Asda New Barnet Committee Report,July 2009

MEETING PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

DATE AND TIME

WEDNESDAY 1 JULY 2009 AT 7.00PM

VENUE BARNET HOUSE, 1255 HIGH ROAD, WHETSTONE N20 0EJ

TO: MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE (Quorum 3)

Chairman: Councillor Eva Greenspan Vice-Chairman: Councillor Maureen Braun

Councillors: Anita Campbell Jack Cohen Wendy Prentice Hugh Rayner Andreas Tambourides Jim Tierney Agnes Slocombe

Substitutes: Jeremy Davies Claire Farrier Anthony Finn Andrew McNeil Jazmin Naghar Sachin Rajput Barry Rawlings Joanna Tambourides Daniel Thomas

David Seabrooke, Democratic Services Manager

Democratic Services contact: Maria Lugangira, Telephone: 020 8359 2761.

___________________________________________________

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DIRECTORATE

________________________________________________________________ To view Agenda papers on the website: http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy

FACILITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Barnet House has access for wheelchair users including lifts and toilets. If you wish to let us know in advance that you will be attending the meeting, please telephone Maria Lugangira on 020 8359 2761. People with hearing difficulties who have a text phone, may telephone our minicom number on 020 8203 8942. All of our Committee Rooms also have induction loops.

Barnet House, 1255 High Road, Whetstone N20 0EJ

LOCATION:

EAST BARNET GAS WORKS, ALBERT ROAD, NEW BARNET

REFERENCE: B/00200/09 Received: 14 January 2009 Accepted: 16 February 2009 WARD: East Barnet Expiry: 18 May 2009 Final Revisions: APPLICANT:

Asda Stores Ltd.

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a mixed use development comprising 211 residential units, supermarket (10,526sqm gross floor space) and additional 1,893 sqm gross non-residential floor space comprising A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurants and cafes) and D1 (non-residential uses), public space, car parking, access and related highways works and associated works.

REFUSE RECOMMENDATION I: That the application be referred to the Mayor for London under Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008. RECOMMENDATION II: Subject to the Mayor for London not calling the application in the Director for Planning, Housing and Regeneration refuse the application for the following reasons: 1. The proposed retail development has not been adequately justified in terms

of Planning Policy Statement 6, London Plan Policy 3D.1 and Policies GTCR1, GTCR2, TCR1 and TCR5 in relation to the sequential approach and adverse impact on designated centres.

2. The proposed scale of retail provision and size of building proposed would

be out of character with the surrounding area and cause material harm to the vitality, character and role of New Barnet town centre contrary to Planning Policy Statements 1 and 6, London Plan policies and Policies GTCR1, GTCR2, TCR1 and TCR5.

3. The proposed building would, by reason of its design, scale, form and siting,

be detrimental to the character, appearance, townscape and quality of the area, contrary to policies GBEnv1, GBEnv2, H16, D1, D2, D4 and D17 of the Barnet Unitary Development Plan (Adopted May 2006), policies 2A.1, 3A.6, 4B.1 and 4B.10 of the London Plan (Alterations and consolidations since 2004) published February 2008 and Government Guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 1.

14

4. The proposed residential accommodation would, by reason of its design and location, fail to provide its future occupiers with an acceptable level of daylight, internal and external amenity space and daylight and would result in

users potentially suffering from unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance from the proposed retail use, to the detriment of their amenities. The proposed accommodation therefore would provide a poor form of development and does not constitute sustainable development, contrary to policies GSD, GBEnv2, D1, D4, D5, H16 and ENV12 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (2006), policies 2A.1, 3A.6, 4A.3 and 4B.1 of the London Plan (Alterations and consolidations since 2004) published February 2008 and Government guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 1 and Planning Policy Statement 3 and Barnet Supplementary Planning Documents Sustainable Design and Construction (June 2007).

5. The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted with this application does not

comply with the requirements set out in Annex E, paragraph E3 of Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS 25). The submitted FRA does not therefore, provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development contrary to PPS25 and Policies 4A.12, 4A.13 and 4A.16 of the London Plan.

6. The development does not include a formal undertaking to provide a

contribution to affordable housing to meet the demand for such housing in the area; or a financial contributions towards the costs of the additional pressure on existing library facilities that would be caused by the development, the extra educational costs arising in the borough as a result of the development; or a financial contribution towards covering the costs of monitoring the necessary obligation, contrary to the London Plan and policies H5, H8, CS2, CS8, IMP1 and IMP2 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (2006) and the Barnet Supplementary Planning Documents Contributions to Library Services from Development (February 2008), Contributions to Education from Development (February 2008), Affordable Housing (February 2007) and Planning Obligations (section 106) (September 2006).

INFORMATIVE(S): 1. The plans accompanying this application are:- 05.057.P_01 Rev B,

05.057.P_03 Rev C, 05.057.P_04 Rev B, 05.057.P_05 Rev B, 05.057.P_06 Rev B, 05.057.P_07 Rev B, 05.057.P_08 Rev B, 05.057.P_09 Rev B, 05.057.P_10 Rev C, 05.057.P_11 Rev C, 05.057.P_12 Rev C, 05.057.P_13 Rev C, 05.057.P_14 Rev B, 05.057.P_15 Rev B, 05.057.P_16 Rev B, 05.057.P_17 Rev B, 05.057.P_18 Rev B, 05.057.P_19 Rev B, 05.057.P_20 Rev B, 05.057.P_21 Rev B, 05.057.P_22 Rev B, 05.057_P23 Rev B, 05.057.P_24 Rev C, 05.057.P_25 Rev B, 05.057.P_52, 05.057.P_53, D1527.L.100 Rev D, D1527.L.200 Rev G, D1527.L.201 Rev G, Planning Statement, Planning Statement Appendices, Environmental Statement Volume 1, Environmental Statement Volume 2 (Appendices), Environmental Statement Volume 3 (Non-Technical Summary), Transport Assessment, Transport Assessment Appendices Volume 1, transport Assessment Appendices Volume 2, Asda New Barnet Travel Plan (Draft), Residential Development New Barnet Travel Plan (Draft), Energy Statement, Statement of Waste Storage and Collection, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Landscape design Statement, Statement of community Involvement, Design and Access Statement, Artists Impressions.

15

1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Relevant National Legislation:

Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) and its supplement

Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3) Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres (PPS6) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13: Transport (PPG13) Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable Energy (PPS22) Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control (PPS23) Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise (PPG24) Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPS25)

London Plan: 2A.1, 2A.8, 2A.9, 3A.3, 3D.1, 3D.2, 3A.1, 3A.2, 3A.5, 3A.9, 3A.10, 3B.1, 3B.2, 3B.11, 3C.1, 3C.2, 3C.3,3C.16, 3C.17, 3C.18, 3C.19, 3C.20, 3C.21, 3C.22, 3C.23, 3C.24, 3C.25, 3D.13, 4A.1, 4A.3, 4A.4, 4A.5, 4A.6, 4A.7, 4A.8, 4A.12, 4A.13, 4A.14, 4A.16, 4A.17, 4A.22, 4A.33, 4B.1, 4B.5, 4B.8, 5A.1.

Relevant Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (18th May 2009): GSD, GMixed use, GBEnv1, GBEnv2, GBEnv3, GRoad Net, GParking, GEmp2, GEmp3, GEmp4, GTCR1, GTCR2, GCS1, ENV14, ENv15, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D9, D11, D22, D24, O13, L13, L14, M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M8, M10, M11, M12, M13, M14, M17, H1, H5, H16, H17, H18, H20, H21, CS3, CS8, CS13, EMP2, TCR1, TCR2, TCR3, TCR5, TCR12, TCR13, TCR21, TCR22, IMP1 and IMP Strategic Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Mayor of London SPG: Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation (March 2008) Mayor of London SPG: Planning for Equality and Diversity in London (October 2007) Mayor of London SPG: Sustainable Design and Construction (May 2006) Sub-Regional Development Framework: North London (May 2006) Mayor of London SPG: Housing (November 2005) Mayor of London SPG: Accessible London: Achieving an Inclusive Environment (April 2004)

Local Supplementary Planning Documents and other corporate guidance Barnet Supplementary Planning Document: Contributions to Education from Development (February 2008) Barnet Supplementary Planning Document: Contributions to Library Services from Development (February 2008) Barnet Supplementary Planning Document: Sustainable Design and Construction (June 2007) Barnet Supplementary Planning Document: Affordable Housing (February 2007) Barnet Supplementary Planning Document: Planning Obligations (Section 106) (September 2006) Planning Brief for British Gas site, Albert Road, New Barnet (March 2000) Barnet's Three Strands Approach A Sustainable Community Strategy for Barnet 2006-2016 London Borough of Barnet Corporate Plan 2007/08- 2010/11

16

Town Centre Floorspace Needs Assessment Study (April 2009)

Relevant Planning History: Application: Planning Number: B/0200/09 Validated: 16/02/2009 Type: APF Status: REG Date: Summary: DEL Description: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a mixed use development

comprising 211 residential units, supermarket (10,526sqm gross floor space) and additional 1,893 sqm gross non-residential floor space comprising A1 (shops), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurants and cafes) and D1 (non-residential uses), public space, car parking, access and related highways works and associated works.

Case Officer: Jo Dowling Consultations and Views Expressed: Neighbours Consulted: 3657 Replies: 1849 Neighbours Wishing To Speak

16

The application was advertised in the local press and on site as a departure from the UDP. 1,828 letters were received objecting to the application and 21 letters were received in support of the application. Of the 1,828 letters of objection, 1,191 were a standard pro forma letter which raised the following concerns: * Increase in traffic. * The size of the development. * Unsympathetic with the areas existing architecture. * Inappropriate housing for the area. * Threat to independent shops and businesses. A full copy of the letter is attached in Appendix 1. A petition of 2,556 signatures was received objecting to the proposal. Of the 637 letters of objection the following concerns were raised: * No need for another supermarket in the area. * Area well served by supermarkets. * Proposal contrary to UDP policy GTCR1 and PPS6. * Increase in traffic in an area that already suffers from congestion. * Current road network is not sufficient to support proposal. * Detract from the neighbourhood. * Proposal would encourage the use of the car. * Difficulties for access for HGV’s servicing existing businesses in Victoria

Road. * Will impact adversely on Sainsburys which has served the area well.

17

* Cumulative impact in traffic terms when taken with the JCoSS proposal and recent high density development in the area.

* Lack of on street parking in the area. * Development is unnecessary and does not meet a local need. * Concern about access for emergency vehicles given potential congestion. * Closure of the end of Victoria Road and the rerouting of traffic through the site

which would delay and complicate journeys for local residents. * Loss of business to small independent retailers and local businesses due to

parking problems. * The proposed store would serve a wide catchments area which would result

in increased car journeys, leading to traffic, congestion, noise, pollution and global warming.

