200225 v4 canons park statement of community involvement

Statement of Community Involvement

Lowick

March 2020

1 | Statement of Community Involvement – Canons Park Station Car Park 229 Donnefield Avenue, Edgware, HA8 6RL

Lowick The News Building 3 London Bridge Street London, SE1 9SG

[email protected] +44 (0)203 743 6250


Contents

1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 3

2. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5

2.2. Stakeholder audit ................................................................................................................... 7

3. Consultation Aims ......................................................................................................... 8

4. Consultation activity and outcomes ....................................................................... 9

4.1. Demography and approach to consultation ............................................................. 9

4.2. Publicity (July 2019) .............................................................................................................. 11

4.3. Public exhibition (July 2019) ............................................................................................ 13

4.4. Survey responses (July 2019) ........................................................................................... 14

4.5. Publicity (October 2019) ................................................................................................... 20

4.6. Public exhibition (November 2019) ............................................................................. 22

4.7. Survey responses (November 2019) ............................................................................ 24

4.8. Stakeholder meetings ....................................................................................................... 28

5. Key issues and responses ......................................................................................... 31

6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 36

Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 39

Appendix 1: Publicity flyer for July 2019 public exhibition ................................................ 41

Appendix 2: Advert featured in the 11 July Harrow Times ............................................... 42

Appendix 3: Site poster (July 2019) ............................................................................................. 43

Appendix 4: Public exhibition boards (July 2019) ................................................................ 44

Appendix 5: Survey (July 2019) ...................................................................................................... 53

Appendix 6: Publicity flyer for November 2019 public exhibition ................................ 57

Appendix 7: Advert featured in the 11 July Harrow Times ................................................ 58

Appendix 8: Site poster (November 2019) ............................................................................... 59

Appendix 9: Public exhibition boards (November 2019) ................................................... 60

Appendix 10: Survey (November 2019) ...................................................................................... 69

Appendix 11: Map showing approximate location of respondents to surveys ........ 73


1. Executive Summary 1.1.1. This Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) has been prepared by Lowick to

accompany an application for full planning permission for Canons Park Station Car Park, 229 Donnefield Avenue, Edgeware, HA8 6RL (“the site”); the re-development of the site to provide 118, 100% affordable homes while retaining 60 commuter car parking spaces. The application is submitted by Catalyst Housing Limited (Catalyst) and Transport for London (TfL) (“the applicant”).

1.1.2. The public engagement and consultation for the application was coordinated by Lowick, in conjunction with Catalyst, TfL and the wider project team. Since July 2019, there has been extensive discussions with neighbouring residents, businesses, local groups and societies, as well as elected members. The applicant has been particularly mindful of the need to engage closely with local residents, to ensure the proposals for Canons Park Station Car Park are respectful to the surrounding area.

Figure 1: View of the proposed scheme looking north along Donnefield Avenue

1.1.3. Two rounds of public consultation have taken place, with exhibitions held in July 2019 focusing on the principles of development, and in November 2019 on the detailed


proposals for the site. 207 people attended the events including local residents, Canons Park commuters and car park users, and local groups. The public scheme website has seen significant interest and following the promotion of the scheme it has seen 1,932 unique visits and 407 comments1.

1.1.4. As the design has progressed, a number of ideas raised by stakeholders and the public have been incorporated into the scheme such as to the improvements to Donnefield Avenue, the location of the car park entrance and details of the façade and materials.

1.1.5. Overall, the majority of respondents have not supported the proposals, largely as they oppose the principle of development. Much of the feedback we have received has opposed the delivery of housing on this site (or in some cases any new housing in the area or affordable housing), opposed any reduction of commuter car parking, and opposed car-free development. In addition, some local residents and groups have expressed concern about the height and density of the plans, as ‘not in keeping’ with the suburban nature of the area.

1.1.6. There has been some support for the principle of providing affordable housing and the introduction of secure cycle spaces, encouraging commuters to take more active modes of transport. The architecture has been generally well received, with objections to the scale and form of the building rather than the façade design and materials.

1.1.7. Overall, the feedback has put the availability of parking for existing car-park users and residents as a higher priority than meeting the housing needs of the borough or taking action to encourage sustainable travel, the two primary goals of the scheme and much of current policy. The scheme addresses the Mayor of London and the London Borough of Harrow’s (LBH) aim to deliver more affordable housing in the borough, in sustainable, well-connected locations, as set out in detail in the Planning Statement.

1.1.8. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy sets a target of 80% of journeys on foot, by bicycle or by public transport, by 2041. Furthermore, the Intend to Submit version of the London Plan (December 2019) also requires all redevelopment to reduce parking and consider car-free as a starting point, especially when a site is so close to a transport hub as the site. The benefits and impacts of the reduction in parking are set out in the Transport Statement.

1.1.9. The applicant has undertaken a comprehensive and transparent pre-application consultation with the local community, in line with both guidance and best practice. Where possible, and when not in contravention of the core purpose of the scheme and policy, changes have been made to the scheme to resolve specific concerns.

1.1.10. The applicant has submitted proposals which will directly benefit the borough and local community by providing 118 high-quality 100% affordable homes, in a sustainable location, and fulfilled the requirements of both the Local Plan and the draft New London Plan.

1 Visitor and comments statistics to www.canonspark.commonplace.is as of 17 February 2020, 12:00.


2. Introduction2.1.1. This Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) has been prepared by Lowick to

accompany an application for full planning permission for Canons Park Station Car Park, 229 Donnefield Avenue, Edgeware, HA8 6RL (“the site”); the re-development of the site to provide 118, 100% affordable homes while retaining 60 commuter car parking spaces. The application is submitted by Catalyst Housing Limited (Catalyst) and Transport for London (TfL) (“the applicant”).

2.1.2. This development will also include new landscaping, improvements to Donnefield Avenue, new secure commuter cycle hub spaces and 220 new residential cycle spaces.

2.1.3. An application for full planning permission is being submitted for the following:

“Redevelopment of existing public car park to provide new residential accommodation (Use Class C3) and flexible ground floorspace and a public car park along with associated works”

Figure 2: Axonometric overview of the proposals for Canons Park station car park


2.1.4. The purpose of this report is to outline the community engagement undertaken by the applicant, and how the application submitted responds to the issues raised. It should be read alongside the Design and Access Statement prepared by Karakusevic Carson Architects (KCA) and the Landscape and Public Realm Strategy prepared by Townshend Landscape Architects, and the Planning Statement prepared by CBRE for a full account of the design development and pre-application discussions.

2.1.5. The applicant has held formal pre-application discussions with the London Borough of Harrow (LBH) and other statutory consultees including Historic England and Transport for London (in their planning and transport role). Three rounds of independent design review have also been undertaken with the Harrow Design Review Panel (DRP) and Mayor’s Design Advocate (MDA).

2.1.6. Our consultation strategy was drafted in accordance with the relevant provisions and recommendations laid out in the LBH Statement of Community Involvement (2012) and the Revised National Planning Policy Framework (2019) on community involvement in planning. It forms part of the supporting documentation, which informs the planning application.

2.1.7. The applicant acknowledges its responsibility to make sure that people are aware of the proposals and given an opportunity to give their feedback on the plans. The aim has been to deliver a consultation in line with industry best practice. Since July 2019 we have held two rounds of public exhibitions with a combined attendance of 207 people and received a total of 407 comments to our public consultation covering a significant range of issues.

2.1.8. The consultation website for the scheme, hosted by Commonplace, has recorded a significant amount of web traffic, with 1,932 total unique visitors since July 2019. We also received over 59 emails and telephone calls relating to the proposals. Note that many individuals or groups have made multiple comments and enquiries, with 230 unique respondents identified2.



