Another planning success: Overdevelopment of the Magnet Site in Holmes Road refused.

SADLY WE HAVE TO UPDATE THIS WITH THE NEWS THAT THE PLANNING INSPECTOR ALLOWED THE APPEAL AGAINST THIS DECISION.  MIGHT TRIUMPHS OVER RIGHT. WITH SUPPORT FROM CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.  HOW SURPRISING.

 

65-69 Holmes Road

The full report is on the Camden website but this link below may not work so we have also made a Word document and post it below and this includes Pizza Express decision):

http://planningrecords.camden.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer17/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Application%20Refusal&TYPE=PL/RefusalsPK.xml&PARAM0=252493&PARAM1=No&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer17/SiteFiles/Skins/camden/xslt/PL/PLRefusals.xslt&DAURI=PLANNING&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer17/SiteFiles/Skins/camden/Menus/PL.xml

SUMMARY

There are 19 Reasons – a lot of good work by the planner. Just to give the first two:

Reason 1

“The proposed development, by reason of its excessive proportion of high density student accommodation, fails to deliver an appropriate mix of housing types including C3 use private and or affordable residential to suit the site conditions and fails to contribute to the mixed and inclusive community contrary to policies, CS1 (Distribution of growth), CS4 (Areas of more limited change), CS5 (Managing the impact of growth and development), CS6 (Providing quality homes), DP1 (Mixed use development), DP2 (Making full use of Camdens capacity for housing), DP9 (Student housing, bedsits and other housing with shared facilities) and DP13 (Employment premises and sites) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.”

Reason 2

“The proposed development would result in an over-concentration of student accommodation, harmful to the established mixed and inclusive community, and would result in a loss of amenities to existing residents contrary to policies, CS5 (Managing the impact of growth and development), DP9 (Student housing, bedsits and other housing with shared facilities) and DP26 (Managing the impact of development on occupiers and neighbours) of the London Borough of Camden
Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.”

Pizza Express The decision is at….

http://planningrecords.camden.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer17/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Application%20Refusal&TYPE=PL/RefusalsPK.xml&PARAM0=248755&PARAM1=No&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer17/SiteFiles/Skins/camden/xslt/PL/PLRefusals.xslt&DAURI=PLANNING&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer17/SiteFiles/Skins/camden/Menus/PL.xml

12 Reasons in somewhat curious order… but again SUMMARY

Reason 1:

“The demolition of the existing building would result in the loss of a significant local landmark building and local heritage asset which contributes positively to the local streetscape and the replacement building would be of insufficient design quality on this prominent corner site, contrary to policy CS14 (Promoting high quality places and conserving our heritage) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policy DP24 (Securing high quality design) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies and Policy HE8 of Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010).”

Reason 2

“The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure car-free housing, would be likely to contribute unacceptably to parking stress and congestion in the surrounding area, contrary to policy CS11 (Promoting sustainable and efficient travel) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DP18 (Parking standards and the availability of car parking) and DP19 (Managing the impact of parking) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.”

We will write to the planning department to thank them for their decisions as they are in line with the views we have had very strongly from members

D&D

Pizza Express and Magnet Site

Reasons for refusal

http://planningrecords.camden.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer17/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Application%20Refusal&TYPE=PL/RefusalsPK.xml&PARAM0=252493&PARAM1=No&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer17/SiteFiles/Skins/camden/xslt/PL/PLRefusals.xslt&DAURI=PLANNING&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer17/SiteFiles/Skins/camden/Menus/PL.xml

