:

• Jaguar Land Rover, 4A & 4B Staples Corner Business Park, NW2 6LU (LPA ref. 16/4244): In February 2017 Brent Council approved planning permission for the “Demolition and redevelopment of non-food retailing warehouse (A1 Shop) to provide a new four storey car showroom (Sui Generis) including workshop and MOT service centre together with associated car parking and landscaping”

In determining this application (which now operates as a large and highly prominent car dealership) the planning officer’s delegated report noted that the site was previously

“occupied by two A1 uses and as such their loss in the SIL that is characterised by uses falling within Use Class B1, B2 and B8 is considered to be acceptable in policy terms”. Furthermore, the officer noted that the proposed sui generis use (i.e. car showroom with MOT Centre) “is classified as Sui Generis but is closely related to the B use classes. As such the proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to the material planning considerations in this report”.

This observation conflicts with an Inspector’s decision which dismissed an Enforcement Appeal (LPA Ref. E/13/0625) at 150 Coles Green Road, NW2 7TS (also within the Staples Corner Industrial Estate). In that case the Inspector (in their August 2019 decision) stated “The car sales use is clearly not an industrial use and it is not a closely related use. Nor does it fall within the other limited circumstances that could be permissible under planning policies mentioned”.

This case illustrates that, despite the Jaguar Land Rover site being potentially the most prominent development site within the entire Staples Corner SIL, the Council approved a non-SIL compliant use (under delegated powers), without any concern that the development was premature to, or could prejudice, the Staples Corner masterplan.

• Tesco, Brent Park: On 7th August 2020 LB Brent granted full planning permission (Ref 19/1363) for the “erection of a two-storey building within existing car park comprising commercial floor space within Use Class A1/A3/D2 use to provide 7 units…“ In approving these non- industrial uses within the SIL, the Officer Report drew on the recommendations of the GLA Stage 1 Report, concluding that:

o The site is not used for industrial purposes and this position is long-established. o Nearby SIL land, which is in low-density industrial use, could be reasonably intensified as an alternative. o It is not necessary to consider the Tesco and IKEA sites as part of a comprehensive regeneration involving the nearby St Raphael’s Estate.

• Wingate House, Oxgate Lane: In December 2015 Brent Council granted planning permission (Ref. 15/3534) for “Alterations and extensions to cash and carry warehouse by creation of a physical link to the adjacent premises (Oxgate works), and change of use of Oxgate Works from B1 and B2 to B8 (to be used as an additional bulk goods area for the Cash and Carry). Partial demolition of and alterations to part of existing B1 use within Oxgate Works to form independent B1 accommodation with additional off-road parking fronting Oxgate Lane. Creation of a new private "through" access from Oxgate Lane to the Wing Yip site and closing existing access and forming new ones on Oxgate Lane”. This site is located directly to the west to the application site. Of note is that this proposal allowed a new private roadway connecting Oxgate Lane to the Wing Yip site, and accepted that Wingate House could operate as an independent (non-SIL compliant) Class B1 use.

The Council was prepared to approve this development without any concern that it was premature to the future master planning of Staples Corner.

7.46 These decisions illustrate that LB Brent has, as recently as August 2020, been prepared to allow the development of non-SIL uses into SIL locations in advance of preparing a masterplan. In the case of the Staples Corner SIL, the Council has allowed the redevelopment of the most prominent part of the SIL (i.e. the land at the A5/A406 Staples Corner intersection) with a non-

SIL compliant use (as endorsed by a planning Inspector) without any concern that the development was premature to, or potentially prejudicial to, any future masterplan. The Council should adopt a similar flexible approach in relation to its consideration of Amafhh’s application.

Summary 7.47 The above demonstrates that the Council’s concerns (expressed in the pre-application written advice) that the proposed development could prejudice the masterplan for the area are unfounded. Rather, the proposed development is capable of being developed in advance of the masterplan, since the site is self-sustaining and the application scheme is not introducing uses that need to be shaped by the masterplan.

7.48 In this regard, it is not the purpose of planning policy to stymie development and investment. Indeed, such an approach goes against sound plan making, and is contrary to the NPPF, which (at Paragraph 49) states “arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission”.

7.49 It would be inappropriate for the Council to delay investment and prevent development in locations where the master plan would not be prejudiced by development. Such an approach would go against the principles of the planning system which are designed to encourage growth and investment in sustainable locations without delay.

7.50 Accordingly, the principle of the proposed development is compliant with one of the key sustainable principles of the NPPF (set out in Paragraph 8 and Section 11 – including Paragraphs 117-124), as well as according with NPPF Paragraphs 11 and 38. The more efficient use of land, and the increase in SIL compliant uses (which represents a net increase in the industrial floorspace on the site, and with the wider SIL) complies with the London Plan (Policies 2.15, 2.17 and 4.4), and the adopted development Plan (Policies CP1, CP6, CP16, C20 and DMP14). Furthermore, the proposals comply with the emerging development Plan policies set out in the draft London Plan (including Policies E2, E4, E5 and E7) and the draft Brent Local Plan (Policies BP2, BEGA2, Policy BE2).

B) Principle and Suitability of the Proposed Industrial Floorspace

Principle 7.51 In response to the pre-application feedback received from LB Brent (in October 2019), the volume and nature of the proposed employment floorspace has been modified. The amount of employment floorspace has increased from 4,717 sqm to 4,879 sqm (GIA) and previously included offices (within the mix of flexible uses) has been removed.

7.52 The application now proposes 4,879 sq. m of multi-level industrial floorspace specifically designed to meet the requirements of light industrial, general industrial and storage and distribution uses. As noted in the preceding sections, the proposed floorspace represents a net increase in industrial floorspace within a Strategic Industrial Location, which exceeds the 65% plot ratio requirement. Therefore, the proposed industrial floorspace is full policy compliant and in accordance with adopted London Plan Policy 2.17 (Criterion A, supported by Paragraph 2.79), Brent Development Plan Policies CP3, CP20 and DMP14, together with emerging policy set out in the London Plan (Policies E4, E5 and E7) and draft Brent Local Plan Policies BE2 and BEGA2).

Employment Generation 7.53 The existing building is vacant, and its contribution to local employment is almost nil (with the exception of on-site security personnel).

7.54 The proposed development would create significant employment for local people (in line with the Council’s requirements for the Staples Corner industrial estate). As illustrated in Figure 7 below, it is estimated the proposed development would create approx. 249 jobs.

Figure 7: Proposed Job Creation Use GIA SQ. M No. of Notes (SQ. M) per Jobs Employe Created e GIA

Hotel 9,117 1.6 87.5 Staff per bed (Based on 'Upscale' hotel)

Conference Centre 1,162 260.0 4.5 Per FTE (Arts & Conference Venue)

Gym/spa/swimming 1,636 58.5 28.0 Based on Fitness Centre

Flexible Employment (Class E/B2/B8) 4,879

Class E (Light Industrial) 2,439 55.8 43.7

Class B2 (General Industrial) 1,220 34.2 35.7

Class B8 (Storage & Distribution) 1,220 63.0 19.4

Community Hub (Class D1) 1,859

Administration 153 13.5 11.3 Based on Offices

Community Office Suites/Hot Desks 191 13.5 14.2 Based on Offices

Community Meeting Room 127

Community Kitchen/Rest Room 25

Community Hall (Hall 1) 1,362 260.0 5.0 Per FTE (Arts & Conference Venue)

Plant 1,172

Management / BOH 786 Assumes no BOH staff Parking (Car & Cycle) 3,666 Service Yard 436 GRAND TOTAL 24,712 249 Source: HCA Employment Density Guidance 3rd Edition Assumes Flexible Employment Floorspace comprises 50% Light Industrial, 25% General Industrial, 25% Storage and Distribution

7.55 This level of employment is considerably greater than were the site to be redeveloped with a single storey industrial /warehouse shed (based on a 65% plot ratio development), which we estimate would generate only 38 jobs (i.e. a building of 1,884 sqm generating an average employment density of 49.4 sq. m per employee – derived from Figure 7 above).

Suitability of Multi-Level and Flexible Floorspace

Background 7.56 As outlined in Section 6.0, the pertinent policy framework for Brent (e.g. draft Local Plan Policies BE2, BP2 and BEGA2) and wider London (e.g. draft London Plan Policy E7) actively encourages the intensification (and co-location) of industrial land, in order to help protect the supply of employment land (now and the future), and to provide modern industrial floorspace capable of meeting the needs of businesses in the 21st Century (which is one of the key aims for the Staples Corner Growth Area).

7.57 The planning policies advocating the intensification of employment land (including through the introduction of multi-level floorspace) are supported by considerable research, including in the following documents:

In support of the draft London Plan: • London Industrial Land Demand (CAG, 2017)

• Industrial Intensification Primer (GLA, 2017) • Industrial Intensification and Co-Location Study: Design and Delivery Testing (We Made That, Savills, Feasibility – October 2018)

and in support of the draft Brent Local Plan: • Brent Inclusive Growth Strategy (IGS): Economy (2019-2040) • Brent Workspace Study (Regenis Consulting, We Made That, PRD – March 2017) • West London Employment Plan Evidence (GL Hearn May 2019)

7.58 These documents note that, whilst the intensification of industrial land (including through the provision of multi-level floorspace) is possible (and is a model which other countries have already embraced), there are challenges.

7.59 The key challenge with multi-level employment floorspace is not the physical ability of sites to accommodate height (as there are many design/construction solutions which can be used), but rather the viability of this approach. There are high build costs incurred in delivering a multi-level scheme which are not offset by the rental returns for the additional building height. As a result, the research studies (and policies) advocate the co-location of non-industrial uses to help support industrial intensification.

7.60 Generally, the co-location approach seeks to introduce residential uses (as these produce the highest returns). However, this introduces a new set of challenges into an industrial location. For example, creating a residential environment in locations generally not considered suitable for such uses (due to the noise, odours, lack of social infrastructure, etc), whilst protecting the retained and new industrial uses (such that they are able to operate and grow without being restricted by the new residential environment). It is as a result of these challenges that both the London Plan and draft Local Plan encourage plan led approaches (using a masterplan) for the co-location of non-industrial uses in SILs.

7.61 A second element in the intensification of industrial areas includes the intensification of different floorspace concepts aimed at meeting the needs of modern occupiers. This includes responding to the needs of a new industrial sector (which largely didn’t exist 10 years ago), namely flexible industrial/workshop space aimed at meeting changes in working patterns. The growth in this sector has continued across London, with operators such as ‘We Work’ and ‘The Collective’ having models which they are rolling out throughout London. These facilities generally specialise in the provision of Incubator, Accelerator and Co-Working spaces (IACs), in larger hub locations capable of providing a range of different and flexible spaces for microbusinesses and SME’s.

7.62 The Brent Workspace Study notes that there is “demand for more space across all work typologies – but particularly those at the more creative end of the spectrum (e.g. incubators, accelerators and co-working spaces) where provision is limited”. Furthermore, the study notes that “workspace operators appear positive about the potential of Brent...”.

7.63 The Brent Workspace Study (2017) notes “Space is currently limited at the more creative end of the workspace market in the Borough (creative studios, makerspaces and IACs), although this largely reflects limited supply”, with the Study noting there are no ‘Creative Studios’ and no ‘Makerspaces’ within the Staples Corner Industrial Estate. The nearest facility being the Chambers Lane Studio (a Creative Studio), located approximately 3 km to the south of the application site. The Study only identifies a total of three ‘Makerspace’ operations within the Borough of Brent, with the nearest being the ‘Textile Studio’ in Church End, approximately 3.5

km to the south west of the application site.

