Transcript

Transcript

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to Strategic Planning Committee on 23rd of April, 2025. I'm Councillor Nigel Young, the Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee, and thank you for attending the committee this evening. I will ask members of the committee to first introduce themselves, followed by the by the Planning Officers, Legal Officer, and Governance, if I may. Thank you. With Councillor Cornelius. Thank you. I'm Richard Cornelius, Councillor for Totteridge and Whetstone Ward. I'm Councillor Maston-Lee, Councillor for Finchley Church End Ward. I'm Councillor Tim Roberts for Underhill Ward. Councillor Richard Barnes, Representative Barnet Vale. I'm Claire Farrier, Councillor for East Finchley. Councillor Phil Cohen from East Barlet Ward. Councillor Sheree Gordon, Edwell Ward. Good evening, Farrier, Zane Governance Officer and Clerk to the Committee. I'm Jimmy Walsh, the Legal Advisor from HP Public Law. Fabian Godin, Director for Planning and Building Control. Andrew Dillon, Planning Manager for Planning and Building Control. Robert Sweeney, Senior Planning and Policy Officer. Robert Sweeney, Senior Planning and Policy Officer. Sam Gerstein, Principal Planning Officer, Major Projects. Barnet. Joe Maury, Principal Policy Officer. So, we welcome Councillor Maston-Lee to the Committee. You're very welcome. But on a significantly sadder note, obviously we have lost a very prominent member who passed away earlier this year. Councillor Eva Greenspan, who had been a member of various planning committees for many, many, many years. And I think also chaired the Strategic Planning Committee for a while as well. So, it is obviously with sadness that we greet that news. She was ever present in our meetings and obviously we wish her family well. Councillor Cornelius, I don't know if you wanted to say a few words as well. Yes, if I may. It almost seems impossible that we can actually have a planning meeting without Eva being here. I mean, she has been on the scene for many, many decades and planning was her great interest. And perhaps not everyone realised quite how interested in planning she was that even while she was very ill, she was pursuing a PhD in planning at Cambridge University. So, she really was quite a presence. And I think officers and senior members will remember the speed with which she could get through applications when we had evenings with 20 applications. And the very senior members will remember how she ruled the strategic planning committee when it had 21 members and kept iron discipline and certainly stopped new councillors like me from speaking at all because she couldn't spare the time. But Eva, we miss you and we wish your family well going forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Cornelius. I thought it would be appropriate if we observed a minute's silence in memory of Councillor Eva Greenspan. Thank you. And in further memory, I will move swiftly on. So, thank you for members of the public for joining us tonight. We ask that you remain seated throughout the meeting unless you are called to the table to address the committee. Please note that meetings may be recorded and broadcast as allowed for in the lobby or by the council. By attending either in person or online, you may be picked up on recordings. Council recordings are covered by a privacy notice which can be found on the Barnet website. For each application, the planning officer will present the applications. Each speaker will have three minutes to address the committee. The governance officer will inform you when there is one minute left. The committee will have the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers and officers. Following discussions, the committee will determine the application and the chair will announce the committee's decision. When you are called to speak, please press the middle speaker icon to turn on the microphone and ensure that after you have finished speaking, you press your microphone off to ensure there is no feedback. As members will be aware, we are currently in the pre-election period in advance of the Whetstone by-election on May 15, 2025. During this time, ordinary council business can continue, but members are reminded not to refer to candidates in relation to the upcoming election. Thank you for your support in ensuring that these principles are respected at all times. We are a fairly non-political committee, so I do not anticipate any issues. If we move on to the minutes of the last meeting. Is everyone happy that I signed those minutes as a true and correct record? Absence for members. Absence for members. We have had apologies from Councillor Rishikesh Chakraborty, who is being substituted by Councillor Tim Roberts. Thank you, Councillor Roberts. And apologies for lateness for Councillor Naranthira. Declarations of members' interests. We do not have any. There are no dispensations being granted by the monitoring officer. Addendums. There is an addendum for item 7 on the original agenda, which I hope that everyone is happy that we can accept. So we have a supplementary agenda item, which is item number 6, which was published for members and was published. That relates to public questions which have been received. We have had three public questions. Verbal responses to those questions will be given by the chair. We have up to 20 minutes for this item. Residents will be able to ask a supplementary question per question answered. So one resident will be able to come up and ask a supplementary question after I've read the question and then the answer. So the first question we had was regarding the proposed Brownfield Land Register for Graham Park Estate with the reference W01731JS-04. And the question why does it include existing non-available freehold and secure tenant houses that are outside the identified 1,314 homes demolition sites? The response to that question has been given as the Brownfield Land Registration is a list of sites that are suitable for housing, are more than 0.25 hectares or capable of providing five or more new units. The planning permission at Graham Park Estate meets both requirements. We had those questions by the Residents Association, but I don't know if there's a member of the Association who would like to come up and ask a supplementary question to that question. Could you just repeat the answer? Of course. The answer is the Brownfield Land Registration is a list of sites that are suitable for housing, are more than 0.25 hectares or capable of providing five or more new units. The planning permission at Graham Park Estate meets both of these requirements. So that's to the first question, so I'm going to ask the second half. No, I know. I don't really need a microphone. No, you do. My voice carries. So you just read the first question, the first half of it, and you answered that. OK, so I'm now going to go to the second bit. It's not supplementary. Oh, OK, so the furthermore, so the furthermore, yeah. That's right. Do you want me to read that one? No, I can read that one. OK, OK. If you've got a supplement to the first question, or to the first answer, then by all means ask it now, or I can move on to the second question. OK, just bear with me then. So the first one, sorry, because of the way it was answered, because this is slightly different. It might be easier. If I do the second question. It's easier. And I'll be a little bit flexible on, you know. Thank you. When you can ask your questions. Yeah, that's fine. Thank you. So the second question was, furthermore, why does it also include sites that appear to be duplicated and already regenerated within the same site? There's a reference such as, and there's a website address, HTTP colon slash slash open data com H slash 00308 slash one one phase one B, which now includes Barnet community and retail and regenerated blocks like Jaguar court. This inclusion raises concerns about the accuracy and intended purpose of the register. And the response that I have for that is the entry is listed under W zero one