In December 2016 Kronen were instructed to support an appeal in London Borough of Brent.
The description of the refused scheme was as follows:
“Raising of the roof of Units 14, 15 & 16 and the creation of a mezzanine floor to Units 14 & 15 including associated external alterations”.
The planning application was refused by LB Brent in November 2016.
The sole reason for refusal related to transport. The reason for refusal on the Decision Notice is as follows:
“The proposal, as a result of the additional floorspace created, would significantly increase servicing activity for the units which in the absence of any allocated loading area/bays would be likely to obstruct access to adjoining properties and would therefore materially harm the viability of the employment land, to the detriment of Brent’s employment land protection policies including Core Strategy policy CP20 and emerging Development Management Policy DMP14. The proposal is contrary to the NPPF (2012), DMP1(b), DMP12, DMP13 and Appendix 2 of the emerging Development Management Policies and Policy TRN34 of the adopted UDP 2004.”
Kronen advised the client and project team to prepare a statement and Delivery Servicing Plan for the appeal.
Kronen’s analysis of the reason for refusal, current and emerging Development Plan policies, site visit observations, swept path analysis and suggested mitigation measure in the form of the Delivery Servicing Plan were sufficient for the Planning Inspector to allow the planning appeal.
The planning application reference was 16/0741 and the appeal reference was APP/T5150/W/17/3167857.
The appeal decision letter noted:
“The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on road safety and the effective operation of the estate, with particular regard to parking and servicing facilities.”
The decision ultimately concluded:
“I conclude that the proposed development would not be detrimental to road safety and the effective operation of the estate, with particular regard to parking and servicing facilities. I therefore find no conflict with adopted Policy CP20, the relevant requirements of which are set out above. I also find no conflict with adopted DMP Policies DMP1, which sets out general development criteria including satisfactory access, parking, manoeuvring and servicing; and Policy DMP12, which among other things seeks to ensure that development would not add to on-street parking demand. I also find no conflict with Policy DMP14, which supports local employment generation and seeks to limit the loss of employment sites.
… Therefore, for the reasons given above, and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.”
Contact Kronen Limited using either email@example.com or 020 8541 1139 if your project requires similar support.