2.2. Stakeholder audit

2.2.1. Lowick conducted an audit of the relevant political, business and community stakeholders in the local area. The stakeholders were either invited to have individual meetings with members of our project team, offered presentations to their organisation or specifically invited to our public consultation events.

2.2.2. Political stakeholders

• Cllr Graham Henson, Leader of Harrow Council

• Cllr Keith Ferry, Deputy Leader, Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning & Employment, Chair of Planning Committee

• Cllr Phillip O’Dell, Cabinet Member for Housing

• Cllr Paul Osborn, Leader of the Opposition

• Cllr Stephen Greek, Shadow Planning & Regeneration Lead

• Major Developments Panel

• Planning Committee

• Navin Shah AM, London Assembly Member for Harrow and Brent

• Bob Blackman, Member of Parliament for Harrow East

• Cllr Amir Moshenson, Canons Ward

• Cllr Ameet Jogia, Canons Ward

• Cllr Bharat Thakker, Canons Ward

2.2.3. Local groups and organisations

• Harrow Nature Conservation Forum

• Harrow Heritage Trust

• Harrow Public Transport Users Association

• Metropolitan Line Users Group

• Harrow Cyclists

• Canons Park Residents Association (CAPRA)

• Friends of Canons Park

• British Emergency Ambulance Response Service (BEARS)

• Acorn Tennis Club

• Lupton Bowls Club

• Arnold House School

• St Lawrence’s Church

• Canons Park Estate Limited


3. Consultation Aims 3.1.1. The aims of the consultation and community involvement were to:

3.1.2. Allow the local community, station and car-park users to have their say on our proposals. Planning is a matter of public interest and the applicant is committed to best practice in engaging with the local community on proposals for the site. The aim was to proactively involve individuals and groups to ensure that feedback could, where appropriate and not in contravention of planning policy, be incorporated into the design.

3.1.3. Ensure the consultation was fully accessible, in particular to:

• People with little prior knowledge of the planning system; ensuring that the consultation was accessible and understandable to all, regardless of their level of knowledge of planning or development. We held public exhibition events for all members of the public and uploaded our exhibition materials and a detailed survey onto our bespoke website for the site using the Commonplace consultation platform.

• To those with disabilities, by ensuring that all documents were available in accessible formats upon request and that the public consultation was held at an accessible venue.

• A broad range of people, reflective of the areas demographics while also being mindful of protected characteristics. For those who were willing, basic demographic information has been recorded for consultation responses in an anonymised form and reported in this document.

3.1.4. Support the development of a scheme that meets the needs and aspirations of the local area. We want to ensure that through consultation and engagement with local residents, businesses, organisations, community groups, and councillors, the scheme respects the character of the local area and makes a positive contribution.


4. Consultation activity and outcomes

4.1. Demography and approach to consultation

4.1.1. The applicant was aware that due to Canons Park Station’s location near the end of the Jubilee Line it is an attractive route into central London for commuters from a wide area, and that a key theme would be the reduction in car parking at the station.

4.1.2. As a result, there was a need to conduct a much wider consultation than with just neighbouring residents and businesses. An online consultation hub was established which included detailed information about the proposals along with an in-depth online survey, facilitated by Commonplace, a specialist online consultation platform. Promotion of the consultation events included not just flyers to local addresses but emails to Oyster card users using the station regularly, as well a local media advertising.

4.1.3. Commonplace is an online platform that helps better understand the needs of different groups. Their websites help make local participation easier by reaching wider audiences and invite them to take part in the consultation process.

4.1.4. Our Commonplace site for Canons Park has received 1,932 total unique visitors since July 2019. 52% of those who visited the site, did not engage with the material, with 17% exploring the project in depth and 9% contributing. 230 unique individual respondents were recorded, with 114 people subscribing to the project news, in which they would receive a notification on any news posts regarding the scheme.3

4.1.5. We have looked at the demographic breakdown of those who responded to our consultation while also comparing it to the local community as a whole. 12% stated they were commuters and 6% daily car park users while 58% of those surveyed stated that they were local residents. The map included at Appendix 11 shows the approximate location of respondents and their broad sentiment. The vast majority of recorded postcodes were from the immediate locality, with a small number from further afield such as Bushey or Wealdstone.

4.1.6. Almost a quarter (24%) of those who filled in feedback were over 65 years old, with only 2% below the age of 30. 8% were between 30-44, 25% between 45-59 and 9% between 60-64. The remainder did not state their age. This is not representative of the age range that live in the Canons ward where the site is situated, with an older demographic overrepresented (19.7% of ward residents are over 65 according to the census). There were four respondents stating their ethnicity was white compared with each person reporting a Black, Asian or Minority Ethnic (BAME) background. The ward is approximately 50% BAME.

4.1.7. 42% stated they were self-employed, in full- or part-time work (compared to 71.9% in the census data), with 22% retired and 34% did not state an employment status. Again, this is not proportionately representative of the local demographics.

4.1.8. Transport for London Canons Park Station Car Park user survey

4.1.9. In 2017, Transport for London commissioned a survey of car park users. This was based on conversations with 289 users conducted during weekdays in October.



Figure 3: Canons Park Station Car Park users (origin map)

4.1.10. The surveys identified that 33% of Canons Park car park users point of origin are within 2km of the station, 12% are between 2km and 5km and 55% over 5km from the station.

4.1.11. Based on their locations, it would be 4 minutes quicker on average to cycle from within 5km than drive, and 12 minutes quicker on average to take public transport for users over 5km away.

4.1.12. There may be a number of reasons relating to perceived cost, convenience or journey time motivating those who drive more than 5km to the car park. The data indicates many travel from other parts of outer London, often with either Underground or mainline stations closer to their homes. Presumably the availability and relatively low cost of parking, the fare zoning of Canons Park (Zone 5), more favourable destination for the Jubilee Line are all factors driving this behaviour.

4.1.13. Station car park users make up only 3.6% of the total weekday station users, with sustainable modes service approximately 4,720 out of the 4,900 daily users. This is, and remains, overwhelmingly a station which serves the immediate residential community not a park-and-ride facility.

4.1.14. The data indicates there is significant scope for so called ‘modal shift’ for a large proportion of the car park users. The surveys formed part of the public consultation materials and was shared with stakeholders to explain the reasoning behind a reduction in commuter car parking.

4.1.15. Car park users were also asked if they would consider cycling if facilities were improved, and 49% said they would. There is a good opportunity, combined with wider investment in the cycle network, to promote higher rates of cycling and a positive behavioural change for some car park users.


4.2. Publicity (July 2019)

4.2.1. Ahead of our first public exhibition in July 2019, the applicant introduced the scheme to the public with a flyer to nearby residents and businesses. 1,803 addresses were sent a flyer via leaflet distributor, London Letterbox.

4.2.2. The distribution area and dates of the event were shared with LBH officers in advance for comment.

4.2.3. The area of distribution is shown below:

Figure 4: July 2019 public consultation flyer distribution area

4.2.4. The flyer described our proposals as follows and is included at Appendix 1:

“We want to hear your thoughts on our plans.

“Catalyst, in partnership with Transport for London, is proposing to build affordable homes at Canons Park Station car park. This site provides a fantastic opportunity to provide much-needed high-quality new homes in an accessible location neighbouring the park, with public transport to the city and local shops and amenities a short walk away.”


4.2.5. The flyer to nearby residents also contained an invitation to our public consultation, with details of the location and timing of the event. Included within the flyer was a map showing the site boundary, and the exhibition venue location. Contact details were also provided.

4.2.6. Additional publicity:

• An advert featured in the 11 July edition of the Harrow Times (Appendix 2).

