Opposition Statement to Planning Committee (one of three representations made)

Dear Mr Cowie/Murray,

LB Barnet Planning and Environment Committee, 29th July 2010
BXC planning application C/17559/09 Brent Cross Cricklewood

Please place this letter before the committee meeting this evening. I intend to attend and speak to the contents if allowed by committee to do so.

My client [Bestway] is extremely concerned that the Committee Report advises you there are no changes in circumstance which materially affect your decision last November. Officers are not in a position to make the report recommendation as they have incorrectly interpreted policies and have omitted a key change in national policy.

For example your officers' interpretation of the new national town centre policy (PPS4) is wrong. In retail policy term the Development Plan is not up to date, since the empirical retail data which it draws on is historic and exceeds the latest timescales deemed appropriate for up-to-date retail information. Also, the existence of existing out-of-centre floorspace does not negate the need to test the proposals against the latest policies. Given the significance of the retail element of the scheme, we should have expected to see independent advice as to the implications of PPS4 for the application, or, at the very least, the applicants should have been asked to update their Retail Assessment. This has not happened. Consequently, your officers have inadvertently undermined the retail case, leaving it completely open to challenge.

The Committee Report makes no reference to the new planning polices on flooding (PPS25). Given the Environment Agency’s original flooding concerns with the application, you should have expected to see a revised Flood Risk Assessment. However, no such work as been undertaken. Consequently, the Flood Risk Assessment which supports the proposed development, and the Environmental Assessment which draws on this assessment, are now open to challenge.

It is inappropriate for officers to be given responsibility to accept “further detailed amendments” to the Conditions and modifications to the legal agreement. A revised legal agreement has only recently been placed on the planning register and the Council should expect to receive comments on it - Bestway will be making several! Elected Members must therefore retain control of the application up to the issuing of the decision notice and the use of delegated power is inappropriate.

Initial comments on the recent revised draft planning agreement are as follows;

1. There is no Guarantor to back up the financial obligations of the developers. In the report to Cabinet in October 2009 the Council required the developers to put in place a Guarantor for their obligations in the development agreement to be entered into by the Council. Given the substantial financial obligations over a lengthy period required by the planning agreement there should also be a Guarantor for the developers' planning obligations. By the absence of a Guarantor the planning agreement is significantly deficient.

2. The scheme is supposed to be a comprehensive scheme as per the clear wording of the planning application and alleged valid Council policies. It is not. The Cabinet report of October 2009 clearly states there are two groups of developers for two schemes, north and south of the North Circular Road. The report states that at that time neither were viable but that the scheme north of the North Circular Road might proceed by itself. The planning agreement does not deliver a comprehensive scheme. Nor does the proposed planning permission.

Bestway has noted that one of the key changes to the planning conditions is the extension of time for the submission of certain reserved matters, including the Waste Facility, which has been put back two years. However, this delay is of no comfort to Bestway, nor local residents, as it extends the uncertainty surrounding their business. We can only speculate on the reason for this delay. Perhaps it reflects the developers realisation that the proposed waste site is just too small to comply with development plan requirements, in the wrong location, or maybe it is to allow a new form of technology to be invented which justifies locating the new waste facility so close to existing homes and a school. Whatever the reason behind the delay, we would urge the Council to use this additional two years to consider a better solution for the location and treatment of the waste. You no longer need to be hoodwinked by the applicants that the location of the new waste site is non-negotiable. You now have time to assess alternative options for achieving the correct waste solution, including a full independent evaluation of retaining and extending the existing Hendon Waste Transfer Station.

This Committee should reject the recommendation and request a full evaluation of the true effects of changes in circumstance since last November and review its flawed draft North London Waste Local Plan. The Committee should also make it known to the residents, whose views you represent, that you will retain control of the planning application and at no stage give delegated responsibility to your officers.

Yours sincerely
Justin Mills