To receive a presentation from the Planning agents, Lichfields
Minutes:
Members received a presentation on Stanmore Gardens (formerly Anmer Lodge) from the developer, Notting Hill Genesis (NHG).
In making the presentation, the developer reported that
· There would an exhibition held at Bernays Hall, Stanmore on Wednesday 3 November.
· The development of this brown field site would comprise of 196 high quality new homes (70 one bed, 104 two bed and 22 three bed), 37% of which would be affordable. 57% of the properties would be dual aspect and the affordable blocks would be delivered in phase 1.
· There would be 59 car parking spaces for residents, a ratio of 0.3 and 371 cycle parking spaces plus a car club.
· Place space would be provided for children up to 15 years of age as well as a space for 16 to 17-year olds.
· Ideas were being sought for a focal point for the square eg bandstand, drinking fountain, playable structure.
· The site already had permission for 180,000 square feet of commercial space in perpetuity.
· The site was restricted in terms of vehicular access and was constrained by a slope north to south and a culvert that ran through it.
· The existing town centre car park would be retained throughout the build and the project phased so that the car park would be available at all times.
· There would be a new public square as well as new flexible commercial space.
· The architecture of the development would reflect the local area.
· The design approach in comparison with the approved scheme.
· The development would deliver a 35% reduction in carbon emissions.
Following the presentation, Members made comments and asked questions. Clarification was sought as to the level of engagement with Stanmore Traders and the Panel was advised that there had been initial liaison with the Stanmore Society and Chamber of Trade. A Member expressed concern that there had been no feedback from either the Traders or Chamber on the proposals before the Panel.
In response to a Member’s question, the developer confirmed that there was a contractual obligation to provide car parking spaces to Norwood and Lidl as they had a lease but that this was not in perpetuity. The Member went on to express the view that this was not a car free development and that there might be an issue with the number of resident car parking spaces. In addition, there was limited parking in the vicinity. The developer acknowledged the issue and explained that the usage of cars at other sites had been looked at and residents were changing the way they used vehicles and highlighted the accessible location.
A Member stated that, given the steep gradients in Stanmore and surrounding area, the likelihood of people taking up cycling was limited. She added that the bus services and connectivity was not as good as it might be although the Stanmore Hub was useful.
A Member sought clarification as to the types of affordable housing proposed for the development and the breakdown between rented and shared ownership, the estimated cost to residents and whether dual aspect properties would be available for affordable housing. In response, the Panel were advised that 70 properties would be affordable, 33 at the London affordable rent (calculated by the Greater London Authority to be £161.00 for a one bed, £171.00 for a two bed and £181.00 for a three bed per week), 37 shared ownership at market rates (25-40%). The developer also confirmed that dual aspect properties would be available throughout the scheme.
In terms of parking, a Member questioned what sustainable travel provision would be put in place to enable the reduction in parking spaces and indicated that he would be interested to see the transport assessment. The developer advised that there would be an on-site car club for residents and trends at existing similar developments had been considered when drawing up the proposals.
A Member questioned why the developer was not building the consented scheme and stated that Harrow had the lowest number of consented family sized homes in London. The Panel was advised that the consented scheme was heavily reliant on Marks and Spencer who had subsequently withdrawn from the agreement. In response, some Members indicated that the public consultation exercise was likely to show concern in relation to density as it was the prospect of Marks and Spencer in Stanmore that had made the scheme palatable to residents.
The Chair thanked the developer and attendees for the presentation and responses.
RESOLVED: That the presentation be noted.