• Invitation emails were sent to organisations, politicians and local groups.

• Emails were sent by TfL on 10th July 2019 to all those that use an Oyster card and regularly pass through Canons Park station. This was sent to 29,507 customers, had an open rate of 36.4% (19,368 total opens; 10,724 of those unique) and a click through rate 2.5% (1,145 total clicks; 729 of those unique).

• Posters were put up at Canons Park Station and in the station car park. (Appendix 3).

• Flyers were handed out to commuters at Canons Park Station during rush hour.


4.3. Public exhibition (July 2019)

4.3.1. The first public exhibition event on the Canons Park Station site proposals was held on 17 July 2019 at Canons Community Association Hall, a short walk from Canons Park Station Car Park. The venue was chosen because of its relative proximity to the site.

4.3.2. The focus of the exhibition was to introduce the principles of the scheme, the constraints and opportunities presented by the site and to seek input from the local community at an early stage about the proposals.

Figure 5: Wednesday 17 July 2019 public exhibition at Canons Community Association Hall

4.3.3. The table below summarises the details of the public exhibition:

Venue and time The consultation event was held:

• 5PM-8PM Wednesday 17 July

The public exhibition aimed to attract members of the local community, specifically small businesses and local residents. The event was held at Canons Community Association Hall, 1-17 Wemborough Road, Stanmore, Middlesex, HA7 2DU.

Purpose The purpose of the exhibition was to provide the local community with information about the principles of the proposal and allow them to feed back before the applicant brought back more detailed plans. It also gave local residents and businesses an opportunity to speak to the project team and ask any questions they may have.


Publicity In addition to the flyer distribution covered above, an advert was placed in the Harrow Times and key stakeholders were contacted directly. Posters were also put up in the station, and leaflets handed out at rush hour. Oyster card users at Canons Park station were also sent an email by TfL. The publicity materials are included at Appendix 1, Appendix 2, and Appendix 3.

Public exhibition content

The scheme was presented on 9 A1 Foamex boards, and also made available on iPads for those with access needs.

These are available at Appendix 4.

Members of the project team were in attendance and guided attendees through the boards, as well as answering any questions they had.

Visitors There were 102 visitors to the public exhibition at the Canons Community Association Hall.

Opportunity for feedback / Website

For the Harrow Station Sites public consultation, TfL and Catalyst opted to use Commonplace, an online community consultation platform, to record feedback from the consultation.

All attendees were encouraged to leave feedback on the in-depth survey on the website www.canonspark.commonplace.is.

The website also included all information from the exhibition boards that were on display at the event. iPads were available at the consultation for attendees to fill in their feedback, however there were also flyers with the website address on them, to encourage people to fill in the survey at home. Paper copies of the feedback forms were also made available at the consultation for those who stated that they were not proficient computer users. A copy of the feedback form is included at Appendix 5.

Questionnaires completed

167 verified responses were received in total to the survey. We also received 26 email and telephone enquiries.

4.4. Survey responses (July 2019)

4.4.1. 191 comments were submitted to the July 2019 survey, either at the consultation itself or on a later date. These were from 128 unique respondents of which 105 can be confirmed as linked to an individual and form part of the reported statistics (167 verified comments). This survey was open from 17 July 2019 to 16 October 2019.

4.4.2. All comments are publicly visible on the website (www.canonspark.commonplace.is).

4.4.3. Overall, 77% of comments were negative about the plans to redevelop the Canons Park car park site for affordable housing. However, 36% of those surveyed indicated positive or neutral feeling to the project’s design principles.


4.4.4. The largest number of negative comments (61) related to the considerations and opportunities section of the survey, which related to the principle of development and the reduction in commuter car parking.

4.4.5. The vast majority of the comments related to the overall principle of developing the site for housing, attitudes towards development in general, and parking. There were relatively few comments which addressed the detail of the proposals or specific aspects of the design, materials, landscaping or public realm.

4.4.6. Chart 1: Comment sentiment

4.4.7. The survey was divided into three sections: ‘considerations and opportunities’, ‘design

principles’, and ‘our proposals’. Each asked a closed question to understand the broad sentiment of the respondent, alongside more detailed questions and open response opportunities.

4.4.8. The framing questions for each section were as follows:

• Considerations and opportunities: How do you feel about the opportunity to provide 100% affordable housing at Canons Park Station?

• Design principles: How do you feel about the design principles we have set out?

• Our Proposals: How do you feel about the proposals overall?

61

18

50

10

7

5

10

3

3

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Considerations and opportunities

Design principles

Our proposals

Negative Neutral Positive


4.4.9. Chart 2: What should be our priorities when developing plans for the site?

4.4.10. We asked people to rank priorities (rank 1 being the highest priority) based on a list of

options with an option of ‘other’ and open comments box. The most well supported priority was ‘better overlooked commuter parking’ followed by ‘improving the public realm along Donnefield Avenue’. The respondents who rated these issues highly tended to be opposed to the principle of new housing on the site and generally placed ‘more affordable housing’ as their least favoured option. Housing was the most divisive option by far, but there was moderate support for new cycling infrastructure.

4.4.11. The open comments on priorities reflected data on this question, with comments indicating that existing residents and car park users should be the highest priority, not future residents or those in housing need. A number of comments stated explicit opposition to any new housing in the area, and specifically that they were opposed to affordable housing as it would “lower the standing of the area” and “create a slum”. Maintaining, or increasing, commuter car parking was stated as a high priority to protect residents parking and as a “valuable” or “vital” amenity for commuters.

4.4.12. Chart 3: How do you mainly use Canons Park station car park?

20

16

2

13

5

15

20

10

4

7

13

9

22

7

6

6

11

17

8

15

3

4

24

23

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Better overlooked commuter car parking

Improving the public realm along DonnefieldAvenue

Commuter cycle hub

Other

New affordable homes

Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5

32%

34%

7%

3%

15%

4%5% I don't use the car park

I park here as part of mycommute

I park here occasionallyfor events

I park here to visit friendsand family

I park here to travel intoLondon for leisure

I park here to visit localamenities


4.4.13. Nearly two-thirds (63%) stated they used the car park regularly or occasionally, with 34% commuting and presumably using the car park on a regular or daily basis.

4.4.14. Out of approximately 4,900 people who enter the station daily, only approximately 3% use the car park based on full occupancy of every space once per day. The profile of respondents to the survey is therefore likely to very significantly overrepresent regular car park users, who will understandably be the most concerned about any reduction in spaces.

4.4.15. Chart 4: Do you support providing secure cycle parking for commuters at the station as part of the development?

4.4.16. Chart 5: Would secure cycle parking at the station make you:

4.4.17. 14% of consultees were opposed to providing secure cycle parking for commuters as

part of the redevelopment. 53% of respondents either supported or strongly supported the provision of a commuter cycle hub at the station.

4.4.18. There were a relatively balanced set of comments regarding cycling. While some did not feel cycling was a reasonable alternative for commuters or for themselves, there was support for the principle of better facilities. A number noted that wider cycling infrastructure improvements were needed in the local area to improve safety and make cycling a more appealing option for a wider demographic.

24% 29%

33%

4%

10%

Strongly Support

Support

Neither support nor oppose

Oppose

Strongly oppose

1% 4%

27%

0%

16%

45%

7% Much more likely to cycleinstead of driveMore likely to cycle insteadof driveIt would make no difference

My journey would not bepossible by bicycleI don't cycle

Other


4.4.19. However, the findings on the possible behavioural impact of improved cycling facilities suggested only 5% were more likely to cycle to the station. This strongly contradicts the 2017 TfL survey of car park users which suggested up to 49% would consider shifting to this more sustainable mode of travel. The different in the results may relate to the disproportionately older demographic who responded to the survey, or local residents who already walked to the station.

