Minutes:
NOTED
1. Councillor Barker left the room and took no part in the consideration of the item, and Councillor Delman acted as Chairman for the item.
2. The Planning officer’s introduction to the report.
3. Receipt of an objection to the proposal from David Burrowes MP, who raised concerns regarding overdevelopment and high density and considered the development would be detrimental to the area and the flats too small.
4. The statement of Councillor Henry Pipe, ward councillor, speaking in favour of the recommendation but requesting consideration of additional concerns, including the following points:
(i) He referred to a table of density ratios taken from the London Plan.
(ii) He would argue that the PTAL rating at the site was 1, and that the area was predominantly suburban rather than urban.
(iii) The reason why density should be included as a reason for refusal of this application was that there had been a material change in policy. This density matrix was re-issued in the London Plan published after the application was registered and since Scheme C was submitted.
(iv) The change in the number and mix of units, and more affordable housing, meant this application involved a more densely populated form of development.
(v) The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting when Scheme C was considered did not fully reflect the Committee’s views.
5. The statement of Councillor Bambos Charalambous, ward councillor, including the following points:
(i) He was also speaking in support of refusal of planning permission.
(ii) The principal reason was the substandard size of the units, but he also agreed with Councillor Pipe that density was a grounds for refusal, and that the PTAL rating should be 1 rather than 2-3.
(iii) A number of developments had been approved in the area, which would all put additional pressure on local services, including Hazelwood School and local doctors and dentists, and he was disappointed to see no reference to this in the report.
(iv) The traffic impact of the proposal and highway safety implications had not been properly considered, and should also be included as a reason for refusal.
6. Members' agreement that the centre of gravity of the site was not close to public transport
7. Advice of the Legal representative in relation to reasons for refusal.
8. Advice of Planning officers in relation to previous decisions and relevant policies.
9. Members' debate in relation to the reasons for refusal.
10. The recommendation of the Head of Development Services of an additional reason for refusal, supported unanimously by the Committee.
AGREED that planning permission be refused for the reason set out in the report and the additional reason set out below:
The proposed development due to its size, massing, residential composition and occupation would result in the introduction of an overly dominant and visually intrusive form of development as well as representing an over development of the site detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the visual amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties. This is contrary to Policies (I)GD1, (I)GD2, (II)GD3 and (II)H9, of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 4B.8 of the London Plan as well as the objectives of PPS1 and PPS3.