seven three one GS slash zero four is for the outline planning application and includes a wide wider area and refers to the site as a whole. And this is why it is used to refer to the site. Does that make sense? And do you have a sub? Well, do you have a supplementary? How many supplementary? How many questions can I ask as a supplementary? Because none of that makes sense at all. Well, there's three questions. So you can have three supplementary. Okay. So with the first. Okay. So because with the first one, the first question about why does it include existing non available freehold and secure tenant houses? It includes these that have been not available. They're just not available. And the brownfield register demands that it's available before it's put in the register. So the answer that was given about signs about dwellings about what can be put in that's irrelevant. It's not been made available. That's what I want to know. Why is it in the brownfield register? If it has not been made available unless planning can tell us with clarification where they got availability from. That's the first supplementary. You're talking about specific properties of specific land. That's not freehold land and secure tenancy. That's outside of that demolition site, so to speak. I'm asking where did they get availability from to put in the brownfield register as per criteria four. That is the specific. Do officers have a response to that? Is the availability a criteria for being on the brownfield land register? Do you want to? No, the availability of units is not. I think it's the overall number of units approved by planning permission that needs to be reported on the register, which is what has been done for over years. The registers have been in place as this is a historic permission. Okay, I can't hear that. But suffice to say that the answer is no, they do not have availability as per criteria four. He's confirmed that for that answer. Can I just write that down? Yeah. So that's obviously something that the panel there have heard, right, for the first one. No availability as per the act, the brownfield register act. And then furthermore, one with the regenerated area, my supplementary on that is that the brownfield register is to do with sites, not with planning applications or permission. So with my thing on that is why are there sites listed that phase B when it's been done? So in actual fact, I'll update the community and retail then became repurposed for the Barnet Council offices. That's on there, Jackie McCourt, Barnet Southgate College, the library. All of that is already done, yet the site is in the brownfield land register. Why? And why is it duplicated? Are you about to respond to that? The site is the site of a planning application that incorporated a very large area of land. And some phases were not housing, but it's appropriate for the brownfield land registry to include the red line of the planning permission that it relates to. Okay. So the answer there again is such that it's the brownfield register is not there for duplication. It's not there about planning permission and all of that. It's purely there for sites and each parcel of site. So then again, the brownfield register, as it's been done, is not in the compatible and following the law of the brownfield land register act, because it does specifically say in the criteria, I believe it's three, about dwellings that each parcel should be listed for a site. And so there's nothing in the act that says about duplication according to planning permission or applications. It's purely about site. So that's the second supplementary for the panel to note, again on criteria, and that that hasn't been answered. Sorry? You have three questions, so we'll take that question as a comment, and then you'll still have a question left. Okay, well there is the last one anywhere on the supplementary. Do you want me to read the answer to question three first? On what, on the supplementary question? So I have, there was a third question that was asked, which I have a response to. Yeah. So the third question was, given the BLR Act requirements for accurate site referencing, as demonstrated by examples like 45 to 47 Free Environment Road, why did the local planning authority fail to mark the accurate site references blocks, road, land, e.g. slatter, cement, their road, and accurate hectares measurement, for the included freehold and secure tenant houses within the Graham Park estate? And that's the W01731JS-04 entry. And the response to that was, the site name address column shows how the site is referred to in the planning application. For the cases, the same reference as I read before, this is Graham Park estate bounded by Lawrence Avenue to the west, Graham Park Way to the south, and Airfield Mead to the north, London, and W9. This is not the only entry in the brownfield land register where this style of naming is used. So do you have a supplementary to that? I do. Again, to do with availability, I ask that, why have you generalised when it comes to Graham Park estate to put maximum hectares of 34 hectares when it's not there, rather than be specific about the amount of hectares that you have per block and per road? That's because it's one entry, and the regulations kind of set out what the local authority is required to publish in what format per entry. So that's the reason. Okay, well, I've asked the three questions, and I know that you normally say about answering the questions in three, but this is really important, because I've also sent the deputation to everybody to see. So you've had a balance of what the planning have said tonight, and of what I've made absolutely clear in the deputation. That's not allowed to be read as formal complaint about that. The important thing is this is about a statutory law, and this is about whether you believe that it's coherent with the law, specifically criteria three and four, about availability and about the fact that the owner, whether they're secure tenants or freeholders, must give availability for any land to be on the brownfield land register. That is requisite by law, and putting in boundaries that interfere with that availability is misleading when you present it in a committee. Okay, thank you. The committee will be able to ask officers follow-up questions on that basis. And we'll obviously be able to answer questions, and we'll be able to take a decision on that tonight. But thank you very much for your questions, and if you could switch off the microphone and return to your seat. Thank you very much. Thank you. So, with members' permission, I will slightly reorganise the order so that we take the brownfield land register now, because it would seem a little bit odd to do the hide and then come back to it. So, if we could move on then to, you know, with those questions in mind, move on to agenda item, well, it's now new agenda item eight, brownfield land register. I don't know if there's an officer presentation proposed for that. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. So, the brownfield land registry is a statutory requirement as set out in the Town and Country Planning Act, the brownfield land registry. It's a live document that's meant to be kept up to date of sites in the borough that could come forward in 15 years or more on suitable for housing, and we're required to produce this every year. Do members of the committee have any questions? Councillor Cornelius. Of course, a question. Sorry. So, this is being presented to us tonight, and the lady has asked some questions about it. Fine. But am I right in thinking this is basically just a bureaucratic exercise, in that a planning consent is still required to do anything, and the land does have to be owned by a developer before it can be built on, whether that's secured by a compulsory purchase or whatever? Am I right in thinking that? And am I further right in believing this has to go to Cabinet for a vote as well? It doesn't need to go to Cabinet. And what we're doing tonight is you're just voting on the update. Right? Sorry, Fabien. It's very hard to hear your microphone. It's obviously a weak one. So, basically, this is just here for us to note. Yeah, you're approving the updates that we've made to the entries. As Robert said, this is a live document that we've had for a number of years, which hasn't changed a great deal since the last time this committee approved it last time. Are there any other questions? So, I mean, I just have a couple of questions. So, the entry which refers to Graham Park, there's a couple of entries that refer to Graham Park. Are they... Thank you for your apology. The items referred to Graham Park, are they items that have been on the register before? So, when... I think the register was last done in 2019, is that correct? Or... 23, I beg your pardon. So, in 2023, those items were on the register and this is just an update or rolling over of those items from 2023. And are there other items on the register that have got, you know, ownership, multiple ownerships, freeholds, leaseholds and so on within them as well? Could you do something? Yes. OK. So, there's nothing remarkably different about the Graham Park entries than some of the other entries, Bright Cross, et cetera, et cetera? No. OK. Thank you. Are there any other questions? OK. Shall we move to the vote? OK. We have three recommendations. Oh, sorry. We don't. We have one recommendation, that the Strategic Planning Committee considers and approves the 2024 Brownfield Land Register, as set out in Appendix A for publication. Can we, by a show of hands, all of those in favour of accepting the recommendation? No. That is one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight in favour. So, that recommendation has been approved. Thank you very much for your attendance tonight. The item, the item is over. Please, that's it. The decision has been made. I'm sorry. Yeah. You're welcome to email, you're welcome to email me. And, of course, obviously, you're pursuing a complaint with the council, and that, obviously, is your right to do that. But, as far as this committee is concerned, the decision has been made. Thank you very much for coming tonight and for your questions. We have been joined by Councillor Naranthira. Welcome, Councillor, who obviously didn't vote in the last item, but, obviously, would be able to vote in the items which are coming up. So, welcome. So, shall we move on to what was, on the original agenda, item number seven, which is the Unit 3, the Hyder State. And, I think we have a presentation from the Planning Officer. Thank you, Chair. So, this item relates to Unit 3, Hyder State Road. The description of development is on the screen. I beg your pardon. It's demolition of existing buildings and a residential scheme in a single building up to 24 storeys with 174 residential units, class C3, with associated public realm works and landscape improvements and all other associated works. I will draw members' attention to the addendum item, which was several recommended planning conditions and informatives that have, the need for them has arisen through consultations with the College Officer, principally, the Employment and Skills Officer and also Canals and Rivers Trust. There's also a single additional objection to the planning application which was not reported in the agenda item, which relates to the travel plan obligations, travel plan obligations and how they have set out in the heads of terms. In response to this, officers can clarify that any detailed travel planning obligations will be set out in the final section 106 agreement, and also subject to stage 2 referral with the GLA, and they'll have any comments on the approach as well. So the site is in the southwest of the borough. It's highlighted on the plan here. You can see West Hendon Station just to the south of it, the A5 adjacent to it, and West Hendon playing fields further south. Just going in a bit closer on the site. The site is a car showroom and servicing centre, two-storey building. To the east you've got the Garrickway Industrial Estate and the site of important nature conservation, the Silk Stream there as well. To the west you've got the Sainsbury site, which is currently being redeveloped, and you've got the former Conondale BT Telephone Exchange as well. You've got the Honda site, which is being redeveloped for that. Further north is the BT Telephone Exchange switching centre and the former home base site there. And this diagram just shows the planning permissions, essentially the curtilages for these sites. It is a location of intensification pursuant to policy GSS 11 of the local plan, which talks about intensification in major thoroughfares, one of which is the A5. And the next page just shows some of these layouts, how they're coming forward in adjoining sites. Important to note here that the rockery scheme, which is 470 homes, is being developed by the same applicant who is also the applicant on this site. And essentially, as you'll see in the following slides, the approach is a continuation of the same built form and architectural approach. And as members would have seen on the site visits, there's substantial progress that's been made on several of these sites. And this is, I should point out that we're actually looking southwards in this slide, and the application site is denoted by this red dot here. The rockery scheme, which is the Crown Honda site, denoted here. And an indication of the massing, the emerging massing and townscape that's coming forward in the neighbourhood. And there you can see the plot as it slots in to this emerging townscape. And just looking from an aerial view, this site here is highlighted in red. And you can see how the built form follows the established precedent of the consent for the rockery scheme. And just another look at the, a closer look at the ground floor plan, public realm enhancements, play space, and enhancements to the sink context, and the silk stream, which has been prepared in consultation with the Canals and Rivers Trust. And just moving to some CGI's of the development. This is looking up Hyde Estate Road. You can see the building in the centre of the screen. And just moving around the building. It's evident that the approach to the massing and fenestration has been to try to break up the massing to sort of add relief to the appearance of the building and the perception of massing. And just again, moving around the sites. One of the, one of the, one of the, one of the amenity spaces that's provided as part of the landscaping scheme. And the, on the left hand side, the, the silk stream context as well, where enhancements are proposed. This slide is just to, to indicate how parking is being approached in the development. Is a car free development other than six wheelchair accessible spaces, which are being provided within the, the adjoining rockery development, which as I said is, is being brought forward by the, the Parkside Investments LTT, the same applicant. Now this, this slide is just to help, uh, help explain the affordable housing offer on, on site. So, uh, this, this top table is showing how, uh, uh, this, this, this, it, it, the scheme achieves 35% overall affordable housing provision by habitable room. It's split 50-50, uh, between the intermediate and low cost affordable rented tenure. Um, following discussions with officers, the applicant expressed a preference to deliver these units instead of, within the, the, the proposed development, within the adjoining rockery development. Um, this doesn't, uh, materially affect the, the amount of, of housing. It's, it's, it's merely a, a switch between intermediate housing in the rockery scheme and affordable rented housing in the, in the alcove development. And it's actually an uplift of, of low cost affordable rented units compared to the scheme as it was originally submitted. And that's why this table used, you will see there are no affordable rented units submitted within the alcove development, because these instead feature within the, the rockery scheme. And that's just highlighted on this, on this other