4.4.20. Chart 6: What are the most important design principles to you?

4.4.21. The comments on the design principles predominantly focused on enhancing the

natural landscape and public realm and there was substantial support for providing high-quality, easily maintained public and communal space for all ages. Many again used open comments to suggest retaining or increasing parking for commuters. A large number of comments disagreed with the principle of providing any new homes on the site regardless of design considerations. Optimising the delivery of housing received the lowest priority and support.

4.4.22. We also asked ‘what type of housing do you think is most needed in the area’ as part of the survey with a series of option provided.

4.4.23. The most popular options amongst respondents for what type of housing was most needed locally were homes for first time buyers (10), social and affordable rented homes

2

3

2

1

2

1

1

1

1

6

2

3

1

1

1

2

2

1

4

2

2

1

3

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

6

1

1

1

2

1

3

1

2

4

2

2

1

1

1

5

2

4

2

1

5

6

1

1

2

4

6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

To enhance the natural landscape andimprove public access

To provide high quality public and communalspaces

To design a new green and sustainablecommunity

To provide high quality and well designedhomes

Integrate the new development into theneighbourhood

To improve walking and cycling links

Deliver improvements to Donnefield Avenueand the approach to Canons Park

Address the site's complex boundaryconditions

To optimise land to provide housing whileintegrating commuter parking

Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Rank 6 Rank 7 Rank 8 Rank 9


(8), family housing (6), and supported housing for older people (4). However, there were also seven responses stating that no housing was needed in the area at all. Relatively few respondents chose to engage with this section of the survey in comparison to questions relating to the principle of development or parking.

4.4.24. Those that stated a need for homes for first time buyers and homes for social and affordable rent were considerably more positive about the proposals that the average response.

4.4.25. Key issues in written and verbal feedback

4.4.26. As expected, parking and loss of a proportion of the commuter car-park spaces were the major topics raised. Nearly all respondents felt the car park was at full capacity, a “vital service” and it was “naïve” to think people may change their mode of transport. The impact of events at Wembley and The Hive on the local area were raised by a significant number of people. The use of the car park to support the local shops and restaurants was also seen as a concern.

4.4.27. A number of local residents were concerned about displacement to surrounding residential roads or impact on traffic. Bus services were seen as poor and in need of improvement to help people reach the station.

4.4.28. Local groups felt that Donnefield Avenue was narrow and were concerned that there would be a loss of street parking either during construction or permanently. They noted that large vehicles often had to reverse down the road.

4.4.29. Step-free access and other station improvements were requested by a number of respondents, particularly those who mentioned they had reduced mobility.

4.4.30. A number of commuters suggested that a multi-storey car park should be provided, and many suggested parking charges were too high. Most of this group were also sceptical of the utility of improved cycle parking and either did not cycle or said better provision would make no difference to their behaviour (though this is contradicted by other surveys of station users).

4.4.31. Those that were supportive of housing in principle nevertheless stated they were “all for more affordable housing, but not at the expense of a station car park.” Others were supportive but concerned about the impact on other local services.

4.4.32. The impact of new homes on wider infrastructure in the area was stated as a concern in a large number of comments, particularly the capacity of GPs surgeries and local schools. There were a number of comments about the area being “overcrowded” or “overpopulated” with Stanmore Place having already met housing need.

4.4.33. There was significant opposition to the principle of any new homes in the area, regardless of site, tenure or design, with many stating they did not regarded housing as “needed”. A number also raised that new social housing would bring “a certain demographic” and “create more crime”.

4.4.34. The proposed heights of the blocks at around seven storeys was raised as a concern by a small number of respondents as out of scale with the area or as “overdevelopment”. The various groups felt that the scale was overbearing on the park and not in keeping with the suburban nature of the area. Most suggested a reduction in height and considered 3-4 storeys to be more appropriate.


4.5. Publicity (October 2019)

4.5.1. Ahead of the second public exhibition in November 2019, a flyer was sent to nearby residents and businesses. 2,923 addresses were sent the flyer via our leaflet distributor, London Letterbox.

4.5.2. The second exhibition presented more detailed designs and visualisations of the scheme, and how the applicant had responded to feedback from the first public exhibition. Information as displayed on 10 A1 Foamex boards with a scale architectural model of the proposals and their immediate context.

4.5.3. The area of distribution was expanded considerably in response to comments from Canons Park Residents’ Association (CAPRA) and the Canons Park Estate. Local groups felt the area should be expanded still further to Stongerove to the east. However, at over 2,900 addresses this area was already considerably larger than would be expected for a scheme of this scale and any expansion to the east would require a similarly wide radius in other directions. Given the extremely high engagement levels and other supporting publicity, the applicant felt this would not be proportionate.

4.5.4. The proposed distribution area and dates of the public exhibition were shared with LBH planning officers in advance.

4.5.5. The area of distribution is shown below:

Figure 6: Public consultation flyer distribution area (October 2019)


4.5.6. The newsletter described our proposals as follows and is included at Appendix 6:

HAVE YOUR SAY ON NEW AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR CANONS PARK

Catalyst, in partnership with Transport for London, invite you to a public exhibition on our updated plans for new homes at Canons Park Station car park. We are proposing to build 100% affordable housing on this site, to help meet Harrow’s housing need, while retaining a proportion of commuter car park spaces.

We are holding a drop-in exhibition for local residents and businesses where you can see how plans have developed since our first event in July, meet the project team and let us know your thoughts.

4.5.7. The flyer to nearby residents also contained an invitation to our public consultation, with details of the location and timings of the events. Included within the flyer was a map showing the site boundary, and the exhibition venue location. Contact details were also provided.

4.5.8. Additional publicity

• An advert featured in the 7 July edition of the Harrow Times (Appendix 7).

• Invitation emails were sent to organisations, politicians and local groups.

• Emails were sent by TfL on 7th November 2019 to all those that use an Oyster card and regularly pass through Canons Park station. This was sent to 29,145 customers, had an open rate of 35.9% (19,405 total opens; 10,409 of those unique) and a click through rate 0.9% (362 total clicks; 270 of those unique).

• Posters were put up at Canons Park Station and in the station car park. (Appendix 8).

• Flyers were handed out to commuters at Canons Park Station during rush hour.


4.6. Public exhibition (November 2019)

4.6.1. Following the feedback from the first public exhibition, the applicant held a second exhibition in November 2019, showing updated plans, including much greater detail on the design of the buildings, CGI’s and an architectural model.

4.6.2. The exhibition was held across two days, in the afternoon and evening of Monday 25 November and Tuesday 26 November. The consultations were held in the church hall of St Lawrence Little Stanmore, on St Lawrence’s Close, off Whitchurch Lane, which local groups had requested as a preferred venue.

Figure 7: Photograph of the second public exhibition

4.6.3. The table below summarises the details of the second public exhibition:

Venue and time The event was open to the public on:

• Monday 25 November (5pm – 8pm)

• Tuesday 26 November (5pm – 8pm)

The public exhibition aimed to attract members of the local community, specifically small businesses and local residents. The event was held at St Lawrence Little Stanmore Church Hall, Whitchurch Lane, Edgware, HA8 6QS

Purpose The purpose of the exhibition was to provide the local community with further detailed information about our proposals and allow them to feedback on the development before a detailed planning application was submitted.


It also gave local residents and businesses an opportunity to speak to the project team and ask any questions they may have.