* No demand for 24 hour trading in a residential suburb which would also impact adversely on amenity of local residents.

* Adverse impact upon Victoria Park as a result of noise and light pollution form the development.

* Need for the development is based on false logic. * Adverse impact on existing shops and businesses in New Barnet, East

Barnet, Cockfosters and High Barnet. * Proposal will threaten the essentially residential and village like character of

the area and has the potential to result in an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour.

* No need for 1 and 2 bed flats in an area where many recent developments are not selling/letting.

* The proposed density is inappropriate. * The proposed buildings would be up to 7 stories in height and would be out of

character with the area contrary to policies D1, D2, D3 and D4 of the adopted UDP.

* Overlooking and loss of privacy to residents. * Loss of light to bedrooms and gardens of residents of Elwood Close * Proposal is unsympathetic with the areas existing architecture. * Inadequate on site provision for play areas for children. * Applicants have failed to engage with the local community. * Traffic lights have previously been introduced on Station Road/East Barnet

Road and had to be removed as they caused congestion. * Concern for pedestrian and cyclists safety and as a result the proposal would

be contrary to Policy M12 of the adopted UDP. * There is an existing Asda store in Southgate that can provide for the areas

needs. * Area needs 3-4 bedroom family housing not more flats. * Concern about whether there is the local infrastructure to support the number

of units proposed (e.g. GP provision, school places etc. * Size and scale of the proposed development is out of character in an area of

predominantly Victorian and Edwardian housing. * Proposed development by nature of its bulk would be extremely intrusive and

have an adverse visual impact. * The size of the proposed retail development is disproportionate to need. * Design of the store is out of character with the local area. * Concern for the future viability of Sainsbury’s and what would happen to the

town centre if this site became vacant. * Adverse impact on High Barnet town centre. * Concern for impact on Waitrose at High Barnet and the effect that this might

have on the viability of The Spires if trade were to be lost to Asda. * Impact from deliveries to a store of this size.

18

* Noise and disturbance from early morning/night time deliveries.

* Concern over the size of vehicles servicing the store and the impact this will have on the local road network.

* The site would be better used for family housing. * Support for redevelopment of the site but would wish to see investment in

something for young people such as a recreational area, swimming pool, youth centre or community centre.

* Concern about drainage and potential flooding. * Plans submitted are misleading. * Development does not relate to Victoria Park. * Limited tree planting and landscaping, the masterplan shows planting outside

of the application site. * The streetscape bares no relation to good homezone, pedestrian priority

streetscape design and does not relate to the advice contained within ‘Manual for Streets’.

* The Environmental Statement is invalid at it refers to plans that do not form part of the application.

* The proposals do not fit with the Councils priorities for a cleaner, greener borough.

* Loss of jobs. * Demolition of the 1886 Salvation Army building. * Air pollution and the impact this will have on residents’ health. * Proposed store is larger than necessary to serve local need. * Noise and disturbance from building works. * Proposal would devalue properties. * Lack of consultation by the council on the proposal. * Design of the residential scheme has been predicated by the retail

requirements which have resulted in a poor quality residential proposal. A petition of 2,556 signatures was received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

The destruction of the heart of New Barnet. Would result in traffic gridlock, noise and pollution. Would squeeze out independent shops and businesses. Would result in hundreds more flats. Would result in a characterless ‘Tescoville’ or ‘Asda Anytown’.

Of the 21 letters of support the following comments were made:

The site is shabby and run down and in need of improvement. New Barnet has no character and therefore any change would be for the

good. The proposal should generate section 106 monies for community

improvements which will benefit local residents. Asda have experience of providing high quality development and should

help bring New Barnet into the 21st Century. The proposal will provide much needed residential accommodation. Proposal will lead to redevelopment of a grotty, run down and unattractive

town centre. Proposed public facilities and car parking are much needed in this area.

19

Proposal will deliver much needed diversity to the area.

Without development the area will decline further and deter other businesses.

Proposal will result in the creation of jobs. Will provide choice in the shopping available. Proposal will mean that wont need to journey to Southgate to visit Asda. The principle of a mixed use development is welcomed. Site is contained and secluded and will not result in the demolition of small

shops and houses in East Barnet Road. Provision of a bus terminus for JCoSS is a good idea.

Residents Associations and Amenity Groups Barnet Residents Association have raised an objection on the basis that the proposal will have an impact on High Barnet town centre. They advocate that the proposal is contrary to Chapter 11 of the adopted UDP. They are concerned that it would draw trade from High Barnet thereby affecting the viability of it as a town centre. The Barnet Society objected to the proposals on the following grounds:

Lack of a town centre development framework against which to consider the proposals.

Whilst redevelopment of the site is welcomed the quantum is disproportionate to its context and need.

Location of proposed store would divert trade away from the ‘high street’ resulting in further decline of the centre.

Centre can not support two major food retail stores Number of flats proposed is disproportionately high, mix of houses and

flats should reflect local need. Scale and massing of development is too large for its context. Concern about the quality of new residential accommodation. Proposal would be contrary to Policy H16. Concern that the existing traffic problems will be exacerbated by the

proposals. Barnet Women’s Design Group made the following comments:

The proposal would fail to provide a local, accessible shopping provision required by those without access to a car and with limited mobility.

There is an under provision of wheelchair accessible housing within the development and failure to meet with the requirement for Lifetime Homes.

A greater number of disabled access bays should be provided and sited to prevent unauthorised parking by non-wheelchair users.

Adequately sized step free and accessible toilets and baby change facilities should be provided in public areas across the development.

Insufficient provision of affordable, family sized homes. Inadequate provision of good quality open space and play areas within the

development. Proposal would generate more traffic leading to more congestion, noise

and pollution and greater safety risks for local residents, including future occupiers of the building.

20

Greater attention should be paid to addressing feelings of safety in public

Federation of Residents Associations in Barnet opposed the application. They support the concerns expressed by the local community association regarding increased traffic; excessive size and out of character architecture; lack of proven need and negative impact on existing businesses and jobs; inappropriate housing. In addition they are concerned that large schemes within the borough seem to be considered in isolation. The borough has plans for 35,000 new homes and redevelopment of number or shopping/town centres but there is no overall strategy. There is no overall strategy for the regeneration of New Barnet town centre and there is concern that the impact on the viability of the Spires will not be considered as part of the proposal. They consider that the consultation process for large applications is inadequate and request a 6 week consultation period for comment and the Council to hold public meetings to explain the proposals and take note of the communities concerns. As other Councils have done committee meetings for larger applications should be held in a venue big enough to accommodate local residents and the rules on speaking should be changed to enable more people to address the committee. Leecroft Road Residents Association objected to the proposal on the following basis:

The proposal will have a detrimental impact on Barnet High Street shopping centre and the associated store in The Spires.

It will lead to increased car usage on already congested roads. Proposal is contrary to adopted policy of strengthening existing town

centres and protecting their viability and vitality. New Barnet Community Association/Save New Barnet Campaign objected to the proposals on the following basis:

Asda have failed to demonstrate the need for a new large supermarket as a result the proposal is contrary to policy TCR5 of the adopted UDP.

The proposed store would draw 75% of its trade from existing local businesses, contrary to PPS6 and UDP policy GTCR1.

The proposal would result in a considerable increase in traffic which would be contrary to policies GRoadNet, M11, M12 and M13 of the adopted UDP and PPS1.

Inappropriate housing, there is an oversupply of 1 and 2 bed units and the units are poorly designed.

The buildings are poorly designed and out of character with the locality contrary to policies D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 and D6 of the adopted UDP and PPS1, 3 and 6.

The application is not in accordance with the adopted UDP or the site specific planning brief.

The proposal does not meet the needs and aspirations of the local community.

21

The applicants have failed to undertake sufficient community consultation

in breach of PPS1. Lack of community benefit.

SPACES which represents the residents of Seabright, Puller, Alston and Calvert Roads objected to the proposals in relation to concerns over the impact to Barnet High Street, traffic generation and oversupply of flats. Councillors and MP’s Councillor Robert Rams (ward councillor) objected to the proposal on the following grounds: * Development is not needed and will cause misery for residents. * Additional traffic will exacerbate existing congestion. * Proposal will squeeze out remaining independent shops and businesses as

well as having a knock on effect on neighbouring centres such as East Barnet, Cockfosters and High Barnet.

* The area needs family housing. * Separate studies into retail floorspace need in New Barnet calculate the figure

to be between 6-800sqm, five times less than the 3,906sqm proposed by this development.

Councillor Duncan Macdonald (Ward Councillor for High Barnet) objects to the proposal on the following grounds:

Excessive increase in traffic. Asda proposals provide far more retail space than is required. The proposed housing is not of the type required; there is a need for

affordable family homes. The proposals will cause a threat to existing businesses in both New

Barnet and High Barnet. The viability of Waitrose in High Barnet and many smaller retailers will be threatened.

Theresa Villiers MP, Member of Parliament for Chipping Barnet advised that many of her constituents have contacted her to set out their opposition to the proposals and that she shares their concerns for the following reasons:

Increased levels of traffic in an area that is tightly constrained. Size of the proposed store in this location. Concern over the impact on exiting local retailers. Proposed development is out of character in an area characterised by low

rise Victorian and Edwardian buildings. There is an oversupply of flats in the existing area; three and four bed

family homes are needed. Concern that local residents views will not be taken into account.

External Consultees The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) Object to the proposals on the following grounds:

22

Whilst the site has been allocated in the UDP as a mixed use

They are concerned that the scheme could threaten the long term survival of the high street by undermining established shops and services.

The landlocked nature of the site and the layout of the proposal does not lend itself to integrating well with the existing town centre.

The layout results in the creation of traffic islands resulting in the look and feel of a car based scheme which will be further exacerbated by the extensive blank ground floor frontages to the east and west which are likely to result in a hostile environment for pedestrians.

The scheme lacks an underlying architectural idea and has a confused massing strategy.

The proposal puts the needs of residents behind those of Asda e.g. in the access arrangements, circulation space, orientation of units etc.

In conclusion they feel that the scheme is fundamentally flawed and should be refused planning permission. They feel that the Council should bring forward an economic and masterplanning vision for New Barnet’s centre to give developers a clear direction on the roles sites such as this could play. The Environment Agency Objected to the proposals as the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted with the application did not comply with the requirements set out in PPS25 and does not provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risk arising from the proposed development. The Greater London Authority (GLA) Advised that on balance the application does not comply with the London Plan. They made the following specific comments:

The proposed retail development has not been adequately justified in terms of PPS6 or London Plan policy 3D.1. The suitability of the site and the major changes proposed to the town-centre as a whole would be far better assessed through the development plan process or a masterplan for the area.

The provision of housing and principle of mixed-use development on a brownfield, contaminated site is welcomed in relation to London Plan policies 2A.9, 3A.1, 3A.2 and 4A.33.