7.64 In summary, whilst Brent’s economy has traditionally been skewed towards industrial activities (with specialisms including manufacturing and wholesale, logistics and transport), there is a recognised need for managed flexible employment floorspace, and a lack of such floorspace in the Borough’s largest industrial location (i.e. Staples Corner). There is a good level of demand for such floorspace, with a particular need for floorspace at the creative end of the workspace market, and for media/tech based businesses. Furthermore, at the time the Council’s Workspace Study was published (in 2017) there was no dedicated IAC provision within Brent.

Suitability of Amafhh’s Proposals 7.65 Amafhh’s proposals offer a significant amount of industrial floorspace in a managed environment. The flexible nature of the floorspace is capable of helping meet Brent’s changing employment needs, including from larger business operators through to small batch and bespoke production processes and makerspace businesses. The proposed space is capable of being sub-divided, as well as offering discrete units that offer a degree of flexibility.

7.66 The location of the proposed workspace hub benefits from the site’s excellent transport links (following the opening of the new railway station), with the multi-level floorspace model fitting with the latest guidance for such floorspace.

7.67 As illustrated above, the key challenge of multi-level industrial floorspace is economic viability. This is due to high build costs not being supported by the rental returns for the additional building height. It is for this reason that the policy framework has accepted that residential uses may be possible in such locations (since this creates the values needed to support an intensification of industrial uses).

7.68 In this instance, Amafhh’s analysis shows that a multi-level flexible employment development can work by introducing a higher value use into the site, namely the hotel and conference centre. Without the hotel/conference centre the scheme in the provision of policy compliant employment floorspace would be unviable but, with this use included, the scheme becomes viable and the policy objective can be achieved. Whilst this approach is similar to the model of introducing residential uses above industrial properties, it has the benefit of the scheme being self-sustaining (since it is not reliant on social infrastructure being provided elsewhere) and since the scheme is not burdened by the extra challenges of arising from introducing residential uses in an industrial location (i.e. ensuing the environment is habitable, that there is sufficient social infrastructure, and that the introduction of residents does not harm the operation of businesses within the wider commercial estate).

7.69 The nature of the industrial floorspace is not expected to be operated by a single large operator, but is designed to accommodate a number of smaller businesses. This more intensive model ultimately yields higher returns, capable of assisting the viability of the proposals. In addition, given the proposal’s entirely commercial and self-sufficient nature, it is capable of being delivered in advance of a masterplan (since the scheme is not reliant on the provision of other uses or infrastructure).

7.70 In summary, the proposed development accords with the needs to intensify employment floorspace (recognised in draft London Plan Policy E7 and Draft Local Plan Policies BE2, BP2 and BEGA2). Furthermore, the application proposal represents an innovative solution to achieving the intensification and co-location of floorspace within this growth area.

Expressions of Interest in Industrial Floorspace 7.71 The Council’s pre-application advice requested evidence to show the specification of proposed industrial floorspace is suitable to meet occupier requirements, informed by market testing. The findings of the Council’s Workspace Study (described above) support the need for the type of flexible floorspace proposed.

7.72 Notwithstanding, through its network of local contacts, Amafhh has received expressions of interest from industrial businesses, who collectively are interested in occupying 56% of the floorspace. This interest has come from a range of different business, including operators falling within use Classes E, (light industrial), B2 and B8. This interest has been received without any marketing campaign, which inevitably will follow a grant of planning permission.

7.73 Therefore, the nature of the proposed floorspace is suitable for accommodating a diverse the range of activities, including creating industry production and maker spaces, as well as self-storage uses, capable of responding to business and consumer demands.

Affordable Workspace 7.74 In accordance with the principles set out in the statutory development plans (i.e. London Plan Policies 2.7 and 4.1, and Brent LDF Policy DMP14) the proposed development will include affordable workspace.

7.75 Based on the requirements set out in the draft London Plan (Policy E3) and draft Local Plan (Policy BE1), the proposed development will allocate 10% of the proposed flexible employment space to be available at rents maintained below the market rates for the space.

7.76 As noted elsewhere in this Statement, the community hub element will incorporate approximately 100 sq. m of floorspace which will be available for local community groups and charities to operate from (in the form of a hot-desk suite). It is anticipated that this floorspace will be able to help contribute towards the affordable workspace being provided in the development.

Summary 7.77 Accordingly, the proposed flexible employment floorspace would be compliant with the following policies:

• NPPF Paragraphs 80 and 121 • London Plan Policies 2.7, 2.17, 4.1 and 4.4 • Brent Core Strategy Polices CP1, CP3 and CP20 (and Paragraph 5.54) • Brent Development Management Policy DMP14 • Draft London Plan Policies E2, E4, E5 and E7 • Draft Brent Local Plan Policies BE1, BP2, BE2, and BEGA2

C) Principle of Hotel Development and Conference Centre

Strategic Benefit of Hotel/Conference Centre Development on the Site

7.78 The proposal includes a new 140 bed hotel, with supporting facilities (including a conference centre and gym/spa). The provision of a hotel on the application site will assist in meeting the

recognised need for additional visitor accommodation in London (as identified in the adopted and draft London Plan)

7.79 Given the site’s location within 165 metres of a new railway station (which will open in 2022), and its close proximity to the junction of the M1/A406, the site is in strategically appropriate location for an hotel. Such a location provides access into central London (the new station would have a journey time to central London of 12 minutes, with the longer term potential for east west connections as part of the proposed ‘West London Orbital’ line), as well as performing an important role for the businesses operating in the Staples Corner area, who currently do not have an hotel (and/or conference centre) located in close proximity to their operations (i.e. there is synergy between a hotel/conference centre use and the existing businesses in the SIL).

7.80 The location of a hotel within 100 metres of the boundary of the Brent Cross Cricklewood Opportunity Area, close to a new railway station and within the Staples Corner growth area (which is identified for intensification of development), accords with London Plan Policy 4.5 (which encourages hotels in “town centres and opportunity and intensification areas, where there is good public transport access to central London and international and national transport termini”). For the same reason, the proposal accords with draft London Plan Policy E10, which promotes hotel development in town centres and opportunity areas, where they are well connected by public transport, particularly to central London.

Suitability of Application Proposal

7.81 The inclusion of a hotel and conference centre within the proposed mix of uses greatly assists the viability of the development (and the ability of the scheme to yield an increase in employment floorspace in line with policy expectations). This approach is acknowledged in the draft Brent Local Plan which, at Paragraph 5.1.24, recognises that intensification of employment areas will only work with “cross-subsidy from other more lucrative uses”. The hotel/conference centre element is also able to create employment in its own right, and is a use which has considerable synergy with the other uses proposed (and the nature of the wider commercial areas). In this regard the hotel is capable of meeting the short stay accommodation needs for businesses in the area, whilst the conference provides a facility which can be used for conferences, meetings, training and other business related activities.

7.82 A hotel/conference centre is a less sensitive than other potential uses (such as residential uses) that would be needed to help fund the intensification of the Staples Corner growth area. In this regard, a hotel can operate alongside the other uses, and as illustrated in other supporting information, it’s operational needs are capable of working alongside the proposed employment and community uses.

7.83 Furthermore, the development of a hotel/conference centre is not reliant on the provision of social infrastructure, thus there is no need for the development to be delayed pending preparation of a masterplan.

7.84 As demonstrated elsewhere in this Statement (and within other supporting information), the proposed hotel/conference centre will benefit from the improved public transport accessibility which the new Brent Cross West station will deliver. The site is within easy walking distance of the station (with the route expected to further improve as the land between the station and Edgware Road is redeveloped – Barnet Council expect such development to provide more direct, better quality, pedestrian routes). However, to further ensure hotel

residents are able to fully realise the benefit of the station, Amafhh is proposing to operate a shuttle bus service between the hotel and station. This service will collect guests from the station’s western drop-off area, depositing them in the proposed coach lay-by on Oxgate Lane.

Local Need for Hotel/Conference Centre

7.85 There is a gap in hotel provision in the vicinity of Staples Corner (as illustrated in Figure 8 below - taken from the ‘Brent Retail & Leisure Study’ October 2018) – on which the location of the proposal AMAFHH site has been highlighted by the red dot).

Figure 8: Hotel Provision within London Borough of Brent

7.85 Figure 8 illustrates that the Borough’s hotel provision is predominantly within Wembley. Closer to the proposal site, the nearest Brent hotels are located within the Cricklewood Broadway district centre approximately 1.2 miles to the south. This centre includes the following hotels:

• Travel Lodge (96 bed) • Clayton Crown Hotel (152 bed) • Cricklewood Lodge Hotel (32 Bed)

7.87 Of these hotels, only the Clayton Crown hotel offers a conference centre alongside guest accommodation.

7.88 Figure 8 illustrates that there are no hotels between Wembley and the west side of Edgware Road. Therefore, the proposed hotel would fill a gap in provision in this location.

7.89 Whilst there are hotels in Barnet, including a Travel Lodge (located approximately 500 m north of the application site) and a Holiday in Express (located approximately 1 km to the north east), neither of these are well located to serve the needs of Staples Corner. Of these two hotels, only the Holiday Inn provides an on-site business centre, including meeting rooms for hire. However, the largest conference room they offer only has capacity for 100 people, whereas the application proposal includes rooms capable of accommodating up to 500 people. Thus, the Holiday Inn Express is unable to cater for the larger events which are expected to operate from the application proposal.

Precedent for Hotel Development Outside of Brent’s Town Centres

7.90 Whilst we acknowledge the policy requirement to undertake a sequential assessment for the hotel/conference centre (in line with policy requirements), our research has found that Brent Council has previously allowed hotel development outside of defined centres (and in some instance without sequential assessments).

7.91 For example, in approving the planning application (Ref. 12/2686) for the change of use of 15 floors of the 21 storey office building (6th to 20th floors) to a 306 bed hotel at Wembley Point (1 Harrow Road, Wembley, HA9 6DE), the planning officers report stated:

“Hotels are considered to be a main town centre use by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Policy within both the NPPF and Brent Core Strategy (Policy CP16), normally requires that a sequential approach is taken to such development. Generally most hotel development has taken place in or on the edge of Wembley and Wembley Park centres. In this particular case there are considered to be justifiable reasons why the sequential approach need not apply”.

7.92 This decision is pertinent since Wembley Point site is located in a less accessible location than the Staples Corner application site. In this regard, Wembley Point has a PTAL of 4, whereas the application site will have a PTAL of 4/5. Furthermore, the application site will have much more direct and quicker connections into central London (and to other national/international transport termini) than Wembley Point.

7.93 In addition, planning permission (Ref. 17/1296) was granted in 2018 for the demolition of a three-storey light industrial building and the erection of a 5 Storey hotel (comprising 196 rooms and ancillary facilities) on a site at 58 Neasden Lane. This decision is pertinent, since the site was designated as a ‘Locally Significant Industrial Location’, with similar protective policies (to the Staples Corner site) seeking the retention of established employment uses and resistance of non-B class uses. Furthermore, the Neasden site had a PTAL 3.

7.94 In approving the hotel at 58 Neasden Lane, the Council considered the benefits that the proposal would create in terms of its more efficient use of the land (compared with the industrial use), the long term vacancy of the existing site and the positive contribution it would bring to the townscape. The Council considered these benefits outweighed the employment land protection policies.

7.95 In June 2013 the Brent Council approved planning permission (Ref. 12/2861) for the development of an 11-storey hotel and event/conference centre (providing 229 bedrooms and ancillary facilities) on land south of Coronation Road/West Rainsford Road, NW10. Again, this site was in an out of centre location (with the site having a PTAL Rating of 2/3) and yet the Council did not require a sequential assessment.

7.96 Of further relevance is the draft Local Plan’s allocation of a hotel development site at Brentfield, Stonebridge (‘Bridge Park and Unisys Building’). This allocated site includes the vacant Unisys building, the existing Bridge Park Community centre, offices, a nursery, and religious venue. Local Plan Policy BSSA7 notes that this out of centre site (which has a PTAL of 3/4) is “located within a 6-minute walk of Stonebridge Park Station, which is served by overground and underground and within a 5-minute walk of 3 bus stops, each served by one bus”. As a result, the policy states the site “benefits from good public transport access”.