Publicity In addition to the flyer distribution covered above, an advert was placed in the Harrow Times and on their website. Key stakeholders were also contacted directly. Posters were put up in the station and car park, and leaflets handed out at rush hour. Oyster card users at Canons Park Station were also sent an email by TfL. The project team also updated the website for the proposals, www.canonspark.commonplace.is , which notified all people who had provided feedback after the first consultation. The publicity materials are included at Appendix 6, Appendix 7, and Appendix 8.

Public exhibition content

The scheme was presented on 10 A1 Foamex boards, with a scale architectural model and also made available on iPads for those with access needs. These are available at Appendix 9. Members of the project team were in attendance and guided attendees through the boards, as well as answering any questions they had.

Visitors There were 105 visitors to the public exhibitions over the two days at St Lawrence Little Stanmore church hall.

Opportunity for feedback

TfL and Catalyst again opted to use Commonplace, an online community consultation platform, to record feedback from the consultation. All attendees were encouraged to leave feedback on the in-depth survey on the website www.canonspark.commonplace.is. The website also contained the exhibition boards that were on display at the event. iPads were available at the consultation for attendees to fill in their feedback, however there were also flyers with the website address on them, to encourage people to fill in the survey at home. Paper copies of the feedback forms were also made available at the consultation for those who stated that they were not proficient computer users. A copy of the feedback form is included at Appendix 10.

Numbers of questionnaires

completed

198 comments were received in total on the online survey from 58 individuals. We also received 33 email and telephone enquiries. Note that some of these are multiple responses from the same individual. 27 people responded in advance to the updated proposals being published on the website, while indicating that they would not be attending the consultations.


4.7. Survey responses (November 2019)

4.7.1. For the November 2019 round of the survey, 216 total comments were submitted, either at the consultation itself or on a later date. These were from 74 unique respondents of which 58 can be confirmed as linked to an individual and form part of the reported statistics (198 verified comments). The survey was open from 25 November 2019 to 17 January 2020.

4.7.2. All comments are publicly visible on the website (www.canonspark.commonplace.is).

4.7.3. Overall, 73% of comments were negative, with 27% positive or neutral. The least negative and contentious area was landscaping. The quick feedback section received a more negative response than the in-depth sections.

4.7.4. Chart 7: Comments and sentiment

4.7.5. Respondents’ feedback on the surveys were analysed and categorised into positive,

negative and neutral sentiments around the principle of the proposed plans. The comments were predominantly negative with mostly directed at the parking and transport proposals in the scheme or the principle of development. Broadly, the pattern and types of issues identified were very similar to the first round of consultation

4.7.6. The survey was divided into five sections. Each asked a closed question to understand the broad sentiment of the respondent, alongside more detailed questions and open response opportunities. The introductory section provided a shortened survey and more general questions.

4.7.7. The framing questions for each section were as follows:

• Introduction (and quick feedback): Broadly speaking, how do you feel about the proposals for 118 new affordable homes at Canons Park station?

49

28

19

22

27

145

3

6

8

11

14

42

2

3

4

1

1

11

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Introduction (and quick feedback)

New affordable homes

Landscape

Design and materials

Parking and transport

TOTAL

Negative Neutral Positive


• New affordable homes: How do you feel about providing 100% affordable homes for London Affordable Rent and shared ownership on this site?

• Landscape: How do you feel about the proposals for landscaping and play space?

• Design and materials: How do you feel about the design and materials proposed?

• Parking and transport: How do you feel about the proposals to retain around 60 commuter car park spaces?

4.7.8. Chart 8: Do you support providing 100% affordable homes for London Affordable Rent (broadly equivalent to social rent) and shared ownership?

4.7.9. Only 30% of respondents indicated they were supportive of a scheme including 100%

affordable housing made up of a mixture of London Affordable Rent and Shared Ownership, 45% stated they were opposed to this and 25% were neutral. Amongst those who opposed, the main reasons included loss of parking, concern that social housing would increase crime and anti-social behaviour, that there was insufficient infrastructure, and disagreement that there was a housing need in the area.

4.7.10. Chart 9: In principle, would you support local residents’ parking having greater protection, through a wider Controlled Parking Zone of longer hours?

4.7.11. One potential mitigation for reduced commuter car parking could be strengthened

controlled parking (CPZ) in the area. Whilst it is already covered by a CPZ, the hours are limited and in the first round of consultation many residents expressed concern that on-street parking would be harder to find if there was a reduction in car park spaces.

12%

18%

25%

10%

35%

Strongly support

Support


Oppose

Strongly oppose

24%

8%

16%

11%

41%

Strongly support

Support


Oppose

Strongly oppose


Responses were more evenly split between those who supported and opposed stronger parking controls. However, in the comments many of those who opposed additional controls emphasised the opposition to the reduction in parking or the scheme as their reasons. There were a number of comments which disagreed with the principle of CPZ’s and felt parking should be free for residents.

4.7.12. Chart 10: Do you support the inclusion of a secure cycle hub with around 100 spaces in the proposed development, to encourage people to take a healthier mode of transport to the station?

4.7.13. As in the first round, there was a fairly even balance of views on the principle of a new

cycle hub at the station. Nevertheless, many comments indicated they did not feel cycling (or walking) were viable options for travel to the station even for short distances, particularly for older residents.

4.7.14. Key issues in written and verbal feedback

4.7.15. Principle of development: The majority of respondents were local residents from the surrounding area who strongly objected to the principle of the development, which was to reduce the number of car parking spaces and to develop affordable housing which on a site which has been allocated as an appropriate site for housing in Harrow Council’s Local Plan. There was little support for increasing housing supply, affordable housing or sustainable travel as policy goals with parking for residents and commuters regarded as a higher priority.

4.7.16. Housing: The majority of respondents were opposed to the development of new homes, whether affordable or for private sale. Many people who completed the survey or gave feedback suggested that there was not a need for more housing in Canons Park or Harrow as a whole and that there had been significant overdevelopment over the last decade. The minority who indicated support for the principle of new homes were generally supportive or neutral about the scheme. However, there were also a number of respondents who were opposed to affordable housing specifically due to the perceived increase in crime, anti-social behaviour and burden on infrastructure.

4.7.17. Parking: Almost all respondents felt that there are not enough spaces in the car park currently, and that the surrounding streets were already subject to stress from commuters. They felt it was unrealistic to expect people to shift to more sustainable modes of travel even in some cases for very short journeys. Some stated that this may be possible in the long-term but would require significantly improved bus and cycle infrastructure. The local residents who commented on the proposals thought that it was highly unlikely and unrealistic to provide a car-free development and therefore

5%

28%

31%

11%25%

Strongly support

Support


Oppose

Strongly oppose


stated that parking would become even more saturated in the surrounding area, with a severe increase in traffic. Many respondents believed that car ownership was essential and that the car parking provision should be increased, not reduced.

4.7.18. Height and density: The overwhelming respondents to the online survey regard the proposals as too high, and that only 2-4 storeys would be acceptable, if any development was supported at all. The plans were also viewed as severe overdevelopment in the area. There were concerns about views, specifically from the historic Canons Park.

4.7.19. Design: There were fewer comments with regards to design, with the sentiment reflecting more of a balanced perspective. There was support for the architecture, the landscaping and the materials. However, there were a number of comments stating that the proposals were ‘out of keeping’ with the suburbs due to their scale and form.

4.7.20. Neighbouring residents’ amenity: The direct neighbours raised a number of concerns from loss of light, overlooking, privacy, noise and anti-social behaviour.

4.7.21. Infrastructure: A general sentiment was the perceived strain on local infrastructure and services, with traffic, health services and local school places being the key topics. Many stated that these were either at capacity or incredibly stretched, and that no additional homes should be allowed without investment.