The creation of new jobs is welcomed in line with policy 3B.11 although further measures are required to ensure compliance with this policy.

The quantum, tenure and bedroom mix of the proposed housing is not in accordance with policy 3A.9 and 3A.10.

Inadequate children’s playspace has been provided contrary to policy 3D.13.

The high density of the proposal is in line with London Plan guidelines, however, given the quantum and mixture of other uses on the site, the proposed residential accommodation appears to suffer from the high-density contrary to the design policies within 3A.3 and 4B.1.

23

The proposal has not demonstrated adequate compliance with inclusive design policy 4B.5.

A more robust and detailed assessment of the proposals compliance policies contained within chapter 4A of the London Plan is required.

The proposal is broadly compliant with policy 4A.14 providing a planning condition is used to secure run off rates. However, the proposal has not taken into account the presence of Pymmes Brook in the design process as required by 4A.16.

The energy strategy is deficient and does not accord with policies 4A.1, 4A.5, 4A.6 and 4A.7.

Besides the level of parking which should be reduced in line with London Plan policy 3C.23, the scheme is broadly supported from a transport perspective, Transport for London require further information and/or commitment to initiatives which will ensure compliance with policies 3C.22, 3C.21, 3C.20 and 3C.25.

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) The HSE is a statutory consultee for developments within the consultation distance of a major hazard installation/complies and pipelines (in this case the gasometer and gas pipes in the operational area at the rear of the application site). The HSE assessment indicates that the risk of harm to people at the proposed development is such that they advise that there are sufficient reasons, on safety grounds, for advising against the granting of planning permission in this case. London Borough of Enfield No comments received. London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority The proposal would add an additional volume of traffic to this area. Station Road/East Barnet Road is used as a main route for fire brigade appliances to attend areas to the eastern part of Barnet fire stations ground and it allows appliances from this station to attend the adjoining fire stations ground of Southgate. The increase in traffic associated with this development as well as the increased traffic from JCoSS will affect the attendance times of fire appliances attending incidents using this route. The instillation of traffic signals at the junction of East Barnet Road/Albert Road will also add to the increase in attendance times for fire brigade vehicles. Concern has also been raised with the accessibility of the development by fire brigade vehicles.

Metropolitan Police (Crime Prevention Design Advisor) No objections.

National Grid (Engineering Services) No objection but a request that it be noted that there is a low and medium pressure main crossing the site and this would need to be diverted as a result of the proposal.

National Grid (Property Holdings Ltd)

24

No objection, subject to the existing vehicular means of access to the rear of the site (which is still under the ownership of National Grid and currently still used for operational purposes) is not fettered by the proposal.

Natural England No objections subject to a request that the proposed natural environmental enhancements outlined in Chapter 7 of the Environmental Statement are delivered through the use of planning obligations/conditions. Thames Water Thames Water has no objection on the grounds of capacity. The foul sewerage system in the general area was substantially upgraded in 1995 and the proposals can be accommodated within the system. Transport for London In summary, TfL supports the proposal in principle provided the following issues are resolved: * reduction in the level of parking to comply with London Plan Policy 3C.23; * provision of cycle parking for the retail element of the development plus

shower and change facilities for staff; * footway improvements; * a contribution towards upgrading bus stops to accessibility standards; * junction capacity improvements; and * additional traffic modelling data. If planning permission is granted they request conditions requiring the submission of a construction logistics plan; delivery and servicing plan and full versions of the travel plan be attached. Internal consultees Highways Group They advised that subject to a number of conditions and contributions towards off site highways improvements they have no objection to the proposed development. Their comments are covered in more detail within the main report. Environmental Health Section They recommended a number of conditions with regards to contaminated land and noise and fumes. Greenspaces Section They advised that the design of the development is very insular and does not look to integrate into the surrounding area in particular the park. They raised concerns about the proposed play areas and the proximity of the development to a line of mature poplars that run along the boundary of the site. Their comments are covered in more detail in the main report. Housing Section 63 of the proposed 211 units would be affordable (44 for social rent/19 intermediate) which would equate to an on site provision of 30%. The mix of units are as per the percentages in the affordable housing SPD and the quantum as agreed in pre-application discussions. Therefore, there are no objections to the proposal. Urban Design Section

25

They looked at the form, scale and massing, proportions of buildings, component

parts, spacing, layout and original plot sizes, materials and style which correspond to the local characteristics of this part of Barnet. In conclusion they felt that this character was not represented in this development. Furthermore, although stylistically the proposals represent a current architectural style which has an identity of its own there is no correspondence or link with local identity. Their comments are covered in more detail in the main report. Date of Site Notice: 26 February 2009 2. PLANNING APPRAISAL The application site is located to the north west of East Barnet Road/Victoria Road, it comprises an area of approximately 2.43 hectares (6 acres) and until recently the majority of the site formed part of the New Barnet Gas Works. Until it was recently removed the site was occupied by a large two storey building (a former call centre) and associated storage compounds. A smaller single storey building (the former staff social club) is located adjacent to the south western boundary and an electricity sub station in the north western corner. The remaining open area around the site was used for staff parking. The buildings were previously occupied by British Gas who have consolidated their operations to the rear of the site and vacated the buildings. The majority of buildings on the site have now been demolished and the site is currently vacant. The site is relatively level. To the north of the site is an elevated pedestrian walkway (approx 3-4m above ground level) which crosses the site from east to west and provides a safe pedestrian route over the railway lines between Victoria Recreation Ground (to the east) and Cromer Road (to the west). This is a public right of way. To the north of this is the remaining gas works site onto which operations have been consolidated which includes an operational gas holder and Transco depot. To the south west the site is bordered by the east coast main railway line which is elevated at this point. Victoria Recreation Ground is located to the east of the site and there is a mixture of low rise commercial and residential properties to the south west of the site along Albert Road. The site also includes nos 2-8 Albert Road and 1-5 Victoria Road. The site excludes nos. 7-11 Victoria Road (a currently vacant site) where planning consent was recently granted at appeal for the erection of a new three storey building comprising 392sqm Class A1 floorspace at ground floor and basement level and 2 residential flats at first and second storey level. The eastern and western arms of Albert Road run either side of these properties with Victoria Road running along the front boundary effectively creating an ‘island’ of units set within the road network. Nos 1-5 Victoria Road form a short terrace of two storey Victorian properties which are characterised by commercial/retail uses at ground floor with residential above. No. 4 Albert Road is the Salvation Army Hall built in 1886. The remaining buildings (nos. 2, 6 and 8) consist of a mixture of architectural styles characteristic of in-fill development. They are all currently in commercial use. Access

26

The site is accessed via Albert Road which in turn is accessed off East Barnet Road/Victoria Road. The present access arrangements require that vehicles entering the site use the eastern arm of Albert Road whilst those exiting may use

either arm. The site is located approximately 0.5km to the north east of New Barnet railway station and 1.5km to the north west of Cockfosters London Underground Station and the A11 Cockfosters Road. A total of seven bus routes are located within a 500m radius of the site, providing services to Cockfosters, New Barnet and Edgware Station. This results in a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) score of between 2 and 3 for the site (on a scale where 1 is low and 6 is high). Surrounding area: The site is situated immediately north of New Barnet town centre which is designated as a district centre in the adopted UDP. To the south of the site is Victoria Road which consists of primarily residential properties but includes some commercial properties such as shops and offices at its western end. The majority of the town centre retail facilities are situated in East Barnet Road. Victoria Recreation Ground is situated to the east of the site and is identified as a local park in the adopted UDP. It is also one of the boroughs Premier Parks. This public open space includes a children’s playground, tennis courts and bowling green. A number of footpaths run through the park linking the adjoining residential area with New Barnet town centre. The surrounding residential areas are characterised by low rise Victorian and Edwardian housing. Further north is the Bevan estate (consisting of Hertford Road, Hertford Close, Westbrook Square and Westbrook Crescent) which was built in the 1950’s and consists of predominantly two storey semi-detached houses. Proposals The application is for the demolition of exiting buildings and the erection of a mixed use development comprising the following elements:

211 residential units A supermarket with a gross floor area of 9,045 sqm Additional non-residential floorspace comprising A1 (shops), A2 (professional

and financial services), A3 (restaurants and cafes) and D1(non-residential uses)

Landscaping and public space Car parking Access and related highways works

Residential Units: 211 residential units are proposed consisting of: Unit size Number 1 bed 56 2 bed 106 3 bed 49 Total 211

Of these 63 units would be for affordable housing broken down in the following way:

27

Unit size Social Rented Intermediate 1 bed 12 6 2 bed 12 10 3 bed 20 3 Total 44 19

The residential units will be situated in eight smaller blocks above and adjacent to the proposed supermarket with varying heights up to a maximum of seven storeys as detailed below (and on the plan attached in Appendix 2):

Blocks B and C to the south of the main building would be four storeys high and comprise of retail uses at ground floor with residential above. A total of 33 units would be provided within these blocks.

Block D is located along the eastern elevation of the store and would face Victoria Recreation Ground albeit separated from the park by an access road. The residential units would be four storeys high stepping up to five storeys. A total of 33 units would be provided within this block.

Blocks E and F are four (E) and five (F) storeys high and sit to the north of the main building adjacent to the access ramp to the residential car parking area. These blocks are purely residential and provide amenity space and childrens play area for residents on a podium at ground floor level. A total of 43 units would be provided within this block.

Block G above the main entrance to the store and customer cafe comprises five floors of residential within a seven storey block. A total of 30 units would be provided within this block.

Block H sits within the final two floors of the main retail building which extends up to seven storeys in height. Amenity space including children’s play area would be provided on the roof. A total of 72 units would be provided within this block.

Parking for the residential scheme would be provided within a basement car park under the main retail block. Amenity space would be provided through a combination of private balconies, podium level open space and roof top gardens. Supermarket: A new supermarket for Asda is proposed within the ground/first and second floors of the main building. The store will form the centre block of the development with the residential elements wrapping around and above. The store entrance is to be sited on the southern elevation of the block, leading into a public space to the front of the store. The ground floor would consist of the main floor sales area, customer restaurant, covered service yard and warehouse. The first floor would consist of a staff accommodation with the remainder of the area being a void over the main sales area and service yard. The second floor would be a void. The proposed supermarket would have a gross floor area of 9,045sqm (including all floorspace relating to the store, the covered service area and the travaletor). The covering letter which accompanies the planning application suggests a net floor area of 3,906 sqm, but the planning statement quotes a figure of 3,975sqm total net sales area. It is assumed that the larger net sales floorspace is correct. To put this in context the Tescos store at Colney Hatch Lane had a gross floor area of 7,593sqm and a net sales area of 4,212 sqm prior to its recent extension.