Furthermore, the Council’s justification for seeking the redevelopment of this site is due to its “poor environmental quality, with dated buildings and the long-term vacant Unisys building.”

7.97 The Policy BSSA7 allocation is highly pertinent to Amafhh’s proposals since it demonstrates that, contrary to the approach of draft Local Plan Policy BE9, the Council is prepared to see hotel development outside of the two major town centres. Furthermore, it highlights that the Council considers that the enhancement of a vacant out of centre site (with a PTAL of 3/4) is sufficient justification for an out of centre hotel allocation (and consequently removes the need for any future planning application to undertake a sequential assessment).

7.98 As illustrated elsewhere in this section, the Amafhh site accords with the justification used in the BSSA7 allocation, whilst benefitting from being located in a more accessible location (with an anticipated PTAL of 4/5).

7.99 The above illustrates that, despite the long-term policy requirement to locate hotels in town centres (unless a sequential assessment is undertaken), Brent Council has been flexible in its interpretation of this policy requirement, and has recognised there are instances and unique circumstances where the benefits arising from a hotel proposal (such as bringing vacant sites back into active economic use) can outweigh the rigid policy requirement to comply with the sequential assessment. We consider such unique circumstances exist in relation to the Staples Corner application site. Further, our research demonstrates that the Amafhh site is more accessible (in terms of its PTAL rating and proximity to high speed connections with central London and other transport termini) than all of the hotel precedents identified above.

7.100 Notwithstanding, in response to the policy requirement (and Council’s pre-application request), a sequential assessment has been undertaken in support of the application proposal (as described in the following section).

Compliance with Sequential Approach

7.101 A sequential assessment has been undertaken to support the hotel/conference centre element of the application (this is set out in Appendix A). This investigates whether are alternative sites for a hotel/conference centre within (or on the edge of) the three nearest District Centres to the application site (namely Cricklewood, Neasden and Hendon – the latter in LB Barnet). These centres were identified as they fall within the catchment area which the proposed hotel/conference centre is seeking to capture (i.e. on the east side of Brent, close to the Midland Mainline and M1/A406 interchange, and near to the Staples Corner Growth Area and Brent Cross Cricklewood Opportunity Area).

7.102 The sequential assessment does not include Wembley or Kilburn since these centres do not meet Amafhh’s locational requirements, being located some distance from the area.

7.103 In accordance with the recommendation in the Planning Practice Guidance that the scope of the sequential assessment is agreed with the LPA (prior to submission of a planning application), details of centres to be included in the sequential assessment were forwarded to LB Brent by email dated 16th April 2020. However, despite several attempts to contact the planning department to obtain feedback on the scope of the assessment (including emails dated 23rd April, 16th July and 27th July), no feedback has been received from LB Brent.

7.104 The sequential assessment adopts a flexible approach to alternative sites, in accordance with the policy requirements (and clarification established by caselaw).

7.105 The sequential concludes that there are no suitable, available or viable sites within the centres (or on the edge of them) which could be developed for a hotel/conference centre. Thus, the next policy compliant location is an out of centre site (in a location well served by public transport). For the reasons outlined in this section (and wider Statement), the application site is highly accessible.

7.106 As a consequence, the proposal complies with the sequential test, set out in the NPPF, London Plan (adopted Policies 4.5 and 4.7 and draft Policies SD7 and E10) and local policies (adopted Policies CP16 and DMP6 and emerging Local Plan Policy BE9).

Market Interest in Hotel/Conference Centre

7.107 To further support the case of an hotel on the proposal site, Amafhh have introduced the proposal to one of the UK’s largest independent hotel groups (the Ability Group, who operate hotels throughout the UK and Europe, including brands on behalf of Hilton, Crown Plaza, Park Inn, and Club Med). The Ability Group have undertaken an assessment of the suitability of the proposal site and concluded that it would meet their criteria for operating a 4-star hotel. As illustrated in the expression of interest letter (at Appendix B), the Ability Group are keen to work with Amafhh to deliver one of their franchised hotel brands on the site.

7.108 The Ability Group have highlighted that their interest is specific to Staples Corner, as they see the benefits of tapping into the economic growth in the area (arising from the two regeneration projects) as well as the planned improvements in public transport connectivity. Their comments illustrate that that the development of a hotel on the proposal site would not affect longer term hotel investment in Brent’s other centres (such as Wembley, Kilburn and Cricklewood), since hotel operators perceive them to be different markets.

Hotel Summary 7.109 For the reasons described above, the proposed site is a suitable location for the development of a hotel/conference centre, and is compliant with the following policies:

• NPPF Paragraphs 80 and 121 • London Plan Policy 4.5 and 4.7 • Core Strategy CP16 • Development Management Policy DMP6 • Draft London Plan Policy SD7 and E10 • Draft Brent Local Plan Policy BE9

7.110 For the following reasons:

• It will support London’s visitor economy and help address the London wide requirement to achieve 40,000 net additional hotel bedrooms by 2036; • It is located in a new intensification area (namely the Staples Corner Growth Area) where a new station (with direct access to central London – and a travel time of 12 minutes) is under construction). Proximity to the station improves the site’s public transport accessibility - including to central London and international and national transport termini (e.g. direct trains to St Pancras International, London Luton Airport and London Gatwick Airport);

• The requirement of hotel operators is specific to Staples Corner and would not prejudice the development of hotels in other parts of Brent (including Wembley) as hoteliers consider them to be different markets; • The proposed hotel would contribute to economic growth and create approximately 88 jobs, the majority of which would be available for local people; • It would not result in the loss of industrial uses (but, through its assistance to the viability of the scheme, it will result in the provision an increase industrial floorspace); • It involves the more efficient use of land; • It would not compromise the integrity or effectiveness of industrial uses in the area; • It would not compromise the supply of land for new homes on allocated housing sites. • It is compatible with the proposed flexible employment uses and conference centre; • It would help address a deficiency in community facilities (both in Brent and specifically the Staples Corner area); • It is a ‘lucrative use’ which the Council’s draft Local Plan (Paragraph 5.1.24) identifies as being necessary to help cross-subsidise the revitalisation of the Staples Corner SIL.

D) Principle of Community Hub 7.111 The application site proposes the provision of a community hub, including a larger event community hall. The provision of this facility is a key element of the proposed development, reflecting Amafhh’s links with local communities in Brent and their desire to ensure the needs of these communities are met.

7.112 The community hub provides space to enable a range of local organisations and voluntary and community sector services to work together under one roof and provide a more localised approach to meeting the needs of the local community. The applicant wishes to work with Brent Council to create a facility similar to the other community hubs operating in Brent, including existing facilities in Harlesden, Kilburn and Willesden, and will be focussed on meeting the needs of the Dollis Hill community.

7.113 The hub provides spaces for local community groups to hold meetings and run small events in the community meeting room. In addition, the large event space (Hall 1) would be available for community events. The supporting Site Management & Operational Strategy set out the event management that would be in place for different events happening with this space.

7.114 There may be occasions when the community event space needs to be enlarged. To accommodate such a scenario, the scheme has been designed to enable the community event space to be amalgamated with the two conference centre halls (which are also located on the second floor). However, to limit the potential impact of such large events on the transport infrastructure and to reduce the potential for disruption of such events affecting adjoining businesses operating in the industrial estate (albeit it is expected that such larger events would occur outside of business hours, in the evening and at weekends), the applicant is prepared to accept a planning condition limiting the number of occasions that this amalgamation can occur no more than 20 days in any calendar year, of which only 11 events can be on consecutive days.

7.115 The proposed community uses would be located on upper floors within the development and would not result in the loss of SIL compliant uses, nor would it be harmful to adjoining uses (in fact the contrary would be likely, as it would provide an asset for local businesses to use).

7.116 The provision of the community space is fully policy compliant. Both the London Plan and Brent Local Plan (in adopted and emerging format) recognise the need for an increase in community facilities and places of worship to meet the demands of different communities.

7.117 In particular, both the NPPF and the London Plan promote an effective use of land. This proposal seeks to do just that in terms of maximising the land uses within the site, for policy compliant uses. Namely, Brent adopted Core Strategy Policy CP23 which actively promotes new multi-functional community facilities. In addition, the proposal is compliant emerging Local Plan Policy GC1 which seeks to build strong and inclusive communities. Similarly, the proposal is also compliant with emerging Local Plan Policy S1, the objective of which is to ensure that the social infrastructure needs of Brent’s diverse community are met; emerging Policy BP2, which supports securing sufficient physical and social infrastructure to aid the Staples Corner Growth Area; emerging Policy BEGA2, which seeks to ensure that the social and physical infrastructure requirements are encouraged and; emerging Policy BHCJ which supports Brents culture.

8.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT – SCALE, MASSING & DESIGN

Scale & Massing 8.1 The Edgware Road corridor is currently growing through significant change, with a range of taller buildings having been constructed, under construction or subject to live planning proposals. For example, several tall buildings have been constructed in Colindale/Burnt Oak, including 18 storey buildings on the TNQ site at Capitol Way (adjoining Edgware Road), and a 17 storey building (Zenith House) at the Colindeep Lane/Edgware Road junction in Colindale. In addition, Brent Council has resolved to grant planning permission (subject to signing a legal agreement) for an 18 storey residential development on a site at 381-397 Edgware Road. Planning permsison has recently been granted (by Barnet Council) for a 28 storey building on the Sainsbury site in The Hyde. Further to the south, the newly constructed 29 storey tower on the West Hendon Estate has become a new landmark which dominates the north/south vista (both along the A5 and M1 corridors). As such, there is clear precedent for the development of tall buildings along Edgware Road.

8.2 The application scheme proposes a 17-storey building, with a height of approximately 68.75 metres. Whilst the Council raised concerns with the height of development (in relation to previous proposals for the site – described in further detail in the Design & Access Statement), such concerns are no longer founded given that the Staples Corner growth area has been identified (by Brent Council) as being suitable for high density development, including tall buildings.

8.3 In this regard the Brent Tall Building Strategy (October 2019) recognises that the area to the east of the growth area (within which the application site is located) is most suitable for the core of tall buildings, since this will have the higher levels of PTAL (due to its proximity to the new Brent Cross West station) and it is located closer to the approved Brent Cross Cricklewood tall building cluster on the east of the railway (which includes buildings of up to 100 metres height, within approximately 225 metres of the application site). The strategy suggests the Staples Corner Tall Building Zone could accommodate buildings of 6 to 20 storeys in height.

8.4 The findings of the Tall Building Strategy are reflected in the draft Brent Local Plan (including in Policy BP2) which recognises the Stapes Corner growth area as a suitable location for tall buildings.

8.5 The change in the Council’s approach to a tall building on the application site was acknowledged in the planning officers email of clarification (dated 25th October 2019) which stated “there is probably scope for a taller building [on the site] subject to quality design and townscape enhancement…”.

8.6 This response was very different to the pre-application advice which Amafhh received to an earlier scheme (Ref. 16/0213/PRE dated 26th April 2016) which stated “The proposal for a tall building of this scale is not considered to pay appropriate regard to its setting and context and is not considered to be acceptable. Crudely speaking a building of 4/5 normal residential storeys would relate appropriately to its Brent context”.

8.7 Of further relevance is that Barnet Council’s ‘Tall Building Update’ (2019) identifies the land opposite the application site as being one of four clusters along Edgware Road capable of accommodating tall building development. Barnet’s identified tall building cluster, which extends from the Staples Corner junction in the north to junction of Geron Way and Edgware road in the south, is identified as being suitable for buildings of 8 -28 storeys in height. Thus, not

only is the west side of this part of Edgware Road deemed suitable for a tall building, but the wider area including the east side of Edgware Road, is also suitable for tall buildings.

