Minutes:
NOTED
1. At this stage of the meeting Councillor Barker left the room and Councillor Delman was Chairman for this part of the meeting.
2. The statement read out by the Legal Officer:
‘Planning committee members are reminded that this matter was deferred from the July committee for technical input from the Planning officers. That meeting is reconvened now for the purpose of making the final decision on the application. As such it is not appropriate to take further deputations or representations. Planning committee members may have received additional correspondence or representations regarding this application. I would advise all members to disregard these representations and consider only those matters raised by the deputees at the last meeting and the matters that are contained in the officers report’.
3. The planning officer reported that in response to previous concerns over amenity space provision, the applicant was willing to consider an alternate mix, reducing the number of family units, but this would increase the total to 39 units. The Chairman considered that this was effectively a new deputation and requested that the members disregard it for the purpose of the discussion.
4. Councillor Simon acknowledged that the amenity space was less than usually required but acknowledged that as a reason, it was unlikely to be a sufficient reason to refuse the application Councillor Simon felt that the original 3 / 4 bedroom proposal was preferable to meeting housing needs of families, but, to address the issues over the amenity space provision, a management plan could be included within the conditions attached to the proposal to ensure that the amenity space was a useful place.
5. The Planning Officer confirmed that a condition could be incorporated for a management plan for amenity space provision.
6. Councillor Chamberlain’s concerns over density and amenity space, notwithstanding previous decisions, but, following officer’s advice, agreed not to pursue this concern which focused on physical amplification.
7. Discussions took place between members and officers on the application, with the main concerns being voiced over density, amenity and the increase in height. Aled Richards (Head of Development Services) reminded members that previous applications had not been refused in respect of density and amenity space provision.
8. Linda Dalton, (Legal representative), advised that if it was deemed that the Council refused the application for ‘unreasonable reasons’, costs could be awarded against the Council on an appeal decision.
9. Councillor Constantinides added his concerns over the increase in the height of the balconies and proposed, seconded by Councillor Buckland, not to support the Planning officers’ recommendation for approval The majority of the Planning Committee agreed with this proposal. (Councillor Simon voted against this proposal).
10. Members had full discussions over the reasons for refusal and considered the full impact of the proposed development, including the height of the development which would be overly dominant.
AGREED that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
The proposed development due to its size and massing would result in the introduction of an overly dominant and visually intrusive form of development detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the visual amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties, as well as providing the perception of overdevelopment of the site, contrary to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)GD3, (II)H9, (I)EN3, (II)EN9, (II)EN11, and II)O10 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 4B.8 of the London Plan as well as the objectives of PPS1 and PPS3.