28

Two levels of customer parking are to be provided immediately above the store on floors three and four. These will be accessed via a ramp from ground floor level which in turn will be accessed off the new access road on the western side of the site adjacent to the rail line. 420 parking spaces are proposed. Other retail uses: The ground floors of Blocks B and C and part of the ground floor unit for Block A will provide a further five retail units independent of the main store. These units will provide an additional 1,059sqm gross of retail floorspace. The applicant has applied for flexible A1, A2 and A3 use for these units to maximise the opportunities for letting. Community Use: The proposal would result in the demolition of the existing Salvation Army hall on Albert Road. Whilst it is not clear from the application documentation, the plans show that Block A would provide replacement facilities over two floors within a dedicated unit. The floorspace of the current hall is 313sqm gross, the replacement floorspace would be 834sqm. A surface car park would be provided to the rear of block A which would provide a total of 10 space (2 of which would be to disabled standards). Eight of the spaces would be for the D1 use with the remaining two spaces allocated to the ground floor retail unit within this block. Landscaping and Public Open space: At the rear of the site Block E and Block F will have direct access to an area of amenity space which will consist of an area of soft landscaping and children’s play area. The residents of Blocks D, G and H will have access to a rooftop amenity area which will consist of areas of soft landscaping and a children’s play area. An area of hard surfacing with planting is proposed to the front of the store which will create a public square/store forecourt. A further area of hard surfacing and planting is proposed to the front of Nos. 7-11 Victoria Road which will again create a public square. Further soft landscaping is proposed around Blocks E, D and F and along some of the boundaries. Car Parking: The parking for the supermarket will be provided immediately above the store on floors three and four. These will be accessed via a ramp from ground floor level which in turn will be accessed off the new access road on the western side of the site adjacent to the rail line. 420 parking spaces are proposed of which 15 would be to disabled standards and 15 would be for parent and child parking. The parking for the residential units will be provided in a basement car park which will be accessed via a ramp located between blocks E and F which in turn will be accessed off the new access road. 211 parking spaces are proposed of which 23 would be to disabled standards. In addition to this there would be surface car parks to the rear of Block A and Block B which would provide a further 15 parking spaces (10 to the rear of Block A and 5 to the rear of Block B) for the retail units and community use within these blocks. The total amount of parking proposed at the site is 646 parking spaces.

29

Access and related highways works: It is proposed to alter the access arrangements to the site in the following ways:

Widen the western arm of Albert Road to provide two way access for vehicles to the site.

Close the section of Victoria Road between the eastern and western arms of Albert Road to all vehicles except those delivery vehicles servicing adjacent shops.

Ban the right turn onto East Barnet Road from Approach Road. Install traffic lights on East Barnet Road at the junction with Albert Road. Improvements to bus stops. Install three new Puffin crossing facilities and widen footpaths and improve

pedestrian linkages between the site and the town centre. Improvements are also proposed at the Plantagenet Road/Station Road junction to formalise the right turn arrangements. Material Planning Considerations

Policy context Suitability of the site for a retail development of the nature proposed

having regard to local and national retail and town centre planning policy. Impact on traffic and transportation and compliance with PPG13. Whether the proposal is consistent with the objectives of PPS3 to provide

a high quality mix of housing in suitable locations. The extent to which the proposed development would, secure a high

quality of design, having regard to PPS1, development plan policies and current good practice on design.

Impact of the development on residents living conditions with particular reference to noise, disturbance and loss of privacy

Policy Context The development plan for the area includes the Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London Consolidated with Alterations since 2004 (the London Plan) and the adopted London Borough of Barnet Unitary Development Plan 2006 (the UDP). Section 1 of this report lists the relevant sections of Government guidance in the form of Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPG) and Planning Policy Statements (PPS). In addition to which the Government Advice note ‘By Design- Urban design in the planning system: towards better practice’ and ‘Planning for town centres: Guidance on design and implementation tools’ are considered relevant. The London Plan

30

Policy 3A.2 expects UDP policies to exceed the provisional homes targets for individual Boroughs and to identify new sources of supply, having regard to redevelopment in town centres and suburban heartlands, amongst others. Policy 3A.5 also looks to policies to ensure that new developments offer a range of housing choices, houses are built to Lifetime Standards and 10% are designed for or easily adaptable for wheelchair users. The affordable housing target, set out under Policy 3A.9, includes a requirement for a 70/30% split between social and intermediate housing and for Boroughs to take account of the Mayor’s strategic target of 50% provision for affordable homes. Paragraph 3.268 recognises the value of more and

high density development in levering resources for comprehensive town centre renewal, as part of mixed use redevelopment and expansion Paragraph 3.269 identifies five broad types of town centres in London, which include District, Local and Neighbourhood centres. In guiding locations for retail and leisure activity, Policy 3D.2 expects UDP policies to identify capacity to accommodate retail development following a sequential approach, should a need be established and encourages additional convenience good capacity in smaller centres of appropriate scale, especially District centres, to secure a sustainable pattern of retail provision. Policies should additionally relate the scale of retail, commercial and leisure development to the size and role of a centre and its catchments. Appropriate development on sites in town centres in the network is encouraged and provision made for edge of centre sites, should central sites not be available. Table A1.1 lists the Town Centre classifications; New Barnet is classified as a District centre. Policy 3C.2 looks to match development to transport capacity and requires developments with significant transport implications to include a Transport Assessment and a Travel Plan. Boroughs are also expected to ensure that safe, convenient, accessible and direct pedestrian access is provided from new developments to public transport modes. Under Policy 4B.1, the Mayor directs Boroughs to seek developments that are attractive to look at and, where appropriate, inspire, excite and delight. Policy 4A.3 is concerned with achieving high standards of sustainable design and construction, while Policy 4B.8 asks that proposed development should respect local context and communities Policy 4B.9 expects all large scale development to be of the highest quality design. London Borough of Barnet UDP (2006) The London Borough of Barnet UDP was adopted in May 2006 and contains local planning policies for Barnet which, together with the London Plan, form the development plan for the application site The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 replaces the former development plans with Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and Local Development Frameworks (LDF). The latter comprises Local Development Documents (LDD) and Development Plan Documents (DPD). The Local Development Documents will contain the Council’s policies relating to the development and use of land within Barnet. The adopted UDP (2006) has been

saved for an initial period of three years (in Barnet’s case up to the 18th May 2009), while it is progressively replaced with the emerging Local Development Documents. Following an assessment of the UDP policies that have been saved it is recommended that 52 policies out of the 234 in the UDP are deleted. All the retail policies and all housing policies apart from the ones relating to lifetime homes and wheelchair housing (which have been superseded by the policies within the London Plan) have been saved.

31

The emerging Core Strategy Issues and Options Paper were subject to a public consultation from 30 June to 29 September 2008, with a Preferred Options Paper scheduled for late 2009. As this document is at a preliminary stage, it is not a material consideration in relation to the current proposal.

Policy GBEnv2 is one of a number of strategic policies in Part I of the UDP. It expects new development to make a positive contribution to improving the quality of the urban environment in Barnet. To this end, key urban design principles such as architectural quality and sustainability are to be given proper consideration. Under Policy 2.A1 of the London Plan the council encourages the reuse of previously developed land and existing buildings wherever possible and Policy GMixedUse advocates the encouragement of proposals which incorporate a mix of uses within buildings or areas in town centres or other appropriate locations. Under the movement policies the Council will treat the impact of new development on the movement of people and goods as an important consideration when considering planning applications. Modes of travel which cause the least environmental damage are encouraged. Increasing the housing stock in the Borough is the preserve of Policy 3A.2 of the London Plan (which replaces Policy GH1). With regard to housing, the plan seeks to deliver 17,780 additional homes over the plan period 1997-2016 through allocating sites in the UDP; redevelopment of existing sites; conversions; infill development and bringing empty homes back into use. This is set out in Policy H1. The application site is identified in the UDP as an allocated site (H10) that could bring forward a mixed use residential, office, retail and leisure based development. Policy H5 sets an indicative target of 50% affordable homes on developments exceeding thresholds of 0.4 hectares or over ten units. Chapter 11 of the UDP is devoted to town centres and retailing. It recognises that the Borough’s designated centres, including District centres, have a special role to play in the many aspects of life for borough residents. In maintaining their viability and vitality, the Council’s strategy includes regeneration of designated centres by encouraging redevelopment of vacant and underused sites for appropriate town centre uses, most notably at Brent Cross/Cricklewood. Table 11.1 identifies New Barnet as a District Centre. New retail, office and leisure uses are directed to the hierarchy of centres, under Policy TCR1, which also expects proposals to be of a scale appropriate to the role and character of the centre and its catchment. Transport policies and proposals are guided by the objectives of encouraging major new development proposals to locate in areas where good public transport exists and to minimise the number and severity of transport related accidents, amongst others. Thus, Policy M1, looks to locate major new developments where good public transport is or can be made available and access is convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities. Under Policy M17 developments generating heavy goods traffic will be expected to locate where adequate access, loading and parking for HGVs is available.

Edge of centre developments are expected to comply with the criteria listed in Policy TCR5, which covers need for development, sequential approach to site selection, impact on the viability and vitality of any exiting centre and accessibility to the existing centre. The Plan recognises that District Centres provide convenience goods and services for local communities. Map 11.1 illustrates the network of centres across the Borough.

32

Table 11.3 and the Proposals Map identify the site as a potential site for mixed use residential, offices, retail and leisure. A planning brief that was adopted in 2000 lists the uses expected on the site and lists a range of criteria which are intended to integrate the site into the existing town centre and to ensure appropriateness of the scale and nature of the scheme.

Chapter 3 of the UDP is concerned with environmental resources including pollution control and energy efficiency, amongst other matters. It expresses the need for applicants to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in appropriate cases. The supporting text recognises that there may be concerns regarding the impact of proposals which might not fall within the scope of the EIA regulations but due to their nature, scale or local circumstances would require to demonstrate the nature of impacts. Energy efficiency concerns are tackled through the London Plan (which replaces Policies ENV1 and ENV2) which expect development to have regard to the principles of energy efficiency. This is reinforced through an adopted SPD which requires a development of the scale proposed to incorporate and enable 20% of its total predicted energy consumption to be from renewable energy sources. Policies ENV9 and ENV10 are concerned with securing development that would limit the potential for flooding. Planning Brief In 2000 a planning brief was prepared in readiness for the disposal of the site. The planning brief went through formal consultation and was adopted by the Council for planning purposes in March 2000. The Planning brief split the site into 2 parts. On the northern part the Brief expected B1/Residential while the larger southern section was considered more suitable for Residential/ B1/ Leisure/Hotel/Community facilities and Retail uses. The planning brief advocates a comprehensive redevelopment of the site. The brief acknowledges that the southern part of the site falls with the edge of centre definition provided by PPS6 and advocates that uses such as offices, leisure and retail facilities should be located as close as possible to existing town centre facilities. It does not provide details as to the quantum’s of use that would be considered appropriate. It concludes that the uses proposed for the brief site should reflect central and local government policy which seeks to reduce the need to travel; promote public transport and non motorised travel modes; and mixed use developments, direct major travel generators such as leisure development towards town centres; promote forms of development which contribute towards enhancing the attractiveness of existing town centres; resist the loss of employment and facilitate residential development in environmentally suitable locations. Suitability of the site for a retail development of the nature proposed having regard to local and national retail and town centre planning policy.