Application Number2010/6039/P

Site Address65 – 69 Holmes Road London NW5 3AN

Reasons 1
The proposed development, by reason of its excessive proportion of high density student accommodation, fails to deliver an appropriate mix of housing types including C3 use private and or affordable residential to suit the site conditions and fails to contribute to the mixed and inclusive community contrary to policies, CS1 (Distribution of growth), CS4 (Areas of more limited change), CS5 (Managing the impact of growth and development), CS6 (Providing quality homes), DP1 (Mixed use development), DP2 (Making full use of Camdens capacity for housing), DP9 (Student housing, bedsits and other housing with shared facilities) and DP13 (Employment premises and sites) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 2
The proposed development would result in an over-concentration of student accommodation, harmful to the established mixed and inclusive community, and would result in a loss of amenities to existing residents contrary to policies, CS5 (Managing the impact of growth and development), DP9 (Student housing, bedsits and other housing with shared facilities) and DP26 (Managing the impact of development on occupiers and neighbours) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 3
It has not been demonstrated that the proposed student housing development would serve a higher education institution based in Camden or adjoining boroughs. In addition it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would be located where it is accessible to the institutions it would serve. In the absence of this information and in the absence of a legal agreement for defining one or more end university user the development would fail to achieve a sustainable form of development and would not meet the spatial needs of the Borough, contrary to policies CS6 (Providing quality homes), CS19 (Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy) and DP9 (Student housing, bedsits and other housing with shared facilities) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 4
The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of existing flexible employment floorspace which is suitable to meet the needs of existing or alternative business users. The site has potential for continued occupation by uses within the business use classes including B1(c) light industrial and B8 storage and distribution and could include provision of facilities suitable for small and medium sized enterprises, such as managed, affordable workspace. This would have a detrimental impact on the local economy and the mixed use character of the area contrary to policies CS1 (Distribution of growth), CS6 (Providing quality homes), CS8 (Promoting a successful and inclusive Camden economy), DP1 (Mixed use development), DP2 (Making full use of Camden’s capacity for housing) and DP13 (Employment sites and premises) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 5
The proposed loading bay by reason of its location and anticipated intensity of use, servicing the warehouse, student accommodation and café and the proposed facilities for the storage, recycling and disposal of waste at ground floor level by reason of its inaccessible location and the associated issues of moving goods between the café use and the loading bay internally, would result in significant levels of noise and disturbance to the amenities of future student occupiers at ground floor level fronting Holmes Road, fronting Cathcart Street and the residential occupiers in the adjoining Azania Mews. In addition, the proposed non-employment uses would prejudice the continued business use of the premises contrary to policies CS5 (Managing the impact of growth and development), CS7 (Promoting Camdens centres and shops), CS8 (Promoting a successful and inclusive Camden economy), CS11 (Promoting sustainable and efficient travel), DP12 (Supporting strong centres and managing the impact of food, drink, entertainment and other town centre uses), DP13 (Employment premises and sites) and DP26 (Managing the impact of development on occupiers and neighbours) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 6
The proposed development, by reason of its scale and siting, would result in overshadowing and lack of outlook to student rooms at first floor level facing north onto the inner courtyard and facing south over the enclosed garden at lower ground floor level, detrimental to the amenities of future occupiers of these student rooms contrary to policies CS5 (Managing the impact of growth and development), CS6 (Providing quality homes) and DP26 (Managing the impact of development on occupiers and neighbours) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 7
In the absence of information to demonstrate an appropriate design and location of an extract ventilation system, including details of sound attenuation for any necessary plant to serve the proposed Café (A1 use), the proposed café may cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of residents in the area, and the character and appearance of the host building and wider area, contrary to policies CS5 (Managing the impact of growth and development), CS7 (Promoting Camdens centres and shops), CS14 (Promoting high quality places and conserving our heritage), DP12 (Supporting strong centres and managing the impact of food, drink, entertainment and other town centre uses), DP24, (Securing high quality design) and DP26 (Managing the impact of development on occupiers and neighbours) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 8
The proposal fails to make adequate provision for accessible cycle parking for the proposed student units and would therefore fail to encourage sustainable forms of transport contrary to policies CS11 (Promoting sustainable and efficient travel) and DP17 (Walking, cycling and public transport) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework 2010.