table, which is really included for, for, for, uh, apologies. It's difficult to make up the exact details here, but what this is really showing, and this is for information really, is that they're, those 22 low cost affordable rented units are featured in the rockery scheme as a, as an uplift from the extant position. And read together, um, the alcove development achieves an even split between low cost affordable rented units and intermediate units, which is an improvement compared to how it was submitted originally. So, the application is, is recommended for approval. Um, it is a GLA referable scheme, so it'll be subject to stage two referral to the mayor. Uh, there's also, uh, you'll see a recommendation in the, um, in the agenda item that the, any approval will be contingent on approval, of the concurrent amendments to the rockery scheme to, to, to, to secure these uplifted 22 low cost affordable rented units, which is obviously an important element to, to, to secure so that, that the affordable housing provision for the alcove scheme is acceptable. Um, um, thank you very much. Uh, thank you very much. Uh, thank you very much. Yes. Um, we have, uh, Nathan Hall, who's the agent. Um, so yes, if you, well, you're on your way. Um, if you press the, um, middle button, uh, to speak, it's, uh, that's it. Yeah. And, uh, we'll, we'll time you. You have three minutes, uh, and we'll give you a warning, uh, when you've got one minute left. Sure. All right. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Um, good evening committee members. I'm Nathan Hall, associate director at DP nine, speaking on behalf of Parkside Investments, the applicant. Over the past few years, we've been dedicated to the regeneration of this area, progressing our vision for development, which enhances the local environment and provides much needed new homes and spaces for the community. Since securing planning permission for our sister scheme, the rockery at the Hyde in 2022, as outlined in the office of presentation, we have worked closely with Barnet council and local stakeholders to refine our proposals, the alcove at the rockery. The proposal, which is presented this evening is an integral element, which enhances the rockery development and wider surrounding area, ensuring the deliverability of both the application site and the consented rockery scheme. The alcove at the rockery would deliver up to 174 high quality homes with 35 designated as affordable housing, including family homes. These homes will address Barnet's urgent need for affordable housing with mix of sizes to meet diverse needs, including larger family homes for families. 10% of the homes will be wheelchair accessible in line with policy requirements. Our development will also feature excellent shared residential facilities, including a lounge, workspace and gym for the residents to use. Each home will enjoy private amenity space designed to provide substantial daylight and excellent outlook. A key priority for us has been enhancing the public realm. We will create new landscaped areas, providing a public garden and improvements to the Silk Stream embankment. These spaces will provide new pedestrian routes and green links, connecting residents and visitors to the Silk Stream and promoting active travel. Sustainability is also part of the proposals. The development will include rooftop PV panels and heat pumps to generate renewable green energy, water efficient fittings and sustainable urban drainage to manage rainwater sustainably. In terms of transport, the applicant has agreed to a financial contribution towards bus service improvements. You have one minute remaining. Thank you. In addition to contribution towards the feasibility study for improvements to the Hendon Central Underground Station. This commitment underscores our dedication to enhancing local infrastructure and supporting sustainable travel options. It has been a pleasure to work with the Barnet community and stakeholders to bring forward our vision for the alcove of the rockery. And we look forward to the opportunity to make our exciting proposals a reality in the coming years. We appreciate your time and deliberation tonight and kindly request that you support officers' recommendations to grant planning permission for our application. We are available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well timed. Do members of the committee have any questions? We've got Councillor Naren Thira, I beg your pardon. Councillor Roberts, Councillor Cornelius. Councillor Cornelius. OK. We don't, there's no limit. It's fine. I think I'd, Councillor Naren Thira first. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Now, my question is, so how many wheelchair accessible units have you got? You said 10%, but how many that will be? And do each wheelchair access unit have a parking space? Thank you very much for the question. I might invite the architect, Ali, up to come and answer that one if that's OK. Thank you very much. If that's OK, Chair. Yeah, that's absolutely fine. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for your question. 10% of the homes, so 17 will be wheelchair. There will be 3% of the entire provision as accessible car parking. That will be located 25 meters away in the secure parking provision of the rockery, which is our sister site, the consented site. How many units? 17. 17. 17. 17 units. Out of that, only six people will have parking spaces. That is correct. Okay. So you are not considering the other people that they might need a parking space? No. We are trying to work with the GOA's request to work to the 3% car park free. So how will that be chosen? How will that be chosen? Because 17 people, in my opinion, will need parking space if they are wheelchair, people who are using wheelchairs. So how will that be then allocated to those six people? How will they be chosen? Well, we are in a unique position in that the applicant controls both sites, and there is an extensive car park allocated within the rockery site. So should there be a need-based evidence to calibrate that, that could be something that could be looked at. But at this time, what is sitting in front of us is the 3%. It is also in addition to the contributions to transport infrastructure, the contributions to the bus service to try and promote sustainable modes of transport as well. Yes, I appreciate that, but we are talking about very specific people, disabled people, who are using wheelchairs. So even if we improve the public transport, still they might not be able to use it. So that is what my concern is. I understand. Councillor Roberts, I think, was next. Thank you, Chair. In the light of some recent problems, and an indication that these problems may increase rather than decrease, there is mention in the application about cycle parking. Cycles, electric cycles, potentially can be dangerous means of transport. I wonder what provision you've got to cover that issue. Thank you. Yes, we have a basement that has two cycle stores inside. I'll need to look up the number, but it's many hundred. We do not provide any e-parking specifically. We do have EV parking for the cars, but the bikes are your traditional Sheffield stands or two-tier stackers. Are you satisfied that that will be sufficiently secure because these batteries have exploded, not necessarily in buildings, but also outside buildings and parks on public roads? So there is a further issue there. It's a good point. I think one of the considerations was that we put it in a very secure and non-visible location. There are two dedicated cycle lifts to deal with it, and it's all through two stages of FOB access. So we believe that that should be sufficient. We've worked this through with the GLA's cycle officer and have had no further comments. I've got Councillor Cornelius and then Councillor Mastonby. Oh, fine. Okay. Yeah. Yes, my question builds on Councillor Naranthura's question about disabled parking. The disabled parking spaces, six of them are being provided in the rockery as opposed to the alcove where those residents will live. Is the disabled parking being provided on the first floor like the other parking in the rockery? It is indeed, but there is a lift and a stair cord dedicated just to those car parking spaces. So there's level access within 25 metres of the residential entrance. And is it unsuspected that disabled residents will have to cross the road to get to the alcove from the rockery? It is. We put a raised table and a shared, kind of a highlighted surface treatment. But that is true. You would be crossing a road. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Cornelius. Thank you. Just moving on to a slightly different aspect. It's a sort of three-part question, really. Who gets the nomination rights for the affordable homes? Is that Barnett or is that...? It will be to a registered local provider, registered provider on Barnett's approved list. So that engagement is ongoing with RPs. And part of the transition of delivery for the social rent into phase one is to make this as appealing as possible for a registered provider to come on board. So if it's a registered provider, okay, I get that. I'm a fairly simple soul. And if I can ask a question which would help me understand this, the various kinds of housing, do you know what the rent level will be for both types of affordable housing? How much a month will people be paying? I don't think at this time we can give an accurate answer to that. It's going to be dictated by, kind of, market conditions at the time. Yeah. Apologies. So how affordable would that be in today's market work? I mean, you'll have the figures because otherwise you wouldn't be going ahead with the developments. I appreciate that. It's fully in line with the policy provision earmarking both tenures. Okay. So do you have a figure? Do you have a figure? Or am I asking something you don't know? Yes, I can't. Okay. I'll pick on officers a bit later then. Thank you very much. It might be something that Sam could help us illustrate, but we know we're working within the locally defined product standards. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Cohen. Yes, thank you. Just for the record, what is the main advantage for the developer of concentrating all the low-cost housing on the rockery on the other side? And is there any disbenefit to the alcove in just having shared ownership? Yes. Thank you for the question. It's really to improve the deliverability of the proposal and to make it more attractive for a housing provider, an RP, to take this on board. By concentrating all of the low-cost housing in one building, it makes it much more economical for them to service that building for their kind of operational requirements. It's all in one place, so it just makes it a more efficient operation for them to service effectively, so making a more attractive proposal. The registered providers who operate the housing, you know, in terms of maintenance, instead of having to go to two separate buildings to maintain, they've just got the one holistic building that they have to look after. And is there any disbenefit in terms of not having a mix on the two sides? Not that I can see, no. The scheme is being developed concurrent, so it will still be a mixed and balanced community. Yeah. It just makes that easy demise for the registered social landlord, as well as we should be able to get the service charge down for that block. But it's the service charge. We should be able to reduce it by consolidating it. But this building is in the middle. It's not as though we've chosen the cheap seats. It's very much in the midst of the beautiful terrace landscape. Any other one question? Sorry, not one. A question from Councillor Mastinley. Yes, the public transport accessibility level for the site, I believe, is self-assessed at three. And the London plan and the local plan from it have a target parking space per unit of 0.7 or up to 0.75. This is a car-free development, so you've gone for, except for those six spaces, zero. Car-free developments, I believe, should be well connected as a starting point in order to be assessed as suitable as such. What is it about the current connectivity that you assess to be sufficient for that, given that the plans acknowledge that improvements have to be made to bus services and Hendon Central Tube Station? Thanks again for the question. Yeah, as noted, the commitment to enhance infrastructure through the bus network contribution and the cycle parking facilities being delivered is really an attempt to promote sustainable modes of transport. That P-Tel rating is obviously at a moment in time, which is now. And if we, you know, going forward a few years, when other infrastructure enhancements come forward, that can possibly rise. So, therefore, hopefully reducing the reliance on private car ownership. We're also expecting that P-Tel to arise once the Sainsbury scheme is complete because it puts in a new pedestrian link. So, we're actually trying to extend and deliver more of that so that we can help the P-Tel rating of the sites north of us as well. Additionally, we've got visitor cycle parking on ground level. I think there's all the questions from committee. I've just got, I think those questions have been, most of the questions I would have had have been asked. But one thing that did strike me up on the site visit, and it was issues that were kind of asked of the officers. There's quite a lot going on in that area. So, you've got the development that your developer is kind of bringing forward. And then this is an addition to that. And then we've got Sainsbury's development going on and so on. And what I haven't seen, and officers may say, oh, this exists, and if it does, great, is in a sense how that all sits together, particularly in terms of public realm. So, there was some evidence of public realm improvements in parts which have already been developed. But I was just a sort of concern in my mind that it doesn't all necessarily hang together. And I just wondered if that was a piece of work that had been done, or if that's a piece of work that you would be happy to do, to look at the kind of wider area in terms of the public realm and say, this is how it should be. Because it feels like there's quite a lot of money from this development and from the previous rockery development and Sainsbury's that's potentially going into the public realm. So, the question is, how do we make sure that's all coordinated, if you like? It's an excellent point. During our consultation process, we thought quite similarly, particularly along the Silk Stream, as we wanted the pedestrian journey along that to be continuous. So, we have worked with the applicant of the Sainsbury scheme, St. George, part of the Barclay Group, and their landscape team. So, that has been joined up in terms of finishes, planting material, as well as the Canal and River Trust have joined up that conversation. So, we're working to similar pallets, effectively. In terms of road maintenance, we haven't specifically addressed if there is any particular changes to footpaths that should come in the aggregation of all of these funds. But we could. That would be no problem to achieve during the detailed planning stages. I think that would be helpful. Are there any other questions, or shall we move to questions for officers and discussion? Thank you very much. If you could turn off the microphone. Thank you. Brilliant. Thanks very much. Okay. Have members of the committee got any questions? I know there's one question. Any questions for officers? Councillor Cornelius. And then Councillor Narayan Thera. Thank you very much. It's not so long ago that all developments in Barnet with a registered social landlord actually, Barnet made sure that it got the nomination rights. Are we actually doing that? Yes. It's a standard clause in a legal agreement that in relation to rented properties, we have 100% nomination rights in perpetuity. Right. And do you, do officers have any idea of the actual figures in pounds as to what these different kinds are? It's like SR, LAR units. They're sort of from