National guidance on planning for town centres is set out in Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6) and advocates that in looking at sites for development local planning authorities should;

assess the need for development in quantative and qualitative terms; identify the appropriate scale of development; apply the sequential approach to site selection; assess the impact of development on existing centres; and

33

ensure that locations are accessible and well served by a choice of means of transport.

The London Plan reflects the PPS6 sequential approach to identifying preferred locations for retail development. Boroughs are instructed to carry out assessments of capacity of each town centre to accommodate additional retail development appropriate to its role within the network. Where need is established, a sequential approach to identifying suitable sites is expected, and where no town centre sites are available Policy 3D.2 requires provision to be managed on edge of centre sites. The UDP follows a similar approach, insofar as it seeks to direct new retail proposals into the Borough’s centres and regards edge of centre developments as acceptable only in exceptional circumstances, such as in instances where existing centres are incapable of providing good quality retailing opportunities and where the provisions of Policy TRC5 can be met in their entirety. Whilst the site is highlighted in the UDP for a mixed use development including residential, offices, retail and leisure the nature and quantum of the retail element that would be considered appropriate is not detailed. As a result it is necessary to consider the quantative and qualitative needs of the retail elements proposed, considering appropriateness of the scale of the store, looking at whether a sequential approach to site selection has been properly applied and assessing the impact of the development on existing centres in accordance with the tests set down in PPS6 (detailed above) and reflected in Policy TCR1. Need Quantative Need for the Store The application proposes a ‘supermarket’ with a gross external floorspace of 9,045sqm (including service yard and travelator). For the purposes of the quantative need a lower figure of 7,887sqm gross which is also used by the applicant is being used. Five additional retail units with a total gross floorspace of 1,059sqm are also proposed. The sales area of the supermarket would extend to 3,975sqm net (including customer services, lobbies, in store café and circulation areas). The applicant has indicated that 60% of the net sales floorspace would be used for the sale of convenience goods (everyday essential items including food, drinks, newspapers and confectionary) which approximates to around 2,385sqm net of proposed floorspace. Therefore, the remaining 40% (1,590sqm net) would be used for the sale of comparison goods (items not obtained on a frequent basis including clothing, footwear, household and recreational goods). Please note that for the purposes of PPS6 any self service store selling food and non-food goods with more than 2,500sqm of trading floorspaces is defined as a superstore rather than a supermarket. This definition will therefore be used for the purposes of this report. A retail assessment was carried out by the applicants agent Planning Potential (PP) to accompany the application. The assessment was based on a telephone survey across a ‘study area’. The findings revealed a convenience capacity at 2013 of £41.3 million and comparison expenditure forecast to increase to £112 million between 2008 and 2013. The council appointed an independent assessor, NLP, to consider the findings and the NLP critique questioned some of the assumptions adopted but agreed that there was capacity to support the scale of retail floorspace proposed within the northern part of the borough.

34

Conclusion: Therefore in conclusion convenience and comparison floorspace in the region of 2,835sqm and 1,590sqm respectively, expected to be delivered with the new superstore, would help meet the quantative deficiency identified by both PP and by the Town Centre Floorspace Needs Assessment Study (2009) (TCFNAS). The TCFNAS has been developed by Independent Consultants on behalf of the Council to form part of the evidence base for the emerging LDF. What therefore needs to be considered is would a store at New Barnet, of the size and format proposed by the applicant, be appropriate in relation to the sequential approach and impact upon the hierarchy of town centres. In addition to which consideration needs to be given to its scale in relation to New Barnet town centre and its particular catchment. Qualitative Need for the Store PP suggests that the proposed store would attract more trade to New Barnet, improve choice for local residents and help to address the overtrading of the existing Sainsbury’s store at New Barnet. The applicant considers that there is a need to widen national multiple convenience provision in the centre. Independent research confirms that the Sainsbury’s store is trading significantly above benchmark levels and that an additional supermarket should help to relieve this congestion. A new supermarket was also considered to improve choice and attract more expenditure to the area (i.e. expenditure currently spent at other destinations). However, the benefits of the increase in choice and competition need to be balanced against any harm generated by the proposal. The applicant provides additional justification for their scheme in qualitative terms by indicating that currently only 33.6% of the convenience goods expenditure generated by residents in the study area occurs within New Barnet town centre. The key planning issue therefore is the impact of the proposal on nearby centres i.e. New Barnet, Chipping Barnet and Whetstone where trade is currently diverted to. Convenience The convenience impact of the proposed development on Whetstone will mainly be drawn from the Waitrose store on the High Road. The implications of the impact on Whetstone are unclear. Both the applicant and the TCFNA suggest that the proposal is unlikely to harm the centre or cause the closure of Waitrose or other stores. However, the independent assessment suggested that the Waitrose store could be trading about 20% below expected levels. The loss of linked trips to the centre has not been assessed. The convenience impact of the proposed development in Chipping Barnet will mainly be drawn from the Waitrose store in the Spires. The independent sensitivity figures consider that convenience floorspace in Chipping Barnet will trade about 5% below expected levels as a result of the proposed development and therefore, the proposal is unlikely to harm the centre or cause the closure of Waitrose, but the impact on comparison facilities and the implications of the loss of linked shopping trips has not been assessed.

35

The applicant also argues that the development of a store in New Barnet will attract shoppers who do not currently use New Barnet and will provide the opportunity for linked trips which would benefit the wider town centre. However, conversely it must be recognised that there will be a reduction in trade for other designated centres e.g.

Whetstone, Chipping Barnet, Southgate and North Finchley. Objectors point to the range of supermarkets within an easy drive of New Barnet which only serves to confirm the independent findings of a qualitative deficiency. The current lack of variety and quality of choice is resulting in a pattern of shopping that runs contrary to current government policy about reducing car journeys, providing local consumer choice and accessibility for those less able to travel. Conclusion Provision of a suitably sized foodstore in an appropriate location would therefore assist in meeting this qualitative convenience deficiency. An anchor store with sufficient range of choice would also help to claw back trade leaking out of the centre. Comparison The applicants study did not assess where the proposed store would attract its comparison turnover from. However, the Independent Assessment considered that this comparison turnover is likely to be diverted from a large number of stores/shops within and beyond the catchment area, and the impact is likely to be spread thinly. Conclusion Therefore, the comparison related impact is considered to be unlikely to harm the vitality and viability of existing centres, provided the element of comparison sales is restricted to the amount suggested by the applicant (1,590sqm). Scale PPS6 provides guidance on the appropriate scale of development. In the context of development control PPS6 indicates that local planning authorities should require applicants to demonstrate that the development is of an appropriate scale. Furthermore, PPS6 directs local authorities to set indicative upper limits for the scale of development which is likely to be acceptable in particular centres. The adopted UDP does not set limits on development in town centres, although it does state specifically in relation to the New Barnet Gas Works site that any retail development should be appropriate in scale and function (Policy TCR2). The UDP also notes in para 11.2.2 that ‘The scale of retail, commercial and leisure development is a function of the size and role of a town centre and its catchment area, and appropriate development is to be encouraged on sites in town centres listed in the London Strategic Town Centre Network’. The applicants do not consider scale as part of their Planning Statement. New Barnet is defined as a District Town Centre in the UDP and as a District Centre in the London Plan. Annex A of PPS6 provides guidance on the definition of centres. PPS6 suggests that ‘district centres’ will usually comprise groups of shops often containing at least one supermarket or superstore and a range of non-retail services such as banks, building societies and restaurants. Therefore, a significant element of comparison shopping is not considered to be vital to the role of district centres as described by PPS6.

36

The proposed Asda comprises a total net floorspace of 3,975sqm of which 2,385sqm would be convenience floorspace and 1,590sqm would be comparison floorspace. According to the TCFNA New Barnet currently contains some 3,241sqm of net convenience floorspace and 1,845sqm of net comparison floorspace. As such the

proposal would equate to a 74% increase in convenience sales floorspace and an 86% increase in comparison floorspace. Although the increases in sales convenience and comparison floorspace may appear large they need to be viewed in the context of the provision available in other district centres in the Borough. In convenience floorspace terms New Barnet contains the

7th largest quantum of convenience floorspace of the 14 defined district centres within the Borough. If the proposal were constructed New Barnet would become the largest district centre in the Borough in terms of net convenience floorspace. Independent assessors did not consider that this level of convenience floorspace would be out of scale for a ‘district centre’. Therefore, from a retail floorspace perspective, given the centre’s status as a district centre, the proposal should not be considered to be out-of-scale. However, in physical terms the new superstore would introduce a building of quite a different scale to the Victorian/Edwardian terraces and parades within this centre. The design and layout of the store would add to the perception of a retail environment of a different magnitude. The scale of the building would be more akin to the larger commercial blocks on East Barnet Road/Station Road than the tight grained pattern of development that is characteristic of the existing area. A building of some mass is inevitable with a store offering a main food shopping facility. However, the scale of the store proposed is considered to be so out of proportion to the existing centre as to dwarf the current shopping area in physical terms. A store of the size proposed is also considered to physically and functionally shift the focus of the centre to the north. With the range of goods on offer, it has the potential to operate as a stand alone facility. Due to the size of the building and its location deep within the site behind a network of access roads it would be physically and visually separated from the existing centre. Customers would need to descend from the parking areas on the upper floors, exit via the store entrance and then navigate a number of pedestrian crossings before they are able to reach the shops in East Barnet Road. Whilst the distances involved are not extensive, the links are not easy or a particularly welcoming pedestrian environment and are therefore likely to discourage shoppers from venturing out of the main store. Therefore it is considered that with a superstore of the size proposed, offering the range of goods and services planned there would be little incentive for car-borne shoppers to walk to the existing shopping centre. Furthermore, as has been highlighted previously the scale of the building proposed is at odds with the surrounding area. Conclusion: In conclusion it is accepted that there is a qualitative and quantative shortfall in the north of the Borough of both convenience and comparison goods. However, the scale of the store proposed is considered to be out of proportion to the format of the centre as to alienate and dwarf the existing shopping area. The proposal therefore fails against the PPS6 test of securing an appropriate scale of development and would be contrary to Policy 3D.1 of the London Plan and Policies GTCR1, TCR1 and TCR5 of the adopted UDP. Sequential Approach to site selection

37

The sequential approach requires that all options in a town centre are considered before less centrally located sites. The sequential approach requires that locations for new town centre uses are considered in the following order:

First, locations in appropriate existing centres; then Edge of centre locations, with preference given to sites that are or will be

well-connected to the centre; and then Out of centre sites.