8.8 As a result of the application site’s location within a designated tall building zone, where there is policy support for the principle of tall buildings, and given the policy support for taller buildings in the wider area, the principle of the tall building on the application site is policy compliant and therefore acceptable. Therefore, as noted in the planning officer’s pre- application comments, the issue to be considered is not the principle of a tall building on the site, but whether the nature of the proposed design and its effects on the townscape are of sufficient quality to justify the design and scale of the proposed development included in this application. These issues are considered in the following sections.

Impact on Townscape 8.9 A ‘Townscape Visual Impact Assessment’ (‘TVIA’) has been undertaken to support the planning application. This document, which is based on a series of verified views, evaluates the impacts of the proposed development on the landscape character and visual amenity of the area.

8.10 The TVIA recognises that the site is located in an area which is designated as having significant development potential in both the London Plan and the draft Brent Local Plan. Accordingly, the assessment finds that the removal of the existing building would have no significant effects on local townscape character with demolition having neutral effects given its derelict and degraded character.

8.11 The most likely effects of the proposal relate to the scale and nature of the development. However, the TVIA finds that the new facades, architecture, building form, usage and enhanced urban realm will be positive, presenting a significant contribution to the townscape character of the area. Further, the introduction of active frontages at ground level will equate to a significantly improved architectural relationship with the adjacent streetscape, further enhancing townscape and the character of the area.

8.12 Whilst the TVIA recognises that the proposed development will initially be significantly taller than the existing buildings in this section of Edgware Road and Oxgate Lane, the broad width of Edgware Road in conjunction with the generally large scale of adjacent townscape, ensures that it can be accommodated and absorbed without detriment or adverse character effects.

8.13 Similarly, whilst the TVIA recognises that the proposal will be a notable departure from the normal architecture having high level of design and façade detail which will mark it out in architectural terms as locally distinct. Its design and form would enhance the existing non- descript townscape character and have positive effects on this part of the city. Therefore, whilst being a significant addition to the local skyline and townscape, the proposed development will be part of the cumulative and ongoing changes in this part of London that will have substantial and significant, yet positive, contribution to this area.

8.14 The cumulative townscape analysis (illustrated in the verified views included within the TVIA and Design & Access Statement) demonstrates that the planning permission for a cluster of tall buildings on the Brent Cross South site will form the backdrop to many views of Amafhh’s development. The precedent set by the larger Brent cross development (which will be nearly 30 metres taller than the application proposal) will significantly change the character of the area and the views through it. As a consequence of this emerging relationship the proposal

will be in keeping with the context of this new skyline.

8.15 The TVIA concludes that, on balance, the proposal would have no unacceptable townscape / landscape or visual effects, and can be successfully absorbed into the character and views of this part of London.

Overshadowing 8.16 The site is located within a commercial area, with neighbouring uses all being commercial. Notwithstanding, the proposed development has been sensitively designed to provide sufficient daylight and sunlight for users of the proposed building, while not obstructing light to existing homes nearby.

8.17 The nearest residential properties to the application site are located 125 metres to the north west (Myrdale Lodge. As illustrated in the Design Access Statement, the application site’s orientation to the south east of the Myrdale Lodge, coupled with the separation between the two sites, means that the application proposals impact on this residential block is very limited (amount to approximately one hour of shadow in morning between September and March), and will not result in detrimental impact (or unacceptable living conditions) for residents.

Impact on Future Growth Area 8.18 Whilst the character of Staples Corner is expected to change, in line with the Council’s aspirations for the area (as set out in draft Local Plan Policy BEGA2), the Council’s ‘Tall Buildings Strategy’ recommends a ‘tall building zone’ along the growth areas main road frontages (including Edgware Road). In identifying this as the location for tall buildings the Council would have been aware of the impacts of the development on other parts of Staples corner, but has accepted benefits of intensifying this area (with high density development) versus the potential impact it on adjoining uses.

8.19 Whilst the Tall Building Strategy and draft Local Plan suggest that the height and form of buildings within the tall building zone should be assessed in a masterplan, the reality is that the impacts of proposals can only be assessed when the precise height and design of a development is known, which only occurs at the planning application (when a fully designed scheme can be presented and tested). This is the case with the application proposal, which has been fully tested and found not to have harmful impacts, whilst at the same time assisting enhancing the character of the area and the townscape.

8.20 For these reasons, it would be wrong to identify the impact of the height and design of the development as a potential prematurity issue in reference to the future master planning of Staples Corner, since the site is located in an area which the Council has recognised for tall buildings, and since the proposed development would not be harmful to the area, but result in improvements to the townscape.

Scale, Massing & Design Summary

8.21 The application proposes a high-quality design, which will establish a strong sense of place, creating an attractive location which will create a landmark building in line with the Council’s aspirations for Staples Corner becoming a gateway to Brent. The scale and height of the building has been tested, and found to be appropriate in townscape and visual impact terms. Accordingly, the proposed development accords with the following policies:

• NFFP Paragraph 122 to127

• London Plan Policy 7.7 • Brent Development Plan Policies CP5 and DMP1 • Brent Design Guide Principles 2, 3.1, 3.2 and 4.1 • Draft London Plan Policy D8 • Draft Local Plan Policy BE2 and Policy BD1

8.22 For the following reasons:

• The proposed building height is in line with the Council’s vision for the Staples Corner Growth Area (as set out in the draft Local Plan and Tall Buildings Strategy);

• The proposed building would make a significant contribution to local regeneration;

• The proposed building would not have an unacceptably harmful impact on its surroundings in visual impact terms;

• The proposal would not give rise to impact on overshadowing, noise and air quality;

• The proposal would not adversely impact on local or strategic views;

• The proposed development would be of a high quality, incorporating a high standard of architecture and materials, including sustainable design and construction practices;

• The proposed building has been designed to ensure that its ‘landing’ would improve the streetscene, through high quality architecture, as well as public realm improvements (including and landscaping);

• The proposed development would have a positive contribution to the skyline and character of the area.

9.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT – CONSIDERATION OF OTHER ISSUES

9.1 This section reviews a range of different technical aspects of the proposed development (beyond just the principle of the use and its scale). Further details on these issues can be found in the separate technical reports which support the planning application.

Transport and Parking Issues 9.2 A ‘Healthy Streets Transport Assessment’ has been undertaken by Transport Planning Associates to advise on the transport planning and infrastructure implications arising from the redevelopment of the site. In particular, the document contains strategies to manage the travel demand arising from the proposal and to improve the environment to meet the objectives of Healthy Streets.

9.3 The assessment finds that the site is located within a highly accessible area for pedestrians and cyclists, with good links between the site and local amenities. In addition, the site is well served by existing public transport provision. The assessment also demonstrates that the site has been designed to consider pedestrian priority where possible.

9.4 The assessment also concludes that the total trips identified to be attracted to the proposed development would not have a material impact on the operation of the local highway, pedestrian or public transport infrastructure. Thus, in accordance with the provisions of the NPPF, the assessment demonstrates that the cumulative impacts of the development would not be deemed to be severe, that the impact of the proposed development is acceptable and that the development would not result in conditions that are prejudice to highway safety and the operation of the highway network. As such, there should be no reason to refuse the development on highways grounds against NPPF Paragraph 109.

Heritage 9.5 A ‘Heritage Assessment’ has been undertaken by Bridges Associates to assess the significance of the existing building and the proposals for its redevelopment. The document confirms that the building is identified within LB Brent’s local list as a Locally Listed Building (LLB), but does not lie within a Conservation Area. It was originally built as a bomb-proof citadel for the Admiralty prior to World War II (known as the Oxgate Admiralty Citadel).

9.6 The statement of significance concludes that overall, the Oxgate Admiralty Citadel at 403- 405 Edgware Road retains limited age and historic associative value as a surviving example of the Government’s early plans for the provision of central government emergency headquarters in the London suburbs and that the designation of the building as a locally listed heritage asset is justified as an example of a small group of late 1930’s government/services war rooms. But, overall, its significance remains at the lowest grade.

9.7 The assessment also finds that the building is not architecturally significant and has remained empty and in a deteriorated state for the past half a century. It therefore concludes that, although the proposal would result in a complete loss of its heritage significance, the value of that significance is considered to be low.

9.8 As set out in Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy, the effect of an application on the significance of such a NDHA is a material consideration in determining an application by the LPA. While the NPPF does not set out a presumption in favour of conservation of NDHAs (unless they are in a conservation area), Policy DMP7 of Brent’s Development Management Policies (2016) does set up a presumption against the demolition of heritage assets, whether or not they are

designated. Furthermore, Policy DMP7 states that damage to historic assets and their setting should be avoided wherever and as far as possible. Accordingly, the policy background indicates that there would need to be a good reason to accept the loss of the existing building.

9.9 In this instance, the building is in very poor physical condition both internally and externally. In particular, the existing two-level basement does not allow for a flexible or commercially feasible redevelopment of the site (as has been illustrated in the Structural Condition Report by Parmarbrook). This is because of the extensive water damage and the poor state of the concrete in the last 70 years.

9.10 Therefore, the cost of re-using the existing building is unwarranted in relation to the likely returns on investment and the low heritage significance. The commercial reality is that if the cost of repairing and upgrading the property is uneconomic, it is likely that it would remain unoccupied and would continue to deteriorate, devaluing its limited heritage significance.

9.11 Paragraph 197 of the NPPF requires that when weighing applications that affect directly or indirectly non- designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

9.12 In this regard, non-designated heritage assets are on the lowest rung of the hierarchy of heritage assets and whilst the proposal would involve a complete loss of significance, that significance is itself low. The assessment therefore finds that the weight to be afforded to the harm arising from the complete loss of the asset is therefore modest. Conversely, the benefits are more substantial, and would be likely to contribute to the wider economy, arising from the construction of a new mixed-use development.

9.13 In summary, the Heritage Assessment demonstrates that there are sound planning reasons to override the protection provided by Development Plan Policy DMP7 and emerging Local Plan Policy BHC1. The existing building can be ‘Preserved by Record’, a method used where demolition is inevitable and loss of significance accepted, which has been considered to be appropriate by the engineer and a conservationist. The demolition of the existing structure and its replacement with a new mixed-use development is therefore appropriate and will outweigh the limited harm.

Arboricultural Impact Assessment 9.14 An ‘Arboricultural Impact Assessment’ (‘AIA’) has been undertaken in support of the application by Innovation Group Environmental Services. This AIA confirms that the site has only modest tree cover. The seven category B trees that are present on the site are located to the front of the property (Edgeware Road) and Oxgate Lane on Local Authority Land (LB Brent). Although, the landscape value of these trees is considered to be high, as all trees are visible from the public realm.

9.15 The proposal seeks the removal of five of the seven trees although additional tree planting is proposed to mitigate against this loss (see Landscaping Section below). The assessment identifies mitigation and protection measure for the two retained trees during construction works. These works can be secured by appropriately worded planning conditions, alongside a programme of monitoring during the construction process.

9.16 Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of adopted Policy BG12 in that details of all existing trees have been provided and provision has been made

within the development for the planting and retention of trees and landscaping where possible within the site.

Ecological Assessment & Biodiversity 9.17 An Ecological Assessment has been undertaken by ECOSA Ltd to establish whether the proposal would give rise to any demonstrable impact on existing ecology within the site. The assessment recognised that the existing site is dominated by the building and hardstanding with little ecological merit with the exception of the potential for the building to house nesting birds (feral pigeon).

9.18 Given the potential for breeding birds within the building, it was noted that these may be harmed during demolition works if undertaken during the breeding season. Accordingly, the assessment recommends the sensitive timing of demolition works so as not to affect the breeding season.

9.19 In addition, the assessment recommends various enhancement measures to improve the ecology within the site. These include the planting of new habitats post construction, installation of roosting features for bats and installation of nesting features for breeding birds within the new building.