a quick Google, like on the mayor's SR figure, social rent figures. It's like, it's one of the things that's surprisingly better value for larger units. It's like £194 per week on a one bed, and then £251, £10 on a six bed, which they're not providing. So they all have quite low, you know. So those are the social rents. The social rents. LAR units is not much higher. It doesn't exist anymore as a typology because it was stopped a couple of years ago, but it's fairly similar to the social rent levels. Okay. And then the other point relates to the public transport improvements. It's all well and good improving access to local stations, but has work actually been done or is that for the GLA to do on the actual capacity of the railway line? Because if you've eliminated all the parking, you can't assume that anyone's a motorist, so everyone's going through the Northern Line. And with the current excellent service that's provided, people running through the tunnels of Camden Town, actually the bottleneck is further down the line rather than being at the station itself. There's work being done on that. You're pretty correct. It's pretty more of a question for the Mayor of London in terms of the wider London transport capacity. I will be delighted to bother him. I mean, I think that, I mean, clearly this scheme and many other schemes are delivering Barnett's share of a London-wide housing target. And delivery of public transport infrastructure has got to be aligned to that, the delivery of that housing target. So in terms of what we as a committee can do about what's happening in Camden, you know, we can lobby. And as you've mentioned, you can lobby, but I think, you know, that we have to work within the parameters of our housing target in a sense, yeah. I don't doubt that. I'm just thinking of, will I get a seat on the tube? But anyway, okay. Thank you. Councillor Naranthira. My question is also about transport. So this site is not anywhere near a tube station or even a overground station. Hendon is the closest, isn't it? And then the bus route is 32 and 142 along A5. So are there any plans to have another bus route going that way? Or is there any bus frequencies? How is the transport is going to be improved is my question. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. As you would have seen in the TFL representations, they made a request for a financial contribution to improve bus capacity in the region of £113,000. So that will be secured. That's in the heads of terms to be progressed through the legal agreement. How that is further progressed in terms of detailed expenditure will be, that's really a question for TFL and their representatives. The request is based on improvement to capacity, bus provision specifically. Are there any? Yeah. I note that one of the potential conditions for approval is the prohibition on residents from buying permits under any local controlled parking zones. Are the nearest residential streets at the moment covered by controlled parking zones? And if not, are there plans to do so as a result of this application being granted? I mean, it's a standard provision based on the number of units to levy a contribution towards review of controlled parking zones. In terms of the provision locally, I believe there are CPZs in operation locally. I would have to double check to exactly what those controls are and where they extend to. But the contribution would be secured as part of the legal agreement to review what the existing controls are and if there are any updates or changes that are required to be proposed. And that is a separate process, as everyone knows, subjudge to assign consultation for any CPZ consultations. Are there any other questions for officers? A couple just in terms of the policy side of it, picking up on some of the questions that were asked. I mean, in terms of looking at the public transport accessibility and the car-free balance, presumably the approach that's been taken is largely policy-compliant. But it would be helpful if officers would just talk us through that slightly. Thank you, Chair. As set out in the GLA Stage 1 response, they have clarified that they welcome the car-free approach for the development. And we've been led by their recommendations within the Stage 1 response. The application is accompanied by an active travel zone assessment, which assesses the pedestrian cycle permeability in and around the site. It's also that the transport assessment also talks about mode shares and largely, very heavily weighted towards bus travel and public transport routes. So, based on the transport assessment and the GLA Stage 1 response, it's felt that it's entirely appropriate for a car-free approach on this site. So, it would be a pretty weak ground for a refusal, is what you're saying, in fact. I believe so, yeah. The transport assessment does provide. Okay. The other point that was raised was about the applicant's agent talked about 3% car provision for disabled parking and referring to London Plan Standard. Is that a London Plan compliant provision? Yes. The 3% starting point is the provision with ability to staircase up to 10%. And as the architect clarified, the neighbouring rockery scheme has sufficient car parking spaces to potentially absorb that additionality, should the need arise. Okay. Okay. I mean, I guess my view is that we obviously have a scheme, there's been a few discussion points around public transport accessibility and disabled parking. But in the end, we have a scheme that's delivering just over 170 units, 35% of which would be affordable, albeit with a 50-50 mix rather than a 60-40. So, the benefits for us in terms of meeting our housing targets and delivering homes and affordable homes for our residents are, I would say, quite significant in terms of the balance. And the downside, I guess, is some of the issues that we talked about in accessibility. But for me, they don't seem to outweigh the benefits of delivering this scheme. Councillor Nan, Zahira. Yeah, I'd like to make a comment. It's a good scheme in terms of affordability, and I have no problem about that. But there are some 17 units of a three-bedroom, is it, family homes? So, those, obviously, family with young children, they are going to need car parking spaces. So, having this as a car-free development is a bit of a concern for me, because we have got experience in our own ward in Collingdale South, which is the ward next door, in Collingdale Gardens development. They had very few disabled parking spaces, and then they didn't have this car-free for some of the blocks. They didn't give any car parking spaces, and now they are going to go back and find car parking spaces for those people, because there are disabled people who are unable to do anything. And we are in a really difficult situation. So, I'm speaking through experience. So, in future, I know that you have got the other development with car parking spaces, so things may have to change in future. So, I'm just saying that that's my experience. Thank you. Well, thank you for that. I mean, I wonder, I mean, so the applicant talked about the kind of staircasing arrangement, but it sounds a kind of purely voluntary thing. And I wonder if there's any way that we have a review mechanism in place in terms of that that might give members of the committee some comfort that the disabled parking issue would be. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, so, as the applicant's architect referred to, the additional capacity isn't in a site outside of the red line of this current application, so any adjustments in that regard would need to be progressed through a legal agreement, which I think officers would be happy to try and progress. So, we could add a line to the proposed legal agreement to look at the staircasing of disabled parking provision? I believe so, yeah. That sounds good. And my second thought was in terms of this wider public realm master plan and whether we could, I mean, I know it's always, it's hard because this is one development and there's several, but in a way it would be good, you know, if we, if there was a condition, you know, around the public realm implementation which called for that wider master plan at the very least. Is that a feasible condition? I think certainly it's realistic that the, well, there's a landscaping public realm condition attached in the draft recommendations and I think it's certainly feasible and reasonable to expect that the neighboring rockery scheme which is within the gift of the same developer at the alcove site to be progressed hand in hand. I think that's likely as far as discharging conditions alongside one another. In terms of the wider connectivity and compatibility with the public realm, I think it's certainly an informative could be included on the draft recommendations to encourage that any approach has regard to neighboring developments and that a cohesive approach is preferred by the council. Yeah, I would, I would, I would welcome that, yeah. Councillor Mastin Lee, sorry. I think just a concern or a point I would register building on Councillor Naren Thera's point is that reading this with the rockery development beforehand, I see that there is an overwhelming, overwhelming policy movement to eradicate car driving and car parking spaces. But while this tower is deemed suitable as a car-free development, which is quite thorough analysis for public transport accessibility, that same assessment wasn't deemed to apply to the rockery which has about 140 car parking spaces. So the question in my head is why the rockery wasn't deemed suitable as a car-free development before this one, or was this just so that we could get another tower or a relatively small patch of land? I mean, I think the, the, the, the site itself is quite challenging in terms of what it can accommodate. Um, it, it, it should, should be read as a, as a standalone site, but also as read as part of the, the neighboring rockery development site. Um, it's been assessed on its merits as a, as a, as a planning application, the, the transport assessment, as we, we mentioned, has been assessed in terms of its acceptability, the different components of that, officers, officers reviewed with GLA, GLA commentary and TFL commentary as well. So we are, we have really assessed it on its merits, this planning application and come to a recommendation based on that. Okay. Um, if there's no further comments, should we move to the vote? Um, the, the, my, the proposal, um, uh, I guess that we need to vote on a motion to, uh, include additional wording to the section 106. to the section 106 around the staircasing of disabled parking spaces and the inclusion of a condition. Oh, sorry, an informative around, um, a, a public realm, a wider public realm master plan. Um, are, and I would propose that motion. Um, would anyone like to second that? Uh, Councillor Farrier. And shall we vote? This doesn't, this vote doesn't mean you're voting for or against the application, but voting for a motion to go along with an approval. Uh, all those in favour of that motion, please indicate. Uh, one, two, three, four, five, six, I have. Um, okay. Um, okay. So with that motion, uh, we have a recommendation in front of us, uh, which is, um, uh, to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement and conditions. Uh, all those in favour of that, uh, please indicate, uh, one, two, three, four, five, six, uh, all those against. Two. Uh, so that, uh, I should have, sorry, I should have said beforehand that, uh, Councillor Gordon, uh, left the meeting, uh, for a, a personal commitment, uh, at, uh, 1940. So obviously he's not voting on this item. Um, uh, and with that in mind, uh, the, uh, the, uh, uh, recommendation is carried, uh, by six votes to two to grant planning permission subject to the completion of the section 106 and conditions and the, um, motion that we passed earlier. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Um, so the last item we have on the agenda for tonight, uh, is the withdrawal of the direction, um, withdrawal of the, I think it's the article four directions in the area of special advertisement control. Um, do we have someone to talk on that? Yes, we do. Yeah. Uh, yes. The floor is yours. Thank you, chair. Um, this is a policy item, so there's no particular slides for this. Um, uh, I'll, I'll keep it relatively brief as members may be aware that advertisements are controlled in a different manner than planning applications. Um, there's a particular set of regulations, um, published in 2007, which set out the legal framework for controlling advertisements, which includes how they should be assessed and where they are given deemed consent, i.e. they don't require planning permission, and then, uh, where they do require planning permission. Um, the historic designation of an area of special advertisement control was intended to provide the council with a greater than, uh, normal degree of control over certain types and sizes of advertisements, which may be displayed in those particular areas that were designated. Um, in practice, in terms of its implementation over the years, the particular regulations requires that the council review that particular area of control every five years, which has not occurred since 2007. Um, a review of, um, um, a review of, um, um, decisions on planning applications between 2017 and 2024 showed that, um, this particular, um, area of control was not a material consideration in those applications that were assessed in that particular area. Um, and furthermore, um, and furthermore, obviously with the newly adopted local plan, we have a particular, um, policy based on advertisements, which provides quite a clear and robust approach to determining advertisement applications for advertisements. Um, so on that basis, um, we seek to withdraw the, um, special, um, area of special advertisement control. Thank you. Are there any questions? Councillor Cornelius. It's not really so much a question as an observation. That because something hasn't been used doesn't mean it hasn't had an effect. And I'm just concerned that it's very easy not to renew it. It's not been used, but whether it actually acts as, as an additional disincentive to inappropriate advertisements. I mean, the issue is as a ward counsellor to getting inappropriate signs removed is that it's not really expedient for, for, for an officer to prosecute someone until we get goaded into having hundreds of them in an area. And I just wonder whether we're sending a signal to people, particularly the man who has the sign at the end of Hendon Wood Lane, um, whether we're sending a signal that we don't care anymore. So I would be in support of keeping this apparently useless bureaucratic exercise in place, because by removing it, we're sending a signal that I believe is inappropriate. Councillor Naranthira. Now, um, obviously these adverts bring money to the council, doesn't it? So, um, the, so, but my question is maybe I'm kind of missing something here, or I've not read something properly. Why aren't only some wards included? So, for example, this Burntokel, Collingdale North, Collingdale South, West, Tendon, those areas are not included. And why is that? Um, if I could, um, address a councillor Cornelius' first point, and then I'll go into councillor and everything is. Um, essentially the areas covered by the special advertisement control are predominantly, but not exclusively, designated conservation areas and areas of open space. Um, the regulations themselves already set limits and controls in designated conservation areas, and therefore, in practice, um, the special advertisement control area does have a limited effect. Um, the two, um, essentially require minor changes to the size and type of the size of advertisements, and the principal differences are the, um, illuminated adverts on business premises and adverts on hoardings. Um, but as per the fact that, um, a large part of the area is already in conservation area, that is already restricted by that way. So, in terms of practice, um, officers are of the view that the withdrawal will not have a