In applying the sequential approach to site selection, PPS6 requires applicants to demonstrate flexibility about their proposed business model in terms of scale and format of developments, car parking provision, as well as the scope for dissagregation (dividing up floorspace or the goods sold). Undoubtedly customers find it convenient to shop for non-food goods at the same time as their main food shop. The format of the proposed store appears to be based on Asdas preferred retail business model for this location. However, there could be some flexibility in the offer by departing from their preferred model. Asda does operate a number of different business models. The comparison goods stocked by the proposed store would extend beyond the range of non-food goods normally associated with the weekly food shop. The question therefore has to be posed is whether the range of goods likely to be offered would be necessary for the effective functioning of a store in this location. The extent of comparison goods is fairly large (40%) and therefore there may be the potential for some disaggregation, even if it would involve using one of the other retail units proposed for some type of comparison offer. Equally, the café could be a dispensable adjunct, particularly as the existing centre has a number of similar facilities which could enhance the opportunities for linked trips. In order to meet main and bulk food shopping needs, the Independent Retail Assessment considered it reasonable to assume a minimum store size requirement of 2,000sqm net. Large food store formats that currently fulfil this role range in size from 1,500sqm to 4,400sqm net. It is not considered that a large food format of around 4,000sqm net is the only way that this need can be met and therefore the ability to accommodate a smaller store format needs to be explored. Furthermore, the ability to extend existing food stores within centres should be considered. The applicant undertook a sequential site assessment to consider alternative sites. However, no minimum store size was stated.

When applying the sequential approach it is necessary to consider the area of deficiency or need, and what centres could theoretically meet that need. The TCFNA identifies a quantative and qualitative need for a food superstore in the north and east sub-areas of the Borough. The applicants considered 14 alternative sites within the catchment area (see Appendix 3). If the minimum store size of 2,000sqm net is assumed (the minimum size needed to attract a main and bulk food shopping trips) then the Council has been advised that most of the sites identified would be unsuitable for the proposed use.

38

However, one key site that was identified was the ‘Optex’ site on Victoria Road/East Barnet Road the applicant concluded that the site is not available because it was not in their ownership. However, it would only be possible to accommodate a large food store if the site is assembled and redeveloped comprehensively. In total the site occupies some 1.3 hectares and is located within the Major Retail Frontage of New Barnet. Therefore, if it can be assembled for development it could provide an alternative site. Furthermore, whilst the site may not be available to Asda, Asda are not the only food store operator who can meet the identified need. Therefore, it is not considered that the site should be discounted on the basis of unavailability.

Moreover, there are a number of other sites not covered by the sequential test that have the potential to accommodate retail growth. For example there is the potential for a number of existing stores to extend their stores in Chipping Barnet. Therefore although this opportunity may not available to the applicant, any extensions could make a contribution towards meeting the recognised need for food store development within the catchment area, within a sequentially preferable location. Conclusion: Therefore to conclude whilst the search for alternative sites did not provide any alternatives available to the applicant there are potentially sequentially preferable sites and opportunities available to provide for the identified retail need in another way. Furthermore, there may be scope for the disaggregation of goods and for some flexibility in format. The proposal is therefore considered to fail the PPS6 sequential test and would be contrary to Policy 3D.2 of the London Plan and Policies TCR1 and TCR5 of the adopted UDP. Impact on Existing Centres Both the applicant and the independent assessment confirm that the largest proportion of trade diverted from any single destination will be in New Barnet. The majority of this will be drawn from the Sainsbury’s store. Based on the figures submitted by the applicant and those contained within the Council’s own TCFNA it is considered unlikely that the proposal would cause the closure of the existing Sainsbury store. Furthermore, in terms of other shops and services a retail development of the type proposed could generate additional trade, provided the development generates linked trips. Thus, whilst the proposal would draw additional trade into New Barnet which has the potential to benefit service outlets (such as hairdressers, dry cleaners etc), the format of the store as a ‘one stop shop’ and the complex pedestrian access arrangements could inhibit users exiting the store environs thereby reducing linked trips and adversely affect the retailing profile at the expense of the vitality and character of the area. It is therefore considered that the applicant has under-estimated the impact of the proposed store. In addition to which the impact on other centres is not considered to have been adequately assessed by the applicant e.g. comparison trade diversion and the implications of the loss of linked trips has not been assessed in particular on Chipping Barnet and Whetstone. Finally, the retail studies have shown the need for one store in the north of the borough by locating it on this site it could prevent other sequentially preferable sites from coming forward which could in turn harm the vitality and viability and the Councils aspirations for this and other town centres. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal would deliver the necessary investment for regenerating the application site and beyond, it is not clear whether a more residential led scheme or a store of a smaller scale would not similarly regenerate the site.

39

Impact on traffic and transportation and compliance with PPG13 The proposed site is located to the north of Albert Road on the former British Gas Works site. The site has recently been cleared but prior to this the buildings on the site were used by British Gas as a ‘call centre’ and depot. The site previously contained approximately 6,417sqm gross of office buildings and 264 parking spaces. In total 646 parking spaces are proposed. 211 spaces are proposed for the residential units, 420 spaces are proposed for ASDA store and 15 spaces are proposed for the ancillary retail and D1 use. The site joins the A110 East Barnet Road which is on the Strategic Road Network, at Albert Road. A new junction arrangement is proposed at the junction of Albert Road/ East Barnet Road/Victoria Road. The National Grid currently occupies the area to the north of the site. Parking The site has a PTAL rating of 2/3 and is located at the edge of the New Barnet Town Centre. The Parking Standards set out in the London Borough of Barnet Adopted Unitary Development Plan 2006 which in turn refers to London Plan Parking Standards and are applied as follows for this development: The parking Standards for the residential accommodation is 1 parking space per unit. 211 parking spaces are proposed for the residential use including 10% disabled parking spaces, which is in accordance with the parking standards stated above. The parking Standards for the Food Store over 2,500 RFA / 4,000 sqm GFA is 1 space per 25 sqm - 18 sqm. This would equate to a range of parking provision of 315 – 437 parking spaces. The parking provision for the ASDA Store is 420 spaces which falls within the range, including 15 Parent and Child Spaces and 15 Disabled Spaces. 15 spaces are also being provided for the ancillary retail uses. 10 secure parking spaces for motorbikes will be provided for both the food store and the residential units. The total number of parking spaces on site will be 646 spaces. Parking is being provided at an acceptable level for a development in this location, however, it is considered necessary to carry out a review of the existing waiting restrictions to ensure that the level and type of restrictions are the most appropriate for the locality. The applicant has agreed to pay an initial S106 contribution of £50,000 to review the waiting restrictions and carry out consultation within the area. An additional contribution of up to £200,000 will made towards the implementation of any approved amendments to controls on street. The applicant has agreed that any occupiers of the site would not be able to purchase any type of permit, voucher or similar issued in the area that a property address might otherwise be eligible for as part of the councils ongoing management of the public highway.

40

Cycle Parking

The development is providing a total of 284 cycle parking spaces comprising, 63 cycling spaces for the retail element of the development and 221 cycle spaces for the residential units. This level of cycle parking is in accordance with guidance. Access arrangements

During the pre-application process various options have been tested at the junction of East Barnet Road/Victoria Road/Albert Road. In order to facilitate access to the proposed development it will be necessary to improve the existing junction arrangements in this location. A parcel of land is in ownership of the applicant which allows the possibility of widening the westbound arm of the Albert Road to allow two way traffic and improve pedestrian access by widening the footways. The current proposal includes the removal of the mini roundabout and the introduction of a three arm signal controlled (traffic lights) junction. To maximise the capacity of the junction a short section of Victoria Road (to its junction with East Barnet Road) will be closed, except for emergency access and for servicing the shops, and traffic will be diverted in a loop around Albert Road. Whilst traffic using Victoria Road will have further to travel it is considered that they will incur less overall delay in the future as the local highway network is predicted to operate as well as it would be expected to without the development taking place. The proposed signal controlled junction will incorporate PUFFIN (recognises when pedestrians are waiting to cross) and MOVA technology which allow for dynamic responses to changes in traffic conditions resulting in more affective management of the traffic. Incorporating the Approach Road junction into the design would result in reduction in the capacity so this junction has not been incorporated into the signal controls. It is also proposed to ban the right turn from Approach Road to help maximise the capacity of the proposed signal controlled junction. Currently very few vehicles make a right turn out of Approach Road and there is an alternative route via Margaret Road which can be used. Previous Approach Road Traffic Signals In 2003/2004, traffic signals were installed the junction Approach Road/East Barnet Road and not at the junction of East Barnet Road/Victoria Road/Albert Road which remained as a mini roundabout junction. At that time, the signal controls in this location did not improve the operation of the network and as a result of this the traffic signals were subsequently removed. The proposed signal arrangement that has been submitted as part of this planning application is fundamentally different to the previous signal control scheme and the widening of Albert Road allows the design of an improved junction arrangement. The accompanying modelling work indicates that the proposed junction will operate within capacity.

41

Transport Assessment and Trip Generation The Transport Assessment investigates the trip generation to and from the existing and proposed site. It is recognised that there is permission for an existing commercial use on the site. However, it is noted that currently, the majority of the site is not in use which is reflected in the existing level of traffic generation in the vicinity of the site. An S-Paramics Microsimulation traffic model has been developed for the network on Station Road/East Barnet Road from Plantagenet Road to Margaret Road by SIAS. The model has been validated and shows that with the implementation of the proposed signal controlled junction at Albert Road/East Barnet Road the network is able to cope with the background growth together with the demand from the Superstore and Residential developments. This includes the trips that will be associated with the JCOSS development. In addition to the traffic simulation model the junction has also been assessed using conventional traffic engineering software (Linsig) which has confirmed the feasibility and operational viability of the proposed layout. It should be noted that a roundabout option (with Victoria Road open to traffic) was also examined, and the results of the assessment demonstrated that a roundabout junction would create excessive queues and delays during peak periods. In conjunction with the proposed signal controlled junction, to improve the existing conditions on the surrounding highway network and integrate the development into the area additional S106 Contributions would be required to investigate improvements at the following junctions: ‘Memorial’ Junction (Lytton Road/Station Approach/ Station Road): The traditional junction modelling indicates that capacity maybe an issue in this location. The Applicant has agreed to an initial contribution of £20,000 to carry out feasibility study and detailed design of an approved junction arrangement. If works are required and a scheme is progressed then further contributions of up to £175,000 will be provided to implement and improve junction arrangement at this location. Station Road/A1000 and Lyonsdown Road/A1000 Junctions: The development results in these junctions operating near to capacity therefore a S106 of £10,000 for each junction has been agreed to investigate improvements. Plantagenet Road/Station Road Junction: The implementation of a right turn lane on Station Road into Plantagenet Road is considered to improve the westbound flow of traffic, especially for buses. Banning the right turn out of Plantagenet Road will reduce the queuing that occurs on Plantagenet Road especially during the peak hours. A section 106 of £5,000 has been agreed to cover these works. The implementation of additional waiting restrictions on Station Road will also assist the flow of traffic in this location and this will be progressed as part of the Review of Waiting Restrictions. All the above measures would need to be the subject of further consultation.