9.20 The proposal seeks to replace 5 No. existing trees (in the public realm) with 5 No. new trees. The replacement trees will be ‘Flowering Pear Trees’ which have greater biodiversity benefits than the trees they replace, since their produce pollen which supports insects and other wildlife. Furthermore, the introduction of landscaping within other public realm areas (via planters) and private amenity spaces will also enhance biodiversity. In this regard, there is estimated to be a 380 sq. m uplift in ‘urban greening’ arising from the proposed development.

9.21 In summary, the proposal would not have any demonstrable impact on existing ecology, providing the mitigation measures proposed are implemented, which would enhance biodiversity within the site. The proposed mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures proposed would ensure that the proposal accords with all relevant local and national policy. In particular, London Plan Policy 7.19 ‘Biodiversity and Access to Nature’ which requires developments to make positive contributions to biodiversity and emerging London Plan Policy G6 ‘Biodiversity and Access to Nature’ which requires developments to aim to achieve a net gain in biodiversity. Furthermore, the proposal is also fully compliant with adopted Core Strategy Policy CP18, which confirms that support will be provided where developments propose to enhance open spaces for biodiversity and nature conservation.

Air Quality and Ventilation Strategy 9.22 An Air Quality Assessment has been undertaken (by Aether) as the site lies within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), which has been declared by LB Brent.

9.23 The assessment has undertaken a conservative approach with regards to expected improvements to air quality in that no improvement in the pollutant background concentrations or road transport emission factors has been assumed between the base year (2019) and the selected future scenario year (2025). With expected improvements to the traffic fleet, improvements in pollutant concentrations may however materialise. This is in line with best practice to apply worst-case assumptions.

9.24 The results of the assessment indicate that annual mean NO2 and PM10 concentrations are below the objective in the ‘without’ development scenario. Based on the evidence it is

estimated that there will be no exceedances of either short term objective for NO2 or PM10. The 'with' development scenario predicts that the development will cause NO2 and PM10 concentrations to increase by < 0.1μg/m3. Therefore, the assessment concludes that no mitigation is required, as the air quality objectives are predicted to be met.

9.25 Notwithstanding, the assessment does recommend some other measures (such as providing secure and covered cycle storage and installing electric charging points - both features of the application scheme) will assist in reducing the emissions arising from the development. In addition, the applicant is encouraged to refer to the IAQM’s ‘Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition and construction’ in order to minimise the impact of the construction/demolition phase on local air quality, which will be adhered to.

9.26 Accordingly, the proposed development has been assessed, and found to be compliant with London’s ‘air quality neutral’ guidance for buildings and transport, as replicated within adopted London Plan Policy 7.14. Similarly, the proposal is in full compliance with draft Policy SUI2 – Air Quality which requires major developments within Growth Areas and Air Quality Focus Areas to be Air Quality Positive and elsewhere Air Quality Neutral. Where on site delivery of these standards cannot be met, off-site mitigation measures will be required.

Noise 9.27 An Acoustic Assessment has been undertaken by Anderson Acoustics. The report assesses the impact of existing sources of noise that would affect various elements of the proposal, including:

• Assessment of Noise affecting the proposed hotel, including mechanical plant noise within the hotel rooms and sound levels in outdoor amenity space; • External building services noise; • Noise from Deliveries and collections; • Venue noise; • Sound and vibration within the building.

9.28 In accordance with London Plan Policy and the requirements of Brent’s SPD, the assessment is based on the guidance contained within the relevant British Standards (BS 8233 and BS 4142).

9.29 The assessment has determined that a range of sound insultation performances are required around the building, including better than standard glazing in some instances. Accordingly, example glazing specifications have been proposed to meet the range of required sound insultation in order to achieve the adopted internal noise targets.

9.30 The assessment has also found that the sound levels in the outdoor amenity spaces are considered to be acceptable and that the noise from the venue is considered to be appropriate. Accordingly, the assessment finds that the proposed development would be compliant with National and Local policy and that planning permission should be granted subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions with the following requirements expected:

• Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan. • Detailed Plant noise assessment to confirm compliance with relevant noise emission limits. • Limitation to the number of times the three halls can be amalgamated.

Flood Risk and Sustainable Drainage 9.31 In accordance with the planning officers comments in the pre-application advice, a Flooding & Drainage Assessment has been undertaken by Parmarbrook. This assessment confirms that the site is located within Flood Zone 1 and is therefore classified as being at a low fluvial and tidal flood risk. In addition, no significant risk has been identified from any other sources assessed. Therefore, the site is considered to be sequentially preferable for development and passes the Sequential Test.

9.32 In addition, the assessment confirms that the proposed development will not increase the impermeable area within the site, which in turn will not increase the surface water flood risk to the site and the surrounding area. In addition, this document confirms that the proposed development will incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to manage the post- development surface water runoff which will restrict any surface water from flowing unrestricted out of the site boundary. It is therefore determined that the development will not increase the flood risk off-site. Notwithstanding, the document confirms that finished ground floor levels should be set a minimum of 0.15m above surrounding road levels in accordance with building regulations (Part C) which would help provide mitigation against overland surface water runoff from public road in the event of exceedance scenarios .

9.33 It is also recommended that non-return valves should be considered at ground floor level (given the presence of surrounding sewers) and that a cavity drainage system should be incorporated as a form of mitigation for the proposed basement against sewer and ground water flooding.

9.34 Accordingly, the proposed development meets the objectives of the NPPF in that the development has been designed to plan for climate change, meets the requirements of the flood risk sequential test and would not have any resultant impact on flooding on site or elsewhere.

9.35 Similarly, the proposal is in full compliance with the adopted and emerging policies contained within both the London Plan and the Development Plan for Brent. In particular, the proposal is in full accordance with Policy SI 12 of the London Plan (ITP) which requires development proposals to ensure that flood risk is minimised and mitigated and Policy DMP9A of the adopted Brent Local Plan which requires proposals to demonstrate that the development will be resident and resilient to all relevant sources of flooding and the design incorporates mitigation measures to contribute to flood risk management and reduction.

9.36 The proposal is also in full accordance with emerging London Plan Policy SI 13 and adopted Brent Policy DMP9B in that the proposal has considered appropriate sustainable drainage measures.

Contamination & Basement Impact 9.37 A ‘Phase I Geoenvironmental Desk Study & Preliminary Basement Impact Assessment Report’, including analysis of contamination issues, has been undertaken by Card Geotechnics Limited (CGL) in support of the application.

9.38 The preliminary qualitative risk assessment indicates that the potential risks to human health are generally considered to be low to moderate. The potential risks to controlled waters associated with the proposed development of the site are generally considered to be very low to moderate, unless deep piles are used to support the proposed development. These piles may act as a preferential pathway to the underlying aquifers.

9.39 The assessment notes that contamination encountered during construction would be related to historical land uses onsite and the variety of historical industrial land use in the surrounding area. Potential geotechnical hazards that may be encountered include made ground and obstructions resulting from historical land use, unexpected groundwater conditions, and ground movements associated with the demolition and construction of the proposed development. The UXO risk is considered moderate, and a preliminary UXO risk assessment is recommended (which can be secured by appropriate planning conditions) to better understand the hazard level on site and allow an appropriate risk mitigation strategy to be implemented.

9.40 An impact assessment has been undertaken for the most critical neighbouring building (i.e. China House to the south) . This indicate that, with good construction and groundwater control and high level of workmanship, any movements would fall within damage Category 1 (very slight). Consequently, the impact of the proposed development on other infrastructure or buildings in the vicinity is anticipated to be very slight or negligible. However, this would need to be verified once the site-specific ground and groundwater conditions are investigated, the detailed development of the proposed scheme and construction sequencing are defined and ground movements are re-assessed (such requirements can be dealt with as pre-commencement planning conditions).

Waste Strategy 9.41 The waste storage for all elements of the development will be in a single waste store located on the ground floor, with direct connection to the service yard. This store will have an area of 82 sq. m, and will be capable of accommodating at least 35 No. 1110 L wheelie bins (as well as circulation space). The estimated volume of waste storage and collection regime (per waste items) is illustrated in the following table (this is based on 30 1100L bins, allowing for surplus space which, if required, can be used as a later date):

Figure 9: Total Site Waste Provision and Collection Frequency

Waste Stream Proposed Collection Total Weekly Storage Capacity

Provision Frequency

General waste 12 x 1100L 3 times a week 39,600 litres (39.6 cubic metres)

bins

Mixed recycling 8 x 1100L bins 3 times a week 26,400 litres (26.4 cubic metres)

(Metal & Plastic)

Food 3 x 1100L bins 3 times a week 9,900 litres (9.9 cubic metres)

Glass 3 x 1100L bin Once a week 3,300 litres (3.3 cubic metres)

Paper 2 x 1100L Bin Once a week 2,200 litres (2.2 cubic metres) Cardboard 2 x 1100L Bin Once a week 2,200 litres (2.2 cubic metres) TOTAL 30 x 1100L Bin 83,600 litres (83.6 cubic metres)

9.42 Each operator will be designated an area (for their waste) within the refuse store, and sufficient space provided to enable the waste/recycling bins to be manoeuvred. The bins within the waste store are expected to be apportioned as follows:

• Hotel Operator: 16 x 1100L bins

• Flexible Employment Hub: 12 x 1100L • Community Hub: 2 x 1100L

9.43 As illustrated in Figure 9, waste will be collected 2-3 times per week. It is proposed that all refuse collection will take place using the internal service yard. On collection days refuse/recycling vehicles will use the internal service yard (being given an allocated time slot). After turning within the service yard (using the vehicle turntable), the collection vehicle will park within the unloading bay directly adjoining the waste store. Staff from the service management company will manoeuvre bins from the waste store into the service yard to speed up collection times, and then will move the bins back into the waste store after collection.

9.44 Further details of the wate strategy are set out in the Site Management and Operation Strategy.

Energy/Sustainability/BREEAM 9.45 The application is supported by an Energy Report (prepared by BPP). This demonstrates that the proposed development will incorporate a wide variety of measures to mitigate against the effects of climate change. Some of the key measures aimed as mitigating climate change within the development include:

• High building fabric performance within the design of the scheme; • Inclusion of low flow restrictors on all sanity ware to cut total water demand; • Installation of leak detection system on the incoming mains water supply and, use of water meters to collect data linked to the Building Management system; • Use of green infrastructure and biodiversity enhancements; • Improvements to the quality of the townscape and character of the areas.

9.46 Furthermore, the proposed development will reduce energy demands by incorporating a number of features including:

• low U-Value thermal envelop to walls, windows, roofs and floors; • glazing systems incorporating a low G-Value to minimise heat gains to the building; • efficient heating systems (including heat recovery); • efficient ventilation systems; • energy efficient lighting and energy efficient and saving equipment; • wastewater heat recovery system for the hotel bedrooms.

9.47 Whilst there is no district heating system near the development, the scheme has been designed to (in the future), connect to the Domestic Hot Water and VRF water cooled loop.

9.48 In terms of renewable energy, the building and services will incorporate the following measures:

• Use of a Variable Refrigerant Flow (‘VRF’) system for the flexibly employment space • Use of a VRF water- cooled with Gas boiler and Chiller system for heating and cooling hotel areas. • Use of a Aerothermal Heat Pump for Domestic Hot Water (‘DHW’) as a bivalent system. 20% of the heated water would be provided by a Low Temperature Hot Water (‘LTHW’) system and 80% from heat pumps serving both the flexible employment space and hotel areas.

• Provision of a total of 19KWp pf photovoltaics is to be provided.

9.49 Whilst more roof areas are not available to accommodate PV panels (due to their designation as terraces/amenity space or as plant areas), the proposal includes a canopy on the south western façade to accommodate PV, as well as to provide shade for the private terrace below.