significant impact. Um, in terms of, um, councillor Nafreen's point of view about areas not included, obviously, this is a historic designation. Um, and officers, um, you know, current officers did not have input in decision-making about the areas selected. Obviously, one can draw the conclusion that it may be based on the fact that they were predominately conservation areas and open land. Um, but I can't comment on why certain areas were particularly excluded at that time of it being designated. Hello, Councillor Maston-Lee. Are there grounds for refusing advertisements that exist under the special designation that don't exist under our new policies and procedures? So, the regulation set out those that have deemed consent, which are essentially permitted development rights for adverts, and then anything that falls outside that remit will require express planning permission. If it requires express planning permission, it needs to be assessed in accordance with the local plan, which has a specific advertisement policy on it. So, those that fall within deemed, um, the special control area does, um, does restrict certain parts, as I've explained, mainly about illumination and hoardings, and then broadly everything else falls within, um, deemed consent as per normal. Uh, councillor Conelli. Sorry to labour the point. So, to her... I think my question was still there for that sort of experience. Oh. So, just to help me understand this. So, in a conservation area, there are no, there's no permitted development for a sign. Is that correct? It's quite a complex piece of legislation. Yes, I know. I know, and I'm tormented by one particular resident in Totteridge, who I will set on you, um, as well. Um, as, yeah, it's quite a complex, um, piece of legislation with various classes. So, I can't say for certain that conservation area restricts every single class. However, um, in terms of the effect of this, is that conservation area is restricted in parts of the certain allowances, allowances or, you know, deemed consent allowances. Obviously, I'm happy to answer any particular queries after this meeting as well. Thank you. Thank you. I, I mean, I think that, uh, are you, Councillor Farrie? No, thank you. I mean, I think my point really follows on from, uh, what, uh, Councillor, uh, Naranthira said, is that as looking at the map at the, at the end of your report, um, I mean, I mean, it looks pretty random to me, to be perfectly honest, to be frank. Um, that, but largely speaking, um, the areas which are in blue are currently conservation areas. Although there are conservation areas which are not in blue, uh, so therefore not covered by the Article 4 direction. So, it, it just doesn't really make any sense. I mean, it just feels that, you know, we ought to be tidying up these rather strange, um, designations. And if, so if we, effectively what we're saying is that if the advert, and if an advert, um, is planned inside a conservation area, um, it has to jump through all the ordinary hoops of, of doing a planning application, the same as if it had been, you know, under this Article 4 direction. And if it's outside the conservation area, then there seems to be no logic in, in, in having, you know, you know, having it as this part of this special advertising control area. Um, so, and, and as I say, it just seems entirely random. What, why, why wouldn't you just have the whole borough? I mean, it just doesn't, yeah, it doesn't make any sense the way that it's designated. So, I think, you know, just feel that we need to, and, and I do take the point about enforcement, but that, that point exists outside of this as well. I mean, it's not, you know, this is just because someone puts it up in the Article 4 area, doesn't mean to say that it's easier to enforce that in terms of, um, you know, the, the, the retrospective planning application that comes, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Um, so, I mean, given that it largely covers conservation areas and open space designations, it just seems a relatively unnecessary piece of, of, of legislation, which has had no effect. And, you know, we probably ought to be focusing on our conservation areas, I think, rather than areas which are outside of the conservation areas, which presumably are outside of the conservation areas for very good reasons. Um. Sorry, Chairman. I, I think it's probably actually the explanation for why some areas aren't included. I suspect it goes back to the very formation of the borough, and you'll find that it was the old Barnet councils were more concerned about this rather than the, uh, Finchley and Hendon boroughs. So, I suspect that's the historic reason that it goes on and it's not been reviewed. But, of course, when you make your comment that it's had no effect, you can't know that it's failed to have an effect, because it's just one of those things tucked away that acts as a potential disincentive to people. Anyway, that's fine. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, so fine. I mean, I guess that, you know, we, we could always reintroduce it if it's needed. But, I mean, it wouldn't. Is that a commitment? If something's needed. It's not for me to commit. Okay. I may not be here. So, yeah. Um, but I, I, yeah, I, I, I agree with the officers in terms of the recommendation. I don't, I don't, I don't think we, we, we need this. It just seems, as you put it yourself, Councillor Cornelius, unnecessary bureaucracy. Or worse to that effect. Does anyone else have any comments? Shall we move to the vote? We've got a complicated set of recommendations. Um, that strategic planning committee. Yeah. One more comment. Apologies, it's late. Um, I hope it's a quick question. Um, has there actually been any legal analysis as to any advertisements we've refused that we couldn't have refused if we hadn't had this in place in the last five, five years or so? And the, the appendices B, I believe, details the list of advertising applications that were in, within the area. And, um, as detailed, the analysis shows it wasn't, it wasn't used as a reason in part of the reason for refusal. Um, but obviously those are on the basis of those that required express consent. So, um, I wouldn't have knowledge of theoretically what would have, could have come forward otherwise. I think the answer, the answer is yes then, isn't it? You're basically saying that all the applications that have come forward that were within the special advertisement control area, the ones that were refused were refused on issues which didn't relate to the, the, the terms and conditions of the advertising. On, on, yes, but not directly. It wasn't directly the reason for refusal. It didn't directly form the reason for refusal. It was based on, it would be based on character or immunity grounds. Or highway safety, yeah. Okay. The recommendation is that the strategic planning committee notes the contents of the report and delegates authority to the chief planning officer to follow the statutory process contained in the town and country planning controller advertisements England regulations 2007 to revoke the direction for the area of special advertisement control. to come into force on the specified date, make any necessary amendments to the order and map to resolve any objections where possible. Those are the recommendations. Those are the recommendations. I'm sure that if there were a significant number of comments and objections when this is advertised, the chief planning officer would discuss it with the chair of the planning committee in advance of making any decision, I'm sure. With that said, the, shall we vote on those recommendations? All those in favour of the recommendations, please indicate. We have six. All those against? Two. It's a recurring theme. Okay, then those recommendations are carried. I don't have any items that have been given to me that I would deem as urgent. So in that case, I declare the meeting to be closed. Thank you all very much for your attendance and participation. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.