42

Section 278/38 Works The proposal includes off-site highways works on East Barnet Road, Albert Road and Victoria Road that will have to be carried out on existing Public Highway. These improvements and the costs of any associated works to the public highway, including reinstatement works, would be borne by the applicants and would be completed under a Section 278 Agreement and a Section 38 Agreement of the Highways Act 1980. The development is located on or near a Strategic Road Network (SRN)/Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and is likely to cause disruption during construction. The Traffic Management Act (2004) requires the Council to notify Transport for London (TfL) for implementation of construction works. The developer is expected to work with the Council to mitigate any adverse impact on public highway and would require TfL’s approval before works can commence.

Public Realm Improvements The development will result in increased pedestrian activity generated by both the store and the residential developments. Improvements to the public realm including lighting, signing, crossing facilities and improvements to the pedestrian environment under the railway bridge on Station Road are required to improve the locality. The applicant has agreed to contribute £50,000 to Public Realm Improvements between the junction of Margaret Road and the ‘Memorial’ Junction. Station Road/East Barnet Road are currently monitored by CCTV coverage. The proposed new junction arrangements and the widening of Albert Road will necessitate the repositioning of the existing CCTV unit located on the corner of Albert Road/East Barnet Road/Victoria Road. The relocation of the CCTV unit will be subject to the final junction arrangement however this may require an additional camera to maintain the existing level of coverage that is currently achieved within New Barnet Town Centre. This will be included within the scope of the Section 278 work. The applicant has agreed to include £35,000 for an additional CCTV unit to be installed in the vicinity of the site (outside the scope of the S278 works). This will be included within the S106 contribution. The exact position of this unit will be confirmed following discussions with the council and the police. Bus Stop Improvements and Access to Public Transport Analysis within the Transport Assessment confirms that there is sufficient capacity on the public transport network to accommodate the additional trips by public transport from the development. There will also be capacity for further bus and rail trips resulting from the implementation of the Travel Plans and a reduction in car borne trips to meet the targets set within the Travel Plans.

A S106 contribution of £10,000 for each of the four bus stops in the vicinity of the site is proposed. This will allow the bus stops to be upgraded and to allow low floor kerbing at these bus stops.

43

Improvements to the public realm and pedestrian environment, as mention in the previous section, will also improve access to the public Transport network.

Servicing and Refuse Arrangements The service vehicles will use a dedicated service access and the proposed arrangement for the refuse collection and delivery services are acceptable. Footbridge/Tunnel (Cromer Road to Victoria Recreational Ground) There is an existing Footbridge/Tunnel to the north of the site that connects Cromer Road to the Victoria Recreational Ground. Approximately half the length of the Footbridge/Tunnel falls within the ownership of applicant and they have agreed to upgrade this section of the footbridge to allow pedestrian and cycle use, including a ramp on the eastern side. In order that the remainder of the bridge can be upgraded to an equivalent level the applicant has agreed a £200,000 S106 Contribution to improve the section of the Footbridge/Tunnel that falls outside the application site. JCoSS Bus/Coach Facilities It is proposed to provide a bus stopping facility with the site to accommodate coaches/buses for the new JCoSS School currently being built to the north of the site off Westbrook Crescent. There will be a direct pedestrian route from the bus stopping facility to the school via the Victoria Recreational Ground. This will remove the need for coaches/buses related to the JCoSS development using the New Barnet Station area and will reduce the walk time for pupils. Home Shopping Home shopping facilities are proposed to operate from the store. Travel Plan A robust Residential and Retail Travel Plan will be required to reduce trips to the site by the private car and encourage non car modes such as walking, cycling and public transport. Draft Residential and Retail Travel Plans have been submitted and agreed in principal by TfL. Section 106 Highway Contribution A total Section 106 contributions of £810,000 is required to upgrade the environment in the vicinity of the site and to provide measure to mitigate highway issues and facilitate a development of this size in this location as follows:

Waiting Restriction Review - Feasibility and consultation - £50,000 - Detailed design and Implementation up to £200,000

Bus Stop Improvements - £10,000 for each of the 4 bus stops in the vicinity of the site - £40,000;

CCTV/lighting/signing upgrade - £35,000;

44

Public Realm Improvements - Non Section 278 works between Margaret

Foot Tunnel (Cromer Road to Victoria Recreational Ground) upgrade - Improvements to the section of foot tunnel from Cromer Road to the development site - £200,000;

‘Memorial junction’ - Initial feasibility - £20,000 + Detailed design and implementation - £175,000;

Plantagenet Road - Right turn lane and banned right turn out including TRO - £5,000;

A1000/Lyonsdown Road and A1000/ Station Road - Junction improvements (£10,000 for each junction) - £20,000;

Travel Plan Monitoring - £15,000 (Retail £10,000 + Residential £5,000).

Conclusion The proposed scheme has implications on the surrounding highway network and the considerations are finely balanced. It is considered that with the proposed junction improvements at East Barnet Road/Albert Road/Victoria Road and the surrounding highway network, the level of vehicular and pedestrian trips generated by a development of this size can be accommodated on the network subject to a number of conditions and the Section 106 requirements being met. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with development plan policy including UDP policies M1, M2, M4, M6, M7, M13, M14 and M17 and Policy 3C.2 of the London Plan. Parking would comply with national and local planning objectives. The scheme would accord with the requirements of PPG13.

Whether the proposal is consistent with the objectives of PPS3 to provide a high quality mix of housing in suitable locations The Councils "Three Strands Approach", sets out a vision and direction for future development, regeneration and planning within the Borough. The approach, which is based around the three strands of Protection, Enhancement and Growth, aims to protect Barnet's high quality suburbs and deliver new housing and successful sustainable communities whilst protecting employment opportunities.

The Second strand 'Enhancement' recognises that sucssesful town centres are essential to the borough's propserity and community well being. Town centres provide opportunities for sensitive enhancment and they will therefore become focal points for sustainable development. the UDP emphasis the need to sustain and promote the key role performed by town centres and give priority, where appropriate, to development opportunities arising in such locations. The application site is recognised by the Council as a site that would fall within this strand and help to deliver the boroughs housing targets and help improve New Barnet town centre. Mix of housing As a vacant, previously developed site close to a town centres and allocated within the UDP, residential use on the application site is considered appropriate and would help contribute towards the Borough’s market and affordable housing needs.

45

Flats instead of houses allow for increased density of units and are considered to be

a suitable format in a mixed use scheme close to a town centre. While the units would mainly be one and two bedrooms, the proposal also includes three bedroom units (23%). The number and mix of affordable homes proposed is considered to help achieve the sort of mixed community urged by PPS3. The applicant has indicated that 10% of the units would be accessible. However, Policy 3A.5 of the London Plan requires that 10% of the units are wheelchair accessible and all the units are built to lifetime homes standards. The 30% affordable units comply with the range expected from UDP Policy H5, but falls short of the London Plan’s recommended provision of 50%. Arguments have been submitted by the applicant that due to the costs of decontamination a higher provision of affordable housing would affect the viability of the scheme. However no detailed evidence such as a financial appraisal under the three dragon’s toolkit has been submitted to support this argument. Design Quality As outlined previously the proposed development would be accessible by different modes of transport. The site is well located for future residents to take advantage of the existing public transport network for linking with other centres and employment areas. They would additionally have access to a range of services and community facilities within easy walking or cycling distance. However, the plans indicate that amenity/play space will be provided in the form of private balconies and open amenity space on the ground floor between blocks E and F and on the roof of the main building. Both areas would include formal play areas. Policy 3D.13 of the London Plan and the Mayor’s adopted SPG on play space requires a provision of 10sqm of usable playspace per child to be provided on site. 200sqm of children’s playspace is proposed which would result in a shortfall in provision of 830sqm. Furthermore, there are concerns about the suitability of both locations. The applicant cites the adjacency of Victoria Recreation Ground as to why such a shortfall is not necessarily an issue. However, the layout of the scheme does not provide easy access to Victoria Recreation Ground nor are any contributions proposed to upgrade/improve facilities within the park to compensate for the additional usage. The residential density for the proposed scheme would equate to 336 habitable rooms per hectare (HRH) or 86 dwellings per hectare (DPH). The proposed density is considerably higher than the density of the surrounding area, however it is considered given the presence of the park, the railway, the proximity of the town centre and the nearby train station, the impacts of the high density can be relatively well assimilated. The density matrix of the London Plan (Table 3A.2) classifies the area as ‘urban’ – areas within predominantly dense development such as terraced houses, mansion blocks a mix of different uses and typically buildings of two to four storeys, located within 800m walking distance of a district centre. A density range of 200-450 HRH is considered appropriate. The proposed density falls towards the bottom of this range and is therefore considered to be within the appropriate range identified by the guidance within the London Plan and would meet UDP standards and the objectives of PPS3 to make effective use of previously developed land.

46

However, with the flats sited as they are relative to the store, they are considered to be poorly laid out with the majority of flats being single aspect and accessed via long corridors. Many of the flats would have limited outlook. The GLA have also raised concerns regarding the size of units proposed as many of the units appear very small with combined kitchen/diner/living rooms and many with no private amenity

space. There is little in the layout or format of the proposals to suggest that the scheme would deliver anything other than a building and residential environment of poor quality. Therefore the proposal is not considered to provide a residential environment of the quality advocated by PPS3 and expected through the policies in the London Plan and adopted UDP. The extent to which the proposed development would, secure a high quality of design, having regard to PPS1, development plan policies and current good practice on design Whilst the applicants describe a declining shopping environment this needs to stand alongside objectors descriptions of a village type atmosphere to the centre. However, all parties agree that there is scope for improvement and enhancement in a way that would attract more custom back into the centre and stem the continuing flow of expenditure out. The redevelopment of the New Barnet Gas Works has the potential to provide the impetus for a revival of the centres fortunes and this could be via the provision of an element of retail. However, it would need to be of an appropriate size and designed and laid out in a way to maximise linkage with the existing town centre. Given the edge of centre location of the site, the railway line, busy road network and Victoria Recreation Ground it is acknowledged that there is no easy solution to integrating new development and in particular new retail premises within the existing town centre. For a superstore of the size proposed to function effectively with the existing centre it requires good quality and attractive links, which this particular layout is unable to deliver. PPS1, PPS3, PPS6 and good practice documents issued by the Government provide guidance and checklists for key principles essential to creating inclusive, sustainable and high quality designs and environments. The success of a development involves more than addressing the constituent parts of a design process. It requires an imaginative and comprehensive approach to drawing together elements that contribute to the creation of a high quality scheme. The current proposals are not considered to achieve this. The layout of the proposal appears to have been predicated by the operational needs of the superstore. It lacks interest and because of the extensive coverage of the site by buildings and circulation routes the development would be devoid of quality external spaces and opportunities to ameliorate this by maximising its adjacency to Victoria Recreation Ground have been missed. The concerns stated in the previous section about the residential element of the scheme apply to the scheme as a whole, particularly as the flats would play a large role in framing the external appearance of the buildings. The proposed main building would be of some considerable size and unrelenting scale. A large site such as this requires a redevelopment scheme of some distinction and quality if it is to deliver the benefits of its regeneration to the wider area. The current proposals are considered to fail to achieve this. It is therefore considered that the proposal does not achieve the high quality design outcomes advocated by Government and the adopted development plan policies.