Reasons 9
The proposal, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure a service management plan (in the event that the Council were to find the construction arrangements acceptable in other respects), would not secure a strategy to prevent traffic and other activities associated with the servicing needs of the development from causing serious disruption to amenities in the area and to the maintenance of the satisfactory and safe operation of the public highway (s) around the development site. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies CS5 (Managing the impact of growth and development), CS11 (Promoting sustainable and efficient travel), CS19 (Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy), DP21 (Development connecting to the highway network), DP26 (Managing the impact of development on occupiers and neighbours) and DP28 (Noise and vibration) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 10
The proposed development, in the absence of a construction management plan (in the event that the Council were to find the construction arrangements acceptable in other respects), would be likely to give rise to conflicts with other road users, and be detrimental to the amenities of the area generally, contrary to policies CS5 (Managing the impact of growth and development), CS19 (Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy), DP21 (Development connecting to the highway network), DP26 (Managing the impact of development on occupiers and neighbours) and DP28 (Noise and vibration) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 11
The proposed development, in the absence of a Workplace and Student Travel Plan, would be likely to give rise to significantly increased car-borne trips and would result in a unsustainable form of development, contrary to policies CS11 (Promoting sustainable and efficient travel), CS19 (Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy), DP16 (The transport implications of development) and DP17 (Walking, cycling and public transport) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 12
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement for car-free housing, would be likely to contribute unacceptably to parking stress and congestion in the surrounding area, contrary to policies CS11 (Promoting sustainable and efficient travel), CS19 (Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy), DP18 (Parking standards and limiting the availability of car parking) and DP19 (Managing the impact of parking) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 13
The proposal, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure highway contributions to undertake external works outside the application site, would fail to secure adequate provision for the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, contrary to policies CS11 (Promoting sustainable and efficient travel), CS19 (Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy), DP17 (Walking, cycling and public transport) and DP21 (Development connecting to the highway network) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 14
The proposal, in the absence of a legal agreement securing contributions towards Camden’s Pedestrian, Environmental and Safety improvement initiative would fail to undertake external works outside the application site, and would fail to secure adequate provision for the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, contrary to policies CS11 (Promoting sustainable and efficient travel), CS19 (Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy) and DP21 (Development connecting to the highway network) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 15
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing a student management plan, would fail to protect the amenities of the surrounding area contrary to policies CS5 (Managing the impact of growth and development), CS19 (Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy), DP9 (Student housing, bedsits and other housing with shared facilities), DP26 (Managing the impact of development on occupiers and neighbours), of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 16
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement for securing contributions for public open space, would be likely to contribute to pressure and demand on the existing open space in this area contrary to policies CS15 (Protecting and improving our parks and open spaces and encouraging biodiversity) and CS19 (Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 17
The proposed development, in the absence of a local labour and procurement agreement would fail to contribute towards the economic renewal of the area contrary to policies CS8 (Promoting a successful and inclusive Camden economy) and CS19 (Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 18
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement for defining that the occupation of the student units would be restricted to students in full or part time higher education and no part of the property to be sold as a separate self-contained unit contrary to policies DP9 (Student housing, bedsits and other housing with shared facilities) and CS19 (Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

Reasons 19
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement requiring a design stage BREEAM Assessment prior to works commencing on site and a post construction review, would fail to be sustainable in its use of resources, contrary to policies CS13 (Tackling Climate Change through promoting higher environmental standards), CS19 (Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy), DP22 (Promoting sustainable design and construction), DP23 (Water) and DP32 (Air quality and Camdens Clear Zone) of the London Borough of Camden Core Strategy and Development Policies 2010.