4.7.22. Step-free access: There were a number of comments stating that the scheme should also deliver step-free access to Canons Park station.


4.8. Stakeholder meetings

4.8.1. The applicant has also held a significant number of meetings with local stakeholders, which are summarised below:

Purpose The purpose of the meetings was to give key stakeholders the opportunity to ask questions regarding the development and raise concerns with the project team. This also provided them with the opportunity to ask detailed questions on behalf of their employees and members and feed them back as well as explore issues of concern in greater depth.

We also used our stakeholder meetings to ensure that any proposal does not adversely impact existing businesses on the estate, including with respect to deliveries and access where possible.

Engagement We began a series of meetings with businesses and local organisations around Canons Park in the summer of 2019.

Since then, we have contacted the groups on multiple occasions, and held face to face meetings with eight organisations in the local area.

The applicant met with a group of local community organisation on 19th August at St Lawrence Little Stanmore to display our proposals and to answer any questions they may have had.

The applicant also met with Cllrs Marilyn Ashton, Ameet Jogia, Amir Moshenson, Navin Shah AM, and Members of Parliament Bob Blackman and Gareth Thomas to discuss all three station car park schemes.

The applicant presented to the Major Developments Panel at Harrow Council on 10 July 2019 and 19 November 2019.

Organisations we have met with:

• Harrow Nature Conservation Forum

• Canons Park Residents Association (CAPRA)

• Friends of Canons Park

• Acorn Tennis Club

• Lupton Bowls Club

• Arnold House School

• St Lawrence’s Church

• Canons Park Estate Limited

These organisations were invited to both the first and second public exhibition, amongst others.

The applicant will continue to discuss the proposals with key stakeholders and neighbours following submission.


4.8.2. Notes of meetings

4.8.3. Major Development Panel, 10/07/2019: The three Harrow Station Sites proposals were presented to the Major Development Panel at a relatively early stage in the design process. Conservative Party councillors expressed opposition to the principle of a reduction in station car parking and car-free development on these sites, raising concerns over the viability of modal shift in these locations . There were a number of questions about how car-free development could be enforced, and how new residents’ visitors would be accommodated. The height of the proposals was also criticised. There was support expressed by members for the affordable housing on offer and improved cycling facilities.

4.8.4. Canons Park Groups, 19/08/2019: We met with various Canons Park groups and organisations including: Canons Park Residents Association (CAPRA), Friends of Canons Park, Acorn Tennis Club, Lupton Bowls Club, Arnold House School, St Lawrence’s Church, and Canons Park Estate Limited. There was a discussion about various aspects of the scheme, with responses broadly in line with the public consultation responses. While support for the principle of new affordable housing was expressed, the car park was regarded as useful facility for both commuters and residents which should not be reduced in capacity. There was significant scepticism about how a reduction in car parking or car-free development could be accommodated, with Stanmore Place used as an example where resident’s without permits continued to own cars and park locally.

4.8.5. Whilst the potential for some new housing locally was supported, the height and scale of the proposals was criticised, in particular the views from Canons Park. 3-4 storeys were suggested as the maximum height which could be supported in the area given the suburban character with a significant reduction in homes delivered.

4.8.6. Arnold House School, Friends of Canons Park and the Acorn Tennis Club stated they informally use the car park for their events and ongoing operations and expressed concerns that visitors will not have parking. None have any substantial parking of their own within their sites. The detailed design of the public realm along Donnefield Avenue was discussed with the retention of street parking during, and after construction requested as well as a sufficient width to the pavement.

4.8.7. Cllr Amir Moshenson, 29/08/2019: Cllr Moshenson accepted an offer for a site visit to both the Stanmore and Canons Park proposals in his ward. In general, he expressed concern about the loss of commuter car parking. He did not feel car-free development was suitable for the location and did not feel that it could be effectively enforced. He expressed concern about the height of the proposals at Canons Park, and views from Canons Park. If delivered, ensuring homes went to local residents was important to Cllr Moshenson. Local ward councillors also attended both public consultation events.

4.8.8. Harrow Nature Conservation Forum, 20/09/19: The Harrow Nature Conservation Forum expressed concerns about the potential impact on Canons Park in close proximity to the site. There were detailed discussions about suitable planting to encourage biodiversity and methods to accommodate local wildlife such as bats and birds through boxed and the lighting strategy.

4.8.9. Arnold House School, 1/10/2019: The applicant met the Headmaster and Bursar of Arnold House School at their activity centre opposite the site. The main subject of discussions was about ensuring continued access to the site for coaches and visitors to sports events. The final public realm design for Donnefield Avenue accommodates the


specific issues raised. The applicant discussed construction hours and deliveries to the site to ensure these avoid peak times.

4.8.10. Bob Blackman MP: 17/10/2019: The applicant met local MP Bob Blackman. Both Stanmore and Canons Park proposals were discussed, and Mr Blackman expressed opposition to any reduction in commuter car parking and to car-free development at these locations. The inclusion of car clubs and priority sales to local residents were regarded as a positive, as was the 100% affordable tenure mix. However, he was concerned about the scale of the development at Canons Park and noted the significant community opposition.

Major Development Panel, 10/07/2019: The three Harrow Station Sites proposals were presented to the Major Development Panel just prior to the second round of public exhibitions. Conservative members again expressed opposition to the principle of a reduction in station car parking and car-free development on these sites, stating that TfL should encourage parking at stations to prevent driving into central London and car-free development would not work in a suburban location. The height of the proposals at Canons Park was also criticised, with members stating that mansion blocks and apartments were not in keeping with the area as it was predominantly detached and semi-detached houses. Some councillors criticised the design of the buildings as unattractive.

Figure 8: View of the proposed scheme looking south from Canons Park


5. Key issues and responses 5.1.1. For full details of the design development process, and response to comments raised

by Harrow Council and other statutory stakeholders please read this section in conjunction with the Design and Access Statement and Planning Statement.

5.1.2. The table below summarises the key issues raised during the course of the public consultation and meetings with stakeholders, alongside the applicant’s response in the submitted scheme:

Key Issue Response of the applicant

Principle of development

Much of the feedback disputed the need or appropriateness of the site for housing-led redevelopment. The maintenance of commuter car parking at the current level, or higher, was seen as the highest priority by the majority of respondents.

The site has been identified by Harrow Council as a suitable location for housing in their Site Allocations Document in 2013, albeit at a lower level of delivery reflective of substantially lower housing targets at the time.

Housing There was a significant amount of opposition to new homes of whichever tenure. A number of attendees to the consultation events and online survey responses stated that there was a not a housing crisis in London or Harrow, and that the local area was “overdeveloped” or “overpopulated”. This was often liked with comments that local infrastructure could not cope with additional residents, and many referenced general concerns about a lack of GP’s or school places.

Those who placed affordable housing delivery as a high priority were significantly more likely to be supportive of the proposals as a whole.

There is a significant need for affordable housing within Harrow. Affordable housing tenures will be in line with the requirements set out by Harrow Council and GLA guidelines. The applicant has included a range of unit sizes and tenures in consultation with Harrow's housing team. Properties will be marketed to Harrow residents first and it will also not be possible to buy-to-let while still in shared ownership.

A number of comments we received indicated that the development would result in an increase in crime and anti-social behaviour in the local area due to the provision of homes at social rent. Catalyst will remain the long-term managers of the housing and has a long-track record as a social landlord. The scheme has been designed to achieve Secure by Design accreditation.