47

Impact of the development on residents living conditions with particular

reference to noise, disturbance and loss of privacy Local residents have raised concerns about noise, disturbance, overbearing impact and loss of privacy. However, one of the benefits of the site is its isolation from adjoining residential properties being bounded by the railway line to the west, the remaining operational gas works site to the north, Victoria Recreation Ground to the east and Victoria Road/East Barnet Road to the south. It is therefore considered that whilst the current proposals would result in an intensification of use of the site given the proximity of adjoining residential properties it would not detrimentally impact the amenity of these residents to such a level as to warrant a refusal. Moreover, loss of privacy would be unlikely to be a problem again given the distances involved. Residents would be aware of activities connected with the superstore, particularly after the recent period of inactivity at the site. However, it is considered that conditions could be used to manage store operating hours, delivery times, levels of illumination, noise attributable to plant etc so that existing residents would not be adversely affected by the use of the site. However, there are a number of concerns regarding the potential impact upon future residents given the proposed layout and some of the adjacencies that would occur. The proposals are therefore considered not to comply with adopted UDP Policy ENV13. Other Matters Carbon Emissions and Energy The proposal would meet key locational and land use policy requirements through redevelopment of an underused area of previously developed land, delivery of a mixed use development; making effective use of land; providing opportunities for people to walk, cycle and use public transport thereby giving the scope for reduction in the need to travel and would therefore achieve many of the key sustainability criteria of national guidance, the London Plan and the adopted UDP. However, Policy 4A.7 of the London Plan requires developments to achieve a 20% reduction in carbon-dioxide from the use of on-site renewables. This is further reinforced at local level by the Borough’s adopted SPD. Whilst renewable technologies are proposed at the site, the information submitted is insufficient to determine their suitability and the levels of provision that they would achieve and as a result the proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy 4A.7 of the London Plan and the adopted SPD. HSE The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is a statutory consultee and have advised that the proposal falls within a consultation distance of a major hazard instillation (in this case the gasometer and gas pipes in the operational area at the rear of the application site). The HSE assessment indicates that the risk of harm to people at the proposed development is such that they advise that there are sufficient reasons, on safety grounds, for advising against the granting of planning permission in this case. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy ENV15 of the adopted UDP. FLOODING

48

The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted with the application did not comply with

the requirements set out in PPS25 and does not provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risk arising from the proposed development. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to PPS25 and Policy 4A.13 of the London Plan. SECTION 106 CONTRIBUTIONS In accordance with Polices IMP1 and IMP2 of the adopted UDP the Council can seek the attainment either through provision by the developer or through financial payment of all or part of the cost of provision appropriate benefits which are necessary to support the development. In addition to the contributions towards highways improvements and affordable housing which have been detailed earlier in this report the proposal would give rise to a number of other financial contributions. Dealing with each of these in turn: Education: The proposal would result in an increased child yield from the sites. Policy IMP1 of the adopted UDP advocates that in areas with existing shortages of school places or where the development will create such a shortage then a financial contribution will be sought, via a legal agreement to meet the extra additional costs that would result from this proposal. Using the formula provided within the Borough’s adopted SPD a contribution of £520,811 would be required towards education provision within the borough. Libraries and lifelong learning: The increase in population resulting from development is expected to place serious pressure on Barnet’s libraries. Whilst the ongoing cost of serving new residents should in principal be met from additional revenues collected through council tax, the initial, one off costs cannot be met in this way. As a result contributions are sought to ensure that service provision mitigates the impact of the proposed property development activity. Using the formula provided within the Borough’s adopted SPD a contribution of £58,105 would be required towards the provision of libraries and lifelong learning within the borough Greenspaces: The proposal would result in a short fall of on site amenity and play space. The applicant advocates that the shortfall is not an issue due to the proximity of Victoria Recreation Ground. However, the proposal would result in an intensification of the facilities within this park and therefore in accordance with Policies L14 and H20 of the adopted UDP the Borough would seek a contribution towards the improvement of these facilities. Community Hall: The proposal would result in the loss of the Salvation Army Hall on Albert Road. The plans indicate that this would be re-provided within Block A of the development although an open D1 (non-residential institutions) use has been sought and there are no details of how this provision would work. As a result in accordance with Policies CS2 and CS3 of the adopted UDP the Borough would wish to secure the provision of this community facility including a community use scheme for the use of the community hall and facilities (which should include details of pricing policy, hours of use, management responsibilities and include a mechanism for review) via a S106 agreement.

49

Monitoring: The delivery of the planning obligation from the negotiations stage to implementation can take considerable time and resources. As the Council is party to a large number of planning obligations, significant resources to project manage and implement schemes funded by planning obligation agreements are required. The Council therefore seeks the payment of a financial obligation towards the costs of

undertaking the work relating to securing the planning obligations. In September 2006 Cabinet approved a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for Planning Obligations on the basis of the formula contained within the Councils SPD a contribution towards monitoring the legal agreement would be sought. 3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS These have been considered in the main report. 4. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY The proposed housing whilst being accessible would not be wheelchair accessible and properties would not be built to ‘lifetime home’ standards. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy 3A.4 of the London Plan. The site is accessible by various modes of transport, including by foot, bicycle, public transport and private car thus providing a range of transport choices for all users of the site. If permission were to be granted contributions would be sought to enhance the accessibility of the bus stops. 5. CONCLUSION Retail Issues: There is sufficient quantitative convenience and comparison goods capacity within the north of the Borough to support the additional floorspace proposed in the development. However, the scale of provision and the size of building proposed would be out of character and likely to cause material harm to the vitality, character and role of New Barnet town centre. It is considered that there is scope for disaggregation and flexibility in store format but only if the store size is reduced. Whilst the sequential exercise carried out by the applicant effectively rules out alternative sites to accommodate a store of the size proposed it does not consider a reduction in floorspace; alternative provisions of floorspace through expansion of existing units and discounts an alternative site within the town centre on the basis that it is not available to the applicant. It is therefore considered overall that the superstore element of the proposed development does not comply with PPS6 or retail policies in the London Plan and adopted UDP. Transport Issues: The site is within an accessible location and there would be an acceptable impact on overall travel patterns and congestion on the local highway network. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with PPG13 and the London Plan and adopted UDP’s transport and sustainability policies. Housing Issues: The number, mix, location and range of residential units proposed would meet the policy aims of providing mixed and balanced communities on sites that are well suited in relation to transport, services and facilities. In those respects the housing element of the proposal would satisfy PPS3 and development plan policies. However, in the absence of a detailed viability assessment the proposal would result in a shortfall in the provision of affordable housing contrary to London Plan and adopted UDP policies. Furthermore, the layout and design of the housing element is considered to fail to meet the policy requirements of achieving good quality residential environments.

50

Design Issues: It is considered that the proposed scheme would be unable to deliver the high quality design advocated by PPS6, PPS3, the London Plan and the adopted UDP. Residential Amenity: With the use of conditions it is considered that measures could be put in place to safeguard the amenity of existing local residents. However, the proposed layout raises a number of concerns about the amenity of future residents of the site and as a result the proposal is considered to be contrary to policy ENV13 of the adopted UDP. The applicant points to the benefits of the scheme by way of financial contribution, creation of jobs, in addition to the regeneration of a brown field site. However, there is nothing in the application to indicate that such benefits would be confined to this proposal and would not be forthcoming with an alternative scheme which addresses the issues highlighted. Furthermore, it is considered that the retail and design concerns identified in this report are fundamental to the unacceptability of the scheme and are considered to outweigh the issues where there is no concern. Accordingly, for the reasons outlined at the start of this report, planning permission should be refused.

51

SITE LOCATION PLAN: EAST BARNET GAS WORKS, ALBERT ROAD, NEW BARNET REFERENCE: B/00200/09

52

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. London Borough of Barnet. OS Licence No LA100017674 2008

53

54

55

56

APPENDIX 3

Sites considered in the sequential test for Asda Site Comment ‘Optex’ site (incorporating 15-23 East Barnet Road, Optex and Avern site, Petrol station 49 East Barnet Road and 15-17 Margaret Road)

Site has a number of constituent parts which would need to be assembled if the site was to come forward for comprehensive redevelopment. Elements of it are deficient of High street frontage. Concern that development would not be viable in terms of access, congestion and servicing. Surrounding development could inhibit any proposal wishing to maximise densities

Northern Car Park and Southern Car Park, East Barnet Road

The sites are small and lack street frontage. Problems in accommodating any significant development on the sites in terms of the residential amenity of the surrounding properties and access in servicing. Redevelopment would result in the loss of public parking.

Land at the rear of 98-140 High street, Chipping Barnet

Deficient in street frontage and would be unsuitable in terms of access, servicing, scale and massing.

Barnet College Site, Chipping Barnet Site not available as construction commenced on site.

Tally Ho Discount Store, Chipping Barnet Size and isolation from adjoining development opportunities would prevent significant development at this site. Access, parking and servicing would also be difficult.

Fitzjohn Avenue Car Park, Chipping Barnet Residential character of surrounding area is a major constraint to development opportunities of the site, loss of car parking spaces.

Stapleton Road Car Park, Chipping Barnet Limited in area with residential uses surrounding the site which would limit development.

Market Site, St.Albans Road, Chipping Barnet

Narrow nature would make it difficult to accommodate substantial development on-site. Expectation that the market will return to the site

B and Q, Whetstone Not available for redevelopment Lawsons Timber Merchants, Whetstone Not big enough to accommodate Asdas

proposals and associated issues of providing on site car parking and servicing.

Barnet House, Whetstone Too small to accommodate the mix of uses involved alongside a significant retail development. Which would be further inhibited by the Council needing to retain and operational presence on the site.

57

Concerns regarding traffic and congestion. Endleman House, Whetstone Restrictive site with limited street frontage

would prohibit implementation of large mixed use scheme.

C and D site (old BP garage), Whetstone Too small to accommodate significant development.

Michael Gerson Storage, Whetstone Issues regarding availability and loss of employment land.

58