——————————————————- ————————————————

Pizza Express Reasons for Refusal:

http://planningrecords.camden.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer17/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Application%20Refusal&TYPE=PL/RefusalsPK.xml&PARAM0=248755&PARAM1=No&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer17/SiteFiles/Skins/camden/xslt/PL/PLRefusals.xslt&DAURI=PLANNING&XMLSIDE=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer17/SiteFiles/Skins/camden/Menus/PL.xml

Planning Application – 2010/5052/P

Site Address187 Kentish Town Road London NW1 8PD

Reasons 1
The demolition of the existing building would result in the loss of a significant local landmark building and local heritage asset which contributes positively to the local streetscape and the replacement building would be of insufficient design quality on this prominent corner site, contrary to policy CS14 (Promoting high quality places and conserving our heritage) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policy DP24 (Securing high quality design) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies and Policy HE8 of Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (2010).

Reasons 2
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure car-free housing, would be likely to contribute unacceptably to parking stress and congestion in the surrounding area, contrary to policy CS11 (Promoting sustainable and efficient travel) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DP18 (Parking standards and the availability of car parking) and DP19 (Managing the impact of parking) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

Reasons 3
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing a financial contribution in-lieu of direct provision on or off site of affordable housing, would fail to make a contribution to affordable housing in the Borough, contrary to policy CS6 (Providing quality homes) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policy DP3 (Contributions to the supply of affordable housing) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies and policies 3A.10 and 3A.11 of the London Plan Consolidated with Alterations since 2004 (February 2008).

Reasons 4
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure a healthcare contribution, would be likely to contribute unacceptably to pressure on the Borough’s healthcare provision, contrary to policy CS19 (Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

Reasons 5
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure an educational contribution, would be likely to contribute unacceptably to pressure on the Borough’s education provision, contrary to policy CS19 (Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

Reasons 12
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure local labour and procurement, would fail to contribute towards the creation of local employment and business opportunities and to contribute to the regeneration of the area, contrary to policies CS8 (Promoting a successful and inclusive Camden Economy and CS19 (Delivering and monitoring the Core Strategy) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy.

Reasons 7
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement requiring the internal design of the new units to appropriate Lifetime Homes Standards and 10% to meet Wheelchair Housing Standards (or be easily adapted to do so), would fail to provide housing adaptable and suitable for future residents, contrary to policy DP6 (Lifetime homes and wheelchair housing) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

Reasons 8
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing a post-construction sustainability review achieving Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and including on-site renewable energy facilities and energy efficiency measures, would fail to be sustainable in its use of resources, contrary to policies CS13 (Tackling climate change through promoting higher environmental standards) and CS16 (Improving Camden’s health and well-being) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DP22 (Promoting sustainable design and construction), DP23 (Water) and DP32 (Air quality and Camden’s Clear Zone) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

Reasons 9
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure necessary contributions towards pedestrian, environmental and safety improvement initiatives in the area, would fail to make sufficient provision in a sustainable manner for the increased trips generated by the development, contrary to policy CS11 (Promoting sustainable and efficient travel) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DP16 (Transport implications of development) and DP17 (Walking, cycling and public transport) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

Reasons 10
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure financial contributions towards highway works, would be likely to result in an unacceptable impact on the public highway and pedestrian safety, contrary to policies CS11 (Promoting sustainable and efficient travel) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DP16 (Transport implications of development), DP17 (Walking, cycling and public transport) and DP21 (Development connecting to the highway network) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

Reasons 11
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure the submission and implementation of a Construction Management Plan, would be likely to give rise to conflicts with other road users, and be detrimental to the amenities of the area generally, contrary to policies CS5 (Managing the impact of growth and development) and CS11 (Promoting sustainable and efficient travel) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DP20 (Movement of goods and materials), DP21 (Development connecting to the highway network) and DP26 (Managing the impact of development on occupiers and neighbours) of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Development Policies.

Reasons 6
The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing public open space contributions, would be likely to contribute unacceptably to pressure on the Borough’s open space facilities, contrary to policy CS15 (Protecting and improving our parks and open spaces and encouraging biodiversity) of the of the London Borough of Camden Local Development Framework Core Strategy.