Reduction in commuter car parking

There has been significant opposition to the proposed reduction in commuter car-parking by local residents and car park users on the online survey and at the public consultation. They believe that there is already existing parking stress in the area, the car park is at capacity and that the proposals will lead to greater congestion and parking on neighbouring side streets from commuters. Many stated that the car park was “vital” to their commute and did not regard alternatives such as walking, cycling or public transport a viable, even when their home was within a short distance of the station.

The applicant does recognise the need to balance the need for homes with appropriate amounts of car parking for commuters. As a result, 60 out of 162 parking spaces will be retained for station users. The car park is regularly at full capacity but based on surveys of users there is significant scope for modal shift.

As part of the development proposal, a new Station Cycle Parking Hub will be provided with spaces to mitigate the reduction in station car parking.

The applicant is retaining the maximum amount of commuter car parking which would be acceptable given current policy. Additional detail is set out in the Transport Statement.

Car-free development and residents’ parking

The majority of comments were highly sceptical of the viability of car-free development in a suburban location and stated that they did not believe new residents would go without a car regardless of the terms of their lease or lack of parking permit. Many local residents felt this would increase the parking stress on local roads, even with a CPZ already in place.

With regard to the proposed residential development, these will be car-free with the exception of disabled parking provision. All new residents, except those with a disabled permit (blue badge), would be unable to obtain an on-street parking permit. Catalyst, who will be managing the development on completion, will enforce this through their leases. A car club space (electric vehicle) and residential travel plan to inform and encourage more sustainable methods of transport will be provided. Electric charging facilities will be included for both the commuter and resident parking spaces.

Car-free developments are commonplace in areas of London with good public transport accessibility (Canons Park has a PTAL of 2-3 but is next to a Jubilee Line station and 3 bus routes (340,79,186)) as a method to improve the



built environment and encourage sustainable travel. They are also now the starting point for new development in locations with good connectivity.

In line with policy, the scheme is being submitted as ‘car-free’ with the exception of 4 active disabled spaces and 8 passive spaces for those with a blue badge.

Height and Density The proposed heights of the blocks at around 7 storeys was raised as a concern by a number of respondents, including local groups and councillors, as out scale with the area or as “overdevelopment”. The various groups felt that the scale was overbearing on the park and not in keeping with the suburban nature of the area. Some suggested a reduction in height and considered 3-4 storeys to be more appropriate.

As part of the design development, the architects have increased the set back so only six storeys are visible from the street.

Some councillors and members of the public suggested that a mansion block typology was not in keeping with the area, where detached and semi-detached homes predominate, although directly opposite the site are two blocks of 1930’s apartments.

The applicant has been working closely with townscape and heritage consultants and believe this is a suitable scale and location. This is similar in scale to recent developments in the area, such as Stanmore Place.

There are a number of key views towards landmark buildings, along tree-lined avenues and across open green spaces which have been tested in the Townscape Assessment accompanying the application.

Design There were significantly fewer comments regarding the façades and materials choices, and those were more balanced or positive about the proposals. There was a reasonable level of support for the architecture, landscaping and the proposed materiality.

Materials that stand the test of time and have a relationship with the neighbouring context have been selected within the proposals.

The architects, KCA, have drawn inspiration from Canons Park and the station building, utilising a solid robust masonry materials palette with a dense engineering brick plinth, a warm red brick, complemented with highlighted precast concrete features. Glazed bricks and precast concrete



highlight communal entrances, while considered brickwork detailing in a variety of styles will add interest to the street facing facades. These proposals will complement the architectural character and history of the area.

A number of detailed comments from stakeholders around the Donnefield Avenue public realm have been incorporated, including moving the entrance towards the middle of the site, retaining all on-street parking and ensuring specific larger vehicles can access the various clubs and facilities on the road.

Congestion and traffic

A number of comments considered new residents and the reduction in car parking would increase traffic and congestion. As part of the planning application, a Transport Assessment has been prepared to identify the travel demand by each mode of travel.

As the proposed residential developments will be car-free, and the level of station car parking will be reduced, the overall level of traffic on the highway network should reduce substantially as set out in the Transport Statement

Event days, and impact on parking

The significant increase in local parking stress around match days and events at Wembley Stadium and The Hive was raised by residents. This is a pre-existing problem, but some consider the reduction in spaces will worsen the impact on residents.

Wembley will be increasing car parking and coach parking on-site as part of the Wembley Park Masterplan. On completion, Wembley Park will have 3,297 car parking spaces and 458 coach parking spaces on-site and will be aiming to reduce the car mode share. There is an initiative to provide a ‘Park and Rail’ for the stadium during the Euro 2020 games at Wembley next year, using the Chiltern mainline rail line for the permanent option and stations on the Metropolitan Line for the temporary option. If Harrow Council wanted a prohibit on-street parking during events, an Event Day Parking Zone would be required or changes to the local CPZs.

Neighbouring residents’ amenity

A small number of direct neighbours to the proposed site raised a number of concerns regarding loss of light, overlooking, and privacy.

The applicant has considered these issues carefully. The distance between the nearest habitable rooms of neighbours in the Canons Park Close Flats is around 25m to 33m, significantly wider than an average street, and well beyond a



distance where privacy issues would usually be considered a significant concern.

All nearby properties have been tested and the results are included in the Daylight and Sunlight Assessment as part of the application

Infrastructure A general sentiment across many of the comments was about the strain on local infrastructure and services, with traffic, health services and schools being key topics.

The applicant is liaising with the Council to identify where there is a shortfall and will continue to discuss this with them as they progress through the determination period.

However, development can only contribute one-off capital not solve long term revenue or recruitment issues. CIL is not payable on affordable housing as it is a vital part of local infrastructure and the knock-on effects of not providing sufficient affordable housing is often a false economy, causing poorer health and educational outcomes for children and higher demands on services.

A 100% affordable housing scheme should be seen as a significant investment in social infrastructure.

Step-free access There were a small number of comments calling for step-free access for Canons Park station to be incorporated into the plans. The location of the site does not make this possible to deliver. However, the neighbouring site is owned freehold by TfL and a future development could potentially accommodate this. An indicative masterplan is included in the Design and Access Statement.

With the delivery of 100% affordable housing it would not be viable to fund step-free access through this development. The step free access programme is a priority for TfL with the aim for all stations to ultimately become fully accessible; however, Canons Park has not been funded in the current round. It currently has the lowest usage on the Jubilee Line.


6. Conclusion

Figure 9: Second public exhibition at St Laurence Little Stanmore Church Hall

6.1.1. In accordance with local and national guidelines, the applicant has undertaken a pre-application consultation process with local residents, schools, businesses, groups and political representatives. This process has been carried out alongside the formal pre-application meetings between the project team, the London Borough of Harrow and other statutory consultees.

6.1.2. The project team has been available to discuss the proposals with stakeholders, both in person and through various communication channels, during the pre-application phase. The community engagement process has helped shape our proposals to ensure it complements the vision for the area and delivers on the wider policy goals of the Local Plan and emerging draft London Plan.

6.1.3. The proposals for Canons Park station car park provide a unique opportunity to deliver 118, 100% affordable homes to directly address the housing crisis in Harrow and London. These plans will also encourage more people to walk, cycle, and take public transport to help solve the challenges of climate change, poor air quality and inactivity.

6.1.4. The applicants’ vision for the site is to:

• Deliver 100% affordable homes to address London’s housing crisis, in a sustainable and well-connected location. This would include a mix of homes for London Affordable Rent and Shared Ownership.

• Deliver high quality housing for families, couples, first-time buyers and individuals on low to average incomes who make a huge contribution to our city.


• Encourage people to use more sustainable and actives modes of transport. This includes walking, cycling and taking public transport to help solve the challenges of climate challenge, poor air quality and inactivity and meet the TfL 80% target for sustainable travel by 2041.

