Overall Assessment
The overall assessment is that, for a major scheme, this is a substandard application. The outline planning had substantial public objections and, controversially, goes against numerous policies regarding building on open space. Yet, this scheme is poorly designed, not in keeping with the characteristics of the local area, and lacks detail throughout. This is a real concern for the local community.
The Planning Officer’s (PO) report on outline planning stated that “high-quality & stepped design as set out in the design and access statement needs to be secured” (Point 9.5 in PO report). This has not been secured with this application, and the council should have this major scheme reviewed by the new Quality Review Panel. The design features a flat roof, and there are no characteristics in keeping with the surrounding area. Additionally, the front elevations have an inactive frontage, and no confirmed details are provided on the materials to be used for the building or landscaping.
Inferior Public Consultation
The public consultation letter, dated 17th July, was sent for a consultation on 23rd July. Not all houses in the road received the letter. It was held at the beginning of the summer holidays, when many people are away. During this consultation, there was nowhere to write down feedback. We attended for an hour and did not see the developer make a note of any comments, so no feedback was recorded.
This application was then rushed through. Why is this being left to the last minute when they had three years to work on it?
Lack of Detail in the Application
Missing documents.
Landscape masterplan key states ‘please refer to landscape consultant’s report and plans for more details’. These plans are not in the application.
Design and Access Statement missing 1.11, 1.12, 1.13.
Also missing Landscape Ecological Management Plan, Archaeological Report, Air quality Assessment, Fire Statement, Delivery & Service Management Plan, Car Parking Management Plan, Built Heritage Statement, Sustainability Statement, Daylight/Sunlight Report.
Police Concerns
The Metropolitan Police objected to the original planning as this scheme failed to “design out crime.” This remains a serious concern for the local community, which was discussed at length at the strategic planning committee meeting. There is no mention anywhere in the application of how these concerns will be addressed.
Carl Griffiths, in the Outline Planning Strategic Committee Meeting stated:
“We determine and we consider, and we are still recommending that it is more important to retain public access to the other site rather than extinguish that public access through fences and gates to provide security. We consider that those issues, which the police have raised, can be addressed through detailed design and consultation with the Metropolitan Police at reserved matters stage, when matters such as layout and landscaping will be fully considered” (Transcript of meeting, p. 29).
This issue has not been addressed in the current application and has not been considered.
Daylight/Sunlight
No daylight/sunlight assessment is available on the planning portal to determine the impact on surrounding properties and to demonstrate sufficient daylight/sunlight for future occupants. This is a validation requirement for all applications.
Negative Changes to Outline Planning Approval
The application does not comply with the parameter plan submitted at outline planning. Procedurally, this is incorrect and conflicts with condition 1 of the outline consent, which ensures the development is built in accordance with the relevant plans.
Parking has been reduced from 53 spaces to 45, and the ratio is lower than what is allowed by the London Plan.
Podium parking has been removed, resulting in more hard landscaping compared to the outline planning permission that was granted.
The buildings’ size and formation have changed, with no reference to how much the square footage has changed compared to the outline planning permission.
Environment
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG): In accordance with the Environment Act 2021 and the emerging Barnet Local Plan, the proposed development is unable to achieve the minimum 10% BNG. The supporting BNG assessment for the application shows a -16% net loss.
Urban Greening: The proposed scheme does not confirm its Urban Greening Factor as required by The London Plan Policy G5.
Play Space: In accordance with the London Plan Policy S4 (Play and informal recreation), the proposed scheme does not demonstrate that at least 10 square metres of play space is provided per child of the proposed development.
Retained Trees: There is a lack of clarity on the retained trees and the 14 trees being transplanted, as originally set out in the outline planning.
Increase in Hard Landscaping: No clarity is provided on the change in square meterage loss, as this application includes more hard landscaping for car parks due to the removal of podium parking.
Public Accessibility Not Secured: Public access through the space has not been secured in the S106 legal agreement. How will the council ensure this won’t be fenced off in the future?