9.50 The use of the technologies described above enables the development to achieve a 44% overall carbon saving, of which 37% would be achieved through renewable technologies. This level of carbon saving exceeds the London Plan (including Policy 5.2) target of a 35% carbon reduction and 20% renewable target.

9.51 In summary, the proposed has excellent sustainable and energy efficient qualities and will provide a vibrant, sustainable, and carbon efficient contribution to the London Borough of Brent and Greater London. In doing so the proposed development accords with development plan policies, including adopted London Plan Policies 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.7, 5.9, draft London Plan Policies S12, S13 and Brent Core Strategy Policy CP19.

BREEAM Rating 9.52 The application is supported by a BREEAM Pre-Assessment report (prepared by BPP) which considers the Design stage and Post-Construction stage of the development. This assessment demonstrates that the proposed development could achieve a targeted credit score of ‘Excellent’. Thus, the proposed development accords Brent Core Strategy Policy CP19.

10.0 PLANNING CONDITIONS

10.1 Whilst we consider the application proposal to be acceptable, to assist the Council in its determination of the planning application and to provide the Council with control over future elements of the development, Amafhh are proposing the following planning conditions/ obligations to control its potential impacts:

Timing of Opening of Development 1. The proposed development will not be brought into use until the Brent Cross West Thameslink station is completed and operational.

Justification: The application proposal takes advantage of the site’s close proximity to the under-construction Brent Cross West station, which when operational will significantly improve the public transport accessibility of the site. Given the application’s reliance on the station, then Amafhh are prepared to delay the proposed land uses from becoming operational until the station is constructed and services are operating from it.

Provision of Affordable Workspace 2. 10% of the floorspace falling within Class E/B2 and B8 to be provided as affordable workspace, offered at discounted rent (representing 50% of market rate).

Justification: In line with the requirements of draft London Plan Policy E3 and draft Local Plan Policy BE1.

Control Over Nature of Industrial Floorspace: 3. The Class E floorspace will only be used for light industrial and research and development purposes, and not for any other uses falling within Class E.

Justification: To ensure that the Class E element of proposed development is not converted (under permitted development) to other uses in Class E.

4. Of the 4,879 sq. m GIA of floorspace falling within Class E/B2 and B8, no less than 2,439 sq. m GIA shall fall within use Class E purposes and no more than 1,220 sq. m shall fall within Class B2, and no more than 1,220 sq. m shall fall within Class B8.

Justification: To ensure that the flexible employment floorspace does not become dominated by Class B2 and B8 uses (which are likely to have higher traffic impacts and result in lower levels of employment), and that the scheme is able to meet the recognised need for smaller flexible workspace (within Class E) aimed at provision of Incubator, Accelerator and Co-Working spaces (IACs),

Control Over Major Events: 5. Halls 1 (Class F.2), 2 (Class F.1) and 3 (Class F.1) can be combined and used as single event space no more than 20 days in any calendar year, of which only 11 events can be on consecutive days.

Justification: To provide control over the number of larger events that can take place within the event space, in order to reduce potential impact on adjoining businesses and infrastructure.

Control Over Opening Hours of Elements of Development 6. The following limitations on operational hours are acceptable to the applicant:

• Community Hub (excluding Main Hall)– Hours of operation restricted to 09:00 to 22:00 hours

• Halls 1, 2 & 3 (when combined to provide single event space) - Hours of operation restricted to 12:00 to 01:00 hours

Whilst the hotel will be open to hotel guests 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the operating hours of different elements of the hotel will vary due to the nature of their use and function. The hours of operation proposed are as follows:

• Restaurants and cafes: 06:00 to 00:00 hours

• Sky garden: 10:00 to 00:00 hours

• Podium Terrace: 07:00 to 23:00 hours

Justification: To provide control over the operational hours of elements of the site which have the potential to create night-time disturbance.

Monitoring and Review 7. The applicant would accept an agreed programme for monitoring and reviewing the following elements of the proposed development (which would be finalised in more detail via separate planning conditions):

• Site Management and Operation Strategy (including Delivery & Servicing Plan, Hotel Management Plan) • Travel Plan

Justification: To provide enable the Council to review changing circumstances and resolve issued during the operation of the development.

Bus Shelter Upgrade 8. In line with the recommendation included in the Healthy Street Transport Assessment, the applicant would be prepared to make a financial contribution towards updating the Humber Road bus stop (Ref. SC), to include an up-to-date shelter.

Justification: To health encourage use of public transport and in line with healthy streets objectives.

11.0 BALANCE OF PLANNING ISSUES & CONCLUSION

11.1 As this Planning Statement demonstrates, the determination of the acceptability of the application proposal is complex. In order to assist the Local Planning Authority in their consideration of the proposals, this section outlines the elements of the proposed development which are clearly policy compliant, together with the less policy compliant elements, before providing an overall view on the appropriateness of the proposed development.

Meeting Sustainable Development Principles 11.2 The proposed development would meet the three key sustainable requirements as contained within the NPPF. The social aspect is met through maximising employment opportunities on the site, with the provision of flexible employment space designed for businesses to expand. In addition, the development also incorporates a community hub and leisure facilities to support the local community, including providing opportunities for community support and advice, opportunities for community activities and gatherings and helping to improve the health of the community through use of the gym, spa and swimming pool.

11.3 The economic aspect is met through the proposal’s contribution to a strong, responsive, and competitive economy, by providing significant employment opportunities (approximately 250 jobs) in a key location for industry and employment. The flexible employment space is designed to meet start-up and move on space capable of meeting 21st Century business needs. Furthermore, the proposed hotel/conference centre will support the wider Staples Corner industrial / commercial area and be of an appropriate scale, serving the needs of the local area, whilst also increasing expenditure in the area.

11.3 The environmental aspect is met through the proposal contributing to protecting and enhancing the natural and built environment; including making effective use of a redundant brownfield site, helping to improve biodiversity (through the introduction of new landscaping), minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change.

Making the Most Effective Use of the Site 11.4 The application site currently comprises a vacant building which does not contribute to the Brent economy. Following the departure of the HSE (from the property) in 1992, the building has been occupied by a series of short-term transient uses, with long periods of long periods when the building has been empty (or only small areas occupied). The redevelopment of the site presents an opportunity to bring the site, which is in a highly prominent location at one of the main Staples Corner road intersections, and in close proximity to the new Brent Cross Station, back into active economic use, and able to contribute to the Strategic Industrial Location within which is it located.

Improving the Character and Environmental Quality of the Area 11.5 The proposed development would make significant qualitative improvement to the character area and the local townscape, resulting in a landmark building capable creating a ‘Gateway’ to Brent.

11.6 The proposal would lead to significant environmental improvements, including improvements to public realm, enhanced landscaping, introduction of active and vibrant frontages at street level, and the introduction of a an exceptional high-standard of architectural design. The proposal also ensures that there will be a biodiversity gain.

Addressing the Dilapidated and Poor Structure Condition of the Building 11.7 The long period of vacancy (together with the age of the building) have led the building to drastically deteriorate (as illustrated in the building condition survey). One of the key problems with the property has been the regular flooding of the sub-basement, which for years was underwater.

11.8 Structural engineers have concluded that the building is at (or is extremely close to) the end of its lifetime. Further, cost consultants have concluded that to rectify the buildings faults, and to bring it back to a level that would meet latest building regulations (and tenant requirements) would cost approximately £28 million. The cost of such works would not be reflected in the rental levels that could be achieved for this type of floorspace in this location. Accordingly, it is unviable to refurbish the building. Thus, redevelopment is the only option to bring it back into active economic use.

Compliance with the Policy Requirements for Strategic Industrial Land 11.9 The site is located in a Strategic Industrial Location where adopted development plan policy requires the provision of industrial uses. Notwithstanding, the site is not currently in a SIL compliant industrial use (since the lawful use of the building is as offices and research development). Thus, the existing building (and any lawful reuse of it – were this option to be viable) does not contribute to London’s industrial land supply.

11.10 The proposed development seeks to introduce 4,879 sq. m of SIL compliance Industrial floorspace (including the basement), which is a net increase SIL compliant floorspace, in line with the requirement of draft London Plan Policy E4.

11.11 The draft London Plan currently new development within SILs, which were not previously in industrial use, to provide industrial floorspace on the basis of a 65% plot ratio (although this policy requirement is still being challenged). When this ratio is applied to the developable area of the application site (i.e. excluding highways land) then the policy requirement is for the site to provide 1,884 sq. m of industrial floorspace. At 4,879 sq. m of industrial floorspace, the application scheme significantly exceeds this level, providing (more than 2.5 times the level needed).

Meeting a Recognised Need 11.12 The nature of the industrial floorspace has been designed to meet a recognised workspace need for flexible employment space, principally designed as Incubator, Accelerator and Co- Working space.

11.13 With the inclusion of a hotel with supporting facilities (including a conference centre and gym/spa), the proposed development would assist in meeting a recognised need for additional visitor accommodation in London.

11.14 The inclusion of the community hub will provide the local neighbourhood with a key space for community uses. The provision of the community space is fully policy compliant. Both the London Plan and Brent Local Plan (in adopted and emerging format) recognise the need for an increase in community facilities to meet the demands of different communities.

Compliance with Site-Specific Local Policy 11.15 The draft Brent Local plan (Policy BEGA2) identifies Staples Corner as a growth area in a suitable location for a wide range of new businesses fit for modern day occupiers in association with a new mixed-use community, as per the proposal. In addition, this policy

supports the intensification of development providing that employment uses are retained/replaced (and ideally intensified), as is the case with the proposed development.

11.16 The site’s suitability for a higher density development is not only supported by Brent’s local plan policies for the new growth area, but reflects one of the fundamental principles of sustainable development, namely the need to prioritise higher density development of brownfield land in locations that are well-connected by existing or planned public transport (in this case the site benefits from its proximity to the new Brent Cross West station).

11.17 Similarly, the policy framework supports the intensification and co-location of uses within the Staples Corner growth area, aimed at supporting the development of additional workspaces and to promote higher density development in the right location to support economic development and regeneration. This is precisely that the proposed development is seeking to establish (i.e. an increase in industrial uses, which is made possible through the introduction of other ‘lucrative’ uses – again an approach supported by the draft development plan documents).

Compliance with Tall Building Policies 11.18 The introduction of a taller building on the site accords with the application site’s location within a tall building zone (designated in the local plan and Tall Building Strategy).

11.19 Notwithstanding the principle of a tall building on the application site being acceptable, the visual impacts of the building have been tested and found that the development can be accommodated and absorbed without detriment or adverse character effects. The cumulative townscape analysis demonstrates that the planning permission for a cluster of tall buildings on the Brent Cross South site will form the backdrop to many views of Amafhh’s development. The precedent set by the larger Brent cross development (which will be nearly 30 metres taller than the application proposal) will significantly change the character of the area and the views through it. As a consequence, the proposal will be in keeping with the context of this new skyline.

Compliance with the Sequential Test 11.20 To support the enhanced increase in industrial floorspace on the site, the proposed development includes a hotel and conference centre. This use has been assessed against the sequential assessment, which has found that there no available, viable or suitable sites within the three nearest District Centres to the application site, or on the edge of these centres. Whilst several of these centres include allocated development plan sites, these are identified for residential developments. Were these sites to be developed for an hotel, then this could be harmful to the Borough’s housing needs, which would be unacceptable in planning policy terms.

Compliance with Design and Other Development Specific Policies 11.21 The comprehensive suite of independent technical reports that have been prepared to test all elements of the proposed development. These have demonstrated the proposal’s full compliance with all other key policy requirements of both the adopted and emerging London Plan and Local Plan.