• Provide new secure commuter cycle hub spaces to encourage journeys by bike and future-proof the station for anticipated need in decades to come.

• Retain 60 commuter car park spaces, the maximum appropriate in the context of policy and the detailed surveys of car park users.

• Invest in high quality design, with architecture which respects and complements the predominant Metro-Land character of the area.

• Provide landscaping and public realm improvements to Donnefield Avenue to make it safer, greener and more attractive for residents and those visiting Canons Park.

6.1.5. Two rounds of public consultation have taken place, with exhibitions held in July 2019 focusing on the principles of development, and in November 2019 on the detailed proposals for the site. 207 attended the events including local residents, Canons Park commuters and car park users, and local groups. The public scheme website has seen significant interest and following the promotion of the scheme it has seen 1,932 unique visits and 407 comments.

6.1.6. As the design has progressed, a number of ideas raised by stakeholders and the public have been incorporated into the scheme such as to the improvements to Donnefield Avenue, the location of the car park entrance and details of the façade and materials.

6.1.7. Overall, a large majority of respondents have not supported the proposals, largely as they oppose the principle of development due to the reduction in parking at Canons Park Station.

6.1.8. The majority of feedback we have received has opposed the delivery of housing on this site (or in some cases any new housing in the area or affordable housing in particular), opposed any reduction of commuter car parking, and opposed car-free development. In addition, some local residents and groups have expressed concern about the height and density of the plans, as ‘not in keeping’ with the suburban nature of the area despite no significant impacts according to policy and guidance.

6.1.9. There has been some support for the principle of providing affordable housing and the introduction of secure cycle spaces, encouraging commuters to take more active modes of transport. The architecture has been generally well received, with objections to the scale and form of the building rather than the façade design and materials.

6.1.10. Overall, the feedback has put the availability of parking for existing car-park users and residents as a higher priority than meeting the housing needs of the borough or taking action to encourage sustainable travel, the two primary goals of the scheme and much of current policy. The scheme addresses the Mayor of London and the London Borough of Harrow’s (LBH) aim to deliver more affordable housing in the borough, in sustainable, well-connected locations, as set out in detail in the Planning Statement.

6.1.11. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy sets a target of 80% of journeys on foot, by bicycle or by public transport, by 2041. Furthermore, the Intend to Submit version of the London Plan (December 2019) also requires all redevelopment to reduce parking and consider car-free as a starting point, especially when a site is so close to a transport hub as the


6.1.12. There is a significant divergence between the majority view expressed in the public consultation and the clear direction of national, London, and borough policy in relation to this scheme. Making the best use of well-connected sites to optimise the delivery of affordable housing is central to the London Plan.

Figure 10: View of the proposed scheme looking north along Donnefield Avenue

6.1.13. The applicant has undertaken a comprehensive and transparent pre-application consultation with the local community, in line with both guidance and best practice. Where possible, and when not in contravention of the core purpose of the scheme and policy, changes have been made to the scheme to resolve specific concerns.

6.1.14. The applicant has submitted proposals which will directly benefit the borough and local community by providing 118 high-quality 100% affordable homes, in a sustainable location, and fulfilled the requirements of both the Local Plan and the draft New London Plan.


Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 39

Appendix 1: Publicity flyer for July 2019 public exhibition ................................................ 41

Appendix 2: Advert featured in the 11 July Harrow Times ............................................... 42

Appendix 3: Site poster (July 2019) ............................................................................................. 43

Appendix 4: Public exhibition boards (July 2019) ................................................................ 44

Appendix 5: Survey (July 2019) ...................................................................................................... 53

Appendix 6: Publicity flyer for November 2019 public exhibition ................................ 57

Appendix 7: Advert featured in the 11 July Harrow Times ................................................ 58

Appendix 8: Site poster (November 2019) ............................................................................... 59

Appendix 9: Public exhibition boards (November 2019) ................................................... 60

Appendix 10: Survey (November 2019) ...................................................................................... 69

Appendix 11: Map showing approximate location of respondents to surveys ........ 73


Appendix 1: Publicity flyer for July 2019 public exhibition


Appendix 2: Advert featured in the 11 July Harrow Times

The results of a new social-listening survey by Whitley Neill Gin have revealed our favourite tipple was tagged 8.4 million times on Twitter last year. It was more talked about than David Beckham (mentioned 1.9 million times, in case you were wondering), The Beatles and Wimbledon.

Sales are continuing to rise, too. According to the Wine And Spirit Trade Association, Brits bought almost 60 million bottles of gin in 2018, up 38% on the year before.

“Gin has officially established itself in the British consciousness and around the world,” says Leanne Ware, senior marketing manager at Whitley Neill Gin. There’s been a clear shift towards flavoured gins too, which are creating an incredible amount of conversation online, she says.

“The data tells us that ‘gin o’clock’ is now a global movement. There’s a dedicated moment in each day whereby people enjoy a gin. It shows that in the UK, gin is a firm British icon.”

Stuart Ekins from Gin Mare agrees. “We are clearly in love with gin as a nation and the boom doesn’t seem to be slowing down any time soon. Be adventurous and bring out the botanicals you like best by adding fresh fruit or herbs.”

So, what better way to celebrate than with yet another gin? There’s a

The world has gone a bit nuts for gin.

It appeared to reach fever pitch a couple of years ago,

when all manner of gin festivals started springing up, new flavours began appearing on supermarket shelves everywhere, and no kitchen was complete without a couple of balloon glasses for when gin o’clock rolled around.

But since then, the spirit has continued to soar. And now, new research has found that over the last 12 months, gin was mentioned every four seconds on social media. We might just be obsessed.

Summer gins to drink right nowFREETIME37 July 11, 2019 harrowtimes.co.uk

multitude of new concoctions out just in time for summer - here are some of our favourites...

1. Hendrick’s Midsummer Solstice Gin (limited edition), 70cl, currently reduced to £30 from £35), Sainsbury’s

2. Sipsmith Orange & Cacao Gin, 50cl, currently reduced to £22 from £25, Tesco

3. Hayman’s Gin Liqueur, 70cl, £28.95, Master of Malt

4. Kokoro Blueberry & Lemongrass Gin, 20cl, £12.50, kokorogin.com

5. Hyke Gin, 50cl, £24, Tesco6. Stranger & Sons Gin, 70cl,

£34.95, Master of Malt7. Dingle Original Gin, 70cl,

£34.99, ginspiration.uk8. Marylebone Orange &

Geranium Gin, 50cl, £25, Sainsbury’s

9. Kopparberg Premium Gin Mixed Fruit, 70cl, £20, Asda

10. City of London Six Bells Lemon Gin, 70cl, £34.95, Master of Malt

11. Whitley Neill Pink Grapefruit Gin, 70cl, £20, Asda

12. Liverpool Rose Petal Gin, 70cl, £40.99, ginspiration.uk

13. Adnams Limited Edition Lemon and Tamarind Gin, 70cl, £29.99, adnams.co.uk

14. Tanqueray Flor de Sevilla Distilled Gin & Tonic, £8 for four 275ml bottles, Asda


Appendix 3: Site poster (July 2019)


Appendix 4: Public exhibition boards (July 2019)


Appendix 5: Survey (July 2019)


Appendix 6: Publicity flyer for November 2019 public exhibition


Appendix 7: Advert featured in the 11 July Harrow Times

Web banner:


Appendix 8: Site poster (November 2019)


Appendix 9: Public exhibition boards (November 2019)


Appendix 10: Survey (November 2019)


Appendix 11: Map showing approximate location of respondents to surveys

Canons Park

Harrow Station Sites.

200225 v4 canons park statement of community involvement

Documents