Prematurity to Preparation of a Master-planning Approach to the Growth Area 11.22 The draft Local Plan requires a masterplan to be prepared prior to development proposals seeking to intensify land within the Staples Corner growth area, and introduce the co-location of uses. The purpose of the masterplan is to address the challenge of introducing

approximately 2,200 residential dwellings into the Staples Corner SIL, whilst ensuring that the area is suitable to accommodate residential communities (including through provision of social infrastructure) and is needed to consider how residential uses will come forward without the being detrimental to existing and future industrial businesses operating in the SIL. Finally, despite the findings of the Tall Building Strategy (about the heights of taller buildings in the SIL), the masterplan is also intended to consider the suitable location for taller buildings within the SIL.

11.23 In this instance, the application proposal would not harm or prejudice the masterplan for Staples Corner since:

• The application site is an ‘island’ site which cannot be joined with adjacent land to deliver wider comprehensive development; • The impact on delivering 2,200 new homes would be imperceptible due to the application site’s small size; • The application proposal is self-sufficient and introduces commercial (employment generating) uses which are not reliant on any social or other infrastructure which may be identified in a master planning exercise; • The proposed development is not a sensitive use that would be harmful to adjoining uses; • The site’s location in a designed tall building zone (at a main node within that zone) make the development of a tall building entirely acceptable, and there is no need to await for a masterplan to demonstrate this.

11.24 Each of the issues described above can be fully tested through the determination of this planning application which, in turn, is assessed against a detailed planning policy framework (which already establishes the key issues and parameters that the masterplan would deal with). Thus, there is no need to delay determination of Amafhh’s proposals until the masterplan is in place.

11.25 Conversely, to delay the significant investment which Amafhh is looking to make in Brent, pending preparation of a masterplan (which is unlikely to be adopted until 2022 at the earliest) would risk immediate investment and job creation in Staples Corner.

Potential Impact on Locally Listed Building 11.26 The Heritage Assessment which supports the application recognises that the building is not architecturally significant and has remained empty and in a deteriorated state for the past half a century. It therefore concludes that, although the proposal would result in a complete loss of its heritage significance, the value of that significance is considered to be low. Thus, there is no justification to retain the existing building, and it is appropriate and correct for the existing building to be demolished and the site to be comprehensively redeveloped.

Planning Balance 11.27 As can be seen from the above, the planning merits of the proposed development (and its compliant with planning policy) significantly outweigh the areas where the policy framework is less supporting of the proposals. However, it has been demonstrated that in the two instances where the planning policy framework is less supportive of the proposed development (i.e. in relation to the timing of the masterplan and protection of a potential heritage asset), there are unique and justifiable circumstances which warrant a more flexible approach.

11.38 The key benefits of the proposal (which outweigh the timing of the masterplan) are its

compliance with the Council’s vision and objectives for Staples Corner (described in the draft Local Plan), namely how it will assist the transformation of Staples Corner into a new mixed- use community, linking to the Brent Cross West station and the Brent Cross Opportunity Area in LB Barnet.

11.39 Furthermore, the development of a tall building on the application site is in line with the Council’s policies and strategies for the area, the proposed employment space has been specifically designed to meet the 21st Century needs and the development of a landmark building on the site will result in significant improvements to the townscape on the A5 Edgware Road. Such clear benefits fully accord with the Council’s vision for the transformation of Staples Corner set out in the draft Local Plan (Paragraph 5.1.10) and the policies for the area set out in Local Plan Policies BEGA2.

11.40 Early approval of the application proposals can act as a catalyst for the future regeneration of Staples Corner, providing the benchmark for high-quality and well design regeneration schemes to be brought forward elsewhere in the growth area.

11.44 Therefore, on balance, the benefits of the proposed development outweigh the disadvantages of having to wait for a masterplan before this development is progressed, particularly when the site is not currently (nor has been) making any demonstrable contribution to the surrounding economy or community.

11.45 To conclude, the purpose of the planning system is not to stymie investment, but to deliver sustainable development that assist with economic growth and regeneration. The application proposal meets these fundamental principles of the planning system, and therefore it would be inappropriate and unsound were the Council to reject the proposals pending delivery of the masterplan.

11.46 For all of the above reasons it is considered that planning permission should be granted as there is no justifiable reason not to do so.

APPENDIX A: SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT

Introduction 1. NPPF Paragraphs 86 and 87 states that LPAs should apply a sequential test to planning applications for ‘main town centres’ that are not in an existing centre or in accordance with an up-to-date development plan. This requirement is also included in the London Plan (Policy SD7 which, commensurate with national planning policy objectives, adopts a sequential approach for main town centre uses.

2. Similarly, adopted Local Plan Policy DMP6 ‘Visitor Accommodation and Attractions’ supports visitor accommodation in town centre in accordance with the sequential approach, but also on sites which would not compromise the supply of land for new homes on allocated housing sites.

3. The emerging Local Policy (Policy BE9 Visitor Accommodation and Attractions) encourages future hotel provision in the major town centres of Wembley and Kilburn. But again, recognises that additional sites would be appropriate in town centres in accordance with the sequential approach.

4. The application site is in an ‘out-of-centre’ location as defined by the NPPF (Annex 2 Glossary) and therefore a sequential assessment of potential sites is necessary.

Context 5. The Planning Practice Guidance (‘PPG’) provides guidance on conducting a sequential assessment, with Paragraph 010 including the following criteria to assess whether alternative sites exist:

• With due regard to the requirement to demonstrate flexibility, has the suitability of more central sites to accommodate the proposal been considered? Where the proposal would be located in an edge of centre or out of centre location, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre.

• Is there scope for flexibility in the format and / or scale of the proposal? It is not necessary to demonstrate that a potential town centre or edge-of-centre site can accommodate precisely the scale and form of development being proposed, but rather to consider what contribution more central sites are able to make individually to accommodate the proposal.

• If there are no suitable sequentially preferable locations, the sequential test is passed.

6. Paragraph 011 and 012 of the PPG are also of relevant, with the latter incorporating the additional criteria of viability. These state:

“Use of the sequential test should recognise that certain main town centre uses have particular market and locational requirements which mean that they may only be accommodated in specific locations.”

“The sequential test seeks to deliver the Government’s “town centre first” policy. However as promoting new development on town centre locations can be more expensive and complicated than building elsewhere local planning authorities need

to be realistic and flexible in terms of their expectations.” (Contour Planning emphasis).

7. Further guidance on how to apply the sequential assessment has been addressed (and clarified) in various case law (described below). This establishes that it is the proposed development that should be assessed, whilst allowing for flexibility, and that there is no requirement to disaggregate constituent parts of proposals. Whilst the case law outlined below relates to the 2012 NPPF, the principle of the sequential test in relation to these matters is unchanged and therefore equally applies to the latest NPPF.

• Decision of the UK Supreme Court in Tesco Stores Limited v Dundee City Council (2012): The judgment confirmed that the correct interpretation of ‘suitable’ was to consider whether alternative sites were “suitable for what the developer is proposing”. It was also stated that the criteria of flexibility and realism which applied “are designed for use in the real world in which developers wish to operate, not some artificial world in which they have no interest in doing so”. The interpretation has since been applied to other cases and appeals.

• Secretary of Statement Decision on ‘Land adjacent to Skew Bridge Ski Slope, Northampton Road, Rushden’ (known as ‘Rushden Lakes), dated 11 June 2014: This established that “[a] that if a site is not suitable for the commercial requirements of the developer in question then it is not a suitable site for the purposes of the sequential approach; and [b] that in terms of the size of the alternative site, provided that the Applicant has demonstrated flexibility with regards to format and scale, the question is whether the alternative site is suitable for the proposed development, not whether the proposed development could be altered or reduced so that it can be made to fit the alternative site.” (IR paragraph 8.45).

• Warners Retail (Moreton) Limited v Cotswold District Council (2016): This case reinforces the primacy of the sequential test, it also highlights that it is not to be applied rigidly. This decision supported the view that in demonstrating flexibility on issues such as format and scale, the format and scale for any proposal inevitably depends on the facts and circumstances, as well as the applicant’s preference and intentions. In other words, the NPPF is not to be regarded as dictatorial, but rather, a developer’s own intentions may also be taken into account.

• Secretary of State Decision on ‘Land west of the A618 Barracks Bank, Scotch Corner, North Yorkshire’ (2016): In this case the Inspector found “In carrying out the sequential test it is acknowledged that whilst Framework paragraph 24 indicates that applicants should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale, it does not require the applicant to disaggregate the scheme. The sequential test seeks to see if the application, i.e. what is proposed, can be accommodated on a town centre site or on sequentially preferable sites…” (IR paragraph 11.7)

• Appeal against Wiltshire Council, regarding Land at junction of A36 (Southampton Road) and New Petersfinger Road, Salisbury (APP/Y3940/W/15/3138442) (August 2016): In allowing this appeal which included a hotel and bar/restaurant and a drive-thru restaurant, the Inspector acknowledged (Para 11) that under the sequential test “there should be no requirement to alter or reduce a proposal so as to fit onto an alternative site” and that “if a site would not fulfil the commercial requirements of the developer, then it cannot be considered a suitable site.”

• Secretary of State Decision on ‘The Mall, Cribbs Causeway, Patchway, South Gloucestershire’ (APP/P0119/V/17/3170627) (2018): In this case the Secretary of State confirmed that there is no requirement to disaggregate proposals under the sequential test. Paragraph 568 of the Inspectors Report states “…As a general principle an approach that involves disaggregation does not seem to me to fit well with the Aldergate Properties or Warners Retail judgements referred to above. The town centre uses in the application proposals would comprise the retail and leisure uses and to divide them up would change the broad nature of the development in this case.”

8. In summary, this caselaw illustrate that the purpose of the NPPF sequential assessments is to assess if the application scheme (i.e. what is proposed), can be accommodated on a sequentially preferable site. The sequential test includes a requirement to be flexible on issues such as format and scale in the assessment of individual sites, but does not require the applicant to disaggregate the scheme. “Suitable” and “available” means suitable and available for the broad type of development that is proposed.

Methodology and Scope of the Assessment

Area of Search 9. With regard to the area of search, it is both common sense and a matter of law (in Regina v Braintree District Council Ex Parte Clacton Common Development Limited [1999]) that the scope of the sequential exercise be limited to locations that may serve the intended catchment (since sites located further afield would have their own catchment which may only include part of the original catchment area for the proposed site).

10. In this case, Amafhh’s requirement is to develop a hotel which serves the eastern side of Brent, including the substantial business community located in the Staples Corner growth area (where there is an absence of hotel provision), and is in close proximity to pick up trade from new businesses moving into the Brent Cross Cricklewood regeneration area. A further key aspect of Amafhh’s proposals is to provide a hotel which is easily connected by public transport to Central London, as well as to Luton airport. Thus, the catchment area for the sequential assessment has to reflect the required catchment of the proposed hotel. For this reason, it is appropriate for the sequential assessment to focus on the eastern side of Brent, and to focus on locations that have good connectively to either Midland Main Line/Thameslink railway stations, or are close to underground stations with fast routes into central London.

11. Based on these locational requirements, the sequential assessment considers sites in, or on the edge of, the following centres:

1) Cricklewood District Centre 2) Neasden District Centre 3) Hendon District Centre

12. The sequential assessment does not include Wembley since this centre does not meet Amafhh’s location requirements for serving the eastern side of Brent. In this regard, Wembley is located in the centre of Brent, approximately 3.5m miles to the west of the application site and Midland Main Line. Thus, Wembley serves an entirely different catchment than a location on the eastern fringes of Brent.

13. In accordance with the suggestion in the Planning Practice Guidance that the scope of the sequential assessment is agreed with the LPA (prior to submission of a planning application), details of centres to be included in the sequential assessment were forwarded to LB Brent by email dated 16th April 2020. However, despite several subsequent attempts to contact the planning department to obtain feedback on the scope of the assessment (including emails dated 23rd April, 16th July and 27th July), no feedback has been received from LB Brent.

Format and Scale Parameters 14. Having regard to the above, and acknowledging the need to be flexible, we consider the following to be minimum criteria for the assessment of potential locations:

• Number of Bedrooms: Amafhh’s proposals comprise a hotel with 140 No. Bedrooms. This level of provision reflects the minimum number that hoteliers have advised Amafhh is viable. Thus, it would not be viable for an alternative site to provide less than 140 No. bedrooms, and this level of provision is used in the sequential assessment.

• Facilities: Amafhh’s proposals are for a hotel with integrated conference centre and spa. This reflects the business model identified for the application site, reflecting the expressions of interest Amafhh has received from hoteliers. However, in line with the need to be ‘flexible’, the proposed gym/spa element of the hotel has been removed from the sequential assessment (thus in sequential terms, alternative sites capable of accommodating a combined hotel/conference centre are considered).

• Floorspace: A gross internal area of proposed hotel measures 9,117 sq. m (98,135 sq. ft). In addition, with the conference centre measuring 1,162 sq. m (12,505 sq. ft). Therefore, the combined hotel/conference centre has an area of 10,279 sq. m (110,642 sq. ft). This floorspace includes the central core needed to service the proposed tall building element of the development (in which the hotel is to be located). This main core would not be required if the hotel was a different configuration, thus for the purpose of the sequential assessment all cores are deducted from the floorspace, as are common areas (shared with other uses on the application site) and all back of house areas. On this basis, the ‘stripped down hotel/conference centre has a net area of 7,897 sq. m (85,005 sq. ft), this represents a hotel which is only two thirds the size of the hotel which Amafhh wishes to development as Staples Corner. It is this reduced floorspace model which is tested in the sequential assessment.

• Car Parking: Whilst the application proposal included a small element of operational parking provision for the hotel, under a ‘flexible approach’ all car parking is removed from the hotel tested in the sequential assessment.

• Servicing: All hotels require servicing, with the feedback received from TfL (in pre- application engagement) confirming on-site servicing is required for hotels. Thus, any sequential alternative needs to include an on-site servicing facility. We have included an area of 250 sq. m for this on the sequential assessment.

• Coach Provision: In line with policy requirements, alternative sites need to be cable of accommodating two coach parking spaces. However, to be consistent with the approach adopted for the application proposal, these need not be on-site, but instead should be in the form of a lay-by (or on-street waiting area), adjacent to the site (provided this does not affect the flow of traffic using the road network).

• Building Configuration/Size Area: For the purpose of the sequential assessment it is recognised that an alternative configuration would be used in the hotel (rather locating the hotel in a tall building). The floorspace of such a hotel would be fixed by the conference centre (since this requires a single large space of 869 sq. m GIA). This would need to be on an upper floor, in order to accommodate servicing and a hotel reception on the ground floor. To accommodate 6,703 sq. m of hotel floorspace (excluding the reception), circa 8 floors would be required. On this basis, we estimate that an alternative hotel tested under the sequential assessment would be a 10-storey building, with a floorplate of circa 1,000 sq. m (to accommodate vertical connection between the floors). If the height of the building is required to be lower (to fit in with the character of centres assessed in the sequential assessment), then the footprint would increase (for example to achieve a 6 storey building, the building footplate would need to be approximately 1,400 sq. m. It is these two options that are tested in the sequential assessment.

15. Given the above, the size of site realistically able to accommodate the required footplate plus suitable and workable servicing would be a site with a minimum area of between 0.125 and 0.165 hectares (allowing for 250 sq. m for serving, refuse, etc, so the site area).

Consideration of Town Centre Sequential Sites

Cricklewood District Centre 16. The starting point for the consideration of alternative available sites is the Development Plan. Since Cricklewood District Centre is split by the Brent/Barnet boundary (which travels down the centre of Edgware Road), it is necessary to consider the sites identified within both Brent and Barnet. The following sites are of relevance at the time of writing:

1 - 13 Cricklewood Lane London NW2 1ET 17. This 0.37 ha site is situated to the north of Cricklewood Lane and east of Cricklewood Broadway The site comprises a row of retail units (Nos. 1-13) at ground floor level fronting Cricklewood Lane providing a total of 1,605 sqm of retail floorspace, including a Co-op supermarket (Class A1), two small convenience retail stores (Class A1), and a public house (Class A4). The upper floors comprise 15 apartment units providing a total of 1,154 sqm of Class C3 residential accommodation (Nos. 1-7 Kingsway Court). A second three-storey building is situated to the rear of the Site, known as Britannia Business Centre, which provides a doctor’s surgery (Class D1) at ground floor level.

18. Whilst this site is sequentially preferable (given its location within a defined District Centre), it is not available for the proposal, as the site is the subject of a live planning application (LPA ref: 18/6353/FUL) for a comprehensive residential-led redevelopment comprising flexible retail at ground and basement level and 145 residential units. Whilst the application is pending determination, it is understood that the proposals are still active, thus rendering the site unavailable or suitable for the proposed development and therefore discounted as a realistic sequential alternative.

B&Q Broadway Retail Park Cricklewood Lane London NW2 1ES 19. This site is an unallocated site, but it is located at an edge of centre location, making it potentially sequentially preferable to the application site. However, as above, the site is the subject of a live planning application (LPA ref 20/3564/OUT) for a comprehensive phased redevelopment comprising a mix of uses, including up to 1100 residential units (Use Class C3) and up to 1200 sqm of flexible commercial and community floorspace in buildings ranging from 3 to 25 storeys. This application is scheduled for determination on 18 November 2020.

The proposal does not include any provision for visitor accommodation. Therefore, given the live application status and the likely proposed mix of uses, it is considered that this site is not available or suitable for the proposed development and therefore can be discounted as a sequential alternative.

249-289 Cricklewood Broadway and 32-56 & 60-74 Hassop Road, London, NW2 20. The site forms part of Cricklewood Town Centre primary frontage. As such, Brent would support an active frontage (retail use) of the site in accordance with Policy DMP 2. Furthermore, the site forms part of a site allocation (Policy BSESA18 in the draft Local Plan) for housing (approximately 80 No. units) and the protection of employment uses (on the rear part of the site). The site allocation for the site does not include the provision of a hotel within the development. Accordingly, the development of a hotel on this site would prejudice the delivery of this housing site and it is therefore not suitable for development as a hotel.

194-196 Cricklewood Broadway (The Galtymore Site) 21. This site was granted planning permission (LPA Ref: 17/0233/FULL) in January 2018 for a foodstore at ground floor level and 96 self-contained flats. Accordingly, this site is no longer available and can be discounted as a sequential alternative.

1-13 Cricklewood Lane 22. This site has a resolution to grant planning permission subject to the signing of a S106 Agreement for a 9-storey residential development (comprising 145 residential units) with retail space on the ground floor (LPA Ref: 18/6353/FUL). The resolution to grant planning permission was given at committee in October 2019 but it is understood that the legal agreement is still outstanding. Nevertheless, due to the nature and the status of the development proposals for this site, it is no longer available or suitable and can be discounted as a potential sequential alternative.

Matalan, 317 Cricklewood Broadway 23. This site is being promoted (through a live planning application) by developers Ziser London with the intention to build and rent circa 280 residential units, following the end of the current occupier’s (Matalan) lease. The site is therefore not available or suitable for the proposed development and can be discounted as a potential sequential alternative.

Neasden District Centre 24. The Brent Local Plan Site Specific Allocations identifies two potential development sites. These are:

• Neasden Lane / Birse Crescent, NW10 • Neasden Lane / North Circular Road NW10

Neasden Lane / Birse Crescent, NW10 25. This site is allocated for a mixed-use redevelopment to include residential, retail use and car parking, commensurate with its located to rear of the centre and its current use as car parking and residential accommodation. The Council consider the site is key to the regeneration of Neasden town centre through development of a greater density of higher value land use to provide new and improved retail accommodation. It will also contribute to natural surveillance and increased footfall within the town centre. Accordingly, this site is not suitable, available or deliverable for the proposed use so can be discounted as a sequential alternative.

Neasden Lane / North Circular Road NW10 26. The second site at Neasden Lane / North Circular Road is allocated for a mixed-use redevelopment for a hotel or retail with residential above. However, at 0.1 ha the site is too small to accommodate the application proposal (which requires a min site area of 0.125 to 0.165 ha). This site is, at best, of a scale capable of accommodating a small boutique style hotel of a lower density that would be more commensurate with the scale of surrounding residential properties. Therefore, this site is not a viable and suitable alternative to Amafhh’s proposal which requires a considerably larger floor area and a taller building (which would be out of keeping with this site).

27. In addition, Site Specific Allocations DPD References 6 (Neasden Lane / Birse Crescent) & 7 (Neasden Lane / North Circular) are both allocated for development that could include retail with residential above. Site 7 is 0.1ha and is too small for the proposed development. Site 6 is circa 0.25ha and is irregularly shaped. In addition, both these sites are in active use, at least in part, and are not considered to be available. Due to their size and configuration, neither site is suitable and viable for the proposed development. Further, seeking to locate Amafhhs proposed hotel/conference centre on either site would prejudice the ability to deliver a policy compliant scheme, i.e. including residential uses.

28. The emerging Local Plan recognises that Neasden is struggling in terms of its vitality and viability and in terms of draw/offer it is essentially operating as a neighbourhood centre for convenience shopping. Accordingly the vision for this area is to maintain Neasden centre’s role of local importance, providing a range of retailing including many independent shops, a new street market and a mix of community and cultural facilities meeting needs reflecting its diverse population and some new homes.

29. Emerging Policy BP2 East identifies Neasden Town Centre as providing convenience retail for local communities in addition to a street market, restaurant and café offer and additional small-scale retail or other uses to consolidate this role. The policy does not identify the potential for this area to accommodate any visitor accommodation, and the development of a large hotel/conference centre in the centre would inevitably be at the expense of (and therefore prejudicial to the policy aims of) the Council’s aspirations for this centre as a convenience hub for the local community.

30. No further suitable, available or deliverable sites have been found within the District Centre or on the edge of this centre.

Neasden Growth Area 31. The emerging Local Plan does, however, identify Neasden Station area as a Growth Area which has the potential to accommodate mixed use development, including visitor accommodation and tall buildings. However, the Growth Area is located in an out of centre location (in NPPF terms), since it is outside the District Centre boundary and beyond the distance for being regarded as edge of centre). Accordingly, this Growth Area is no more sequentially preferable than the application site at Staples Corner.

32. Similarly, whilst Neasden Station is included within the Growth Area boundary, the sites therein are no more accessible than the application site, given the close proximity of Cricklewood Station to the application site. Therefore, this opportunity area can be fully discounted as a potential sequential alternative.

Hendon District Centre 33. Hendon is located in LB Barnet. However, it is included in this assessment since it meets the location requirements described earlier. The centre is characterised by small retail units and is generally surrounded by high density residential streets. There are a small number of vacant units in the centre although none are of a size which can accommodate a broadly similar type and scale of retail/main town centre use floorspace as proposed. There are also no sites allocated in the development plan in or around the town centre for redevelopment, nor are there any obvious development sites within the centre. Therefore, Hendon District centre can be sequentially dismissed.

Overall Conclusions 34. The site subject to this planning application lies outside of a designated centre, but is located in a highly sustainable location. As a consequence, there is a requirement upon the applicant to demonstrate that the main town centre land use elements of the proposal meet the provisions of the sequential test. Accordingly a sequential assessment has been undertaken to assess sites and premises in and on the edge of surrounding defined ‘town centres’ in the Boroughs of Barnet and Brent. This assessment has demonstrated there are no sequentially preferable alternative locations which can accommodate the proposal.

35. As a consequence, the proposal meets the provisions of both the London Plan and Brent policy objectives to undertake a sequential approach in site selection and paragraphs 86 and 87 of the NPPF.

APPENDIX B: EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FROM THE ABILITY GROUP