Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to conditions and S106 Agreement.

WARD:  Winchmore Hill

NOTED

 

1.  Introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager, including the following points:

a.  He drew attention to the previous application which was refused and the appeal which was dismissed.

b.  Three key issues were highlighted by the Planning Inspector: (i) insufficient amenity space provision; (ii) impact on the oak tree; and (iii) overlooking to gardens in Caversham Avenue.

c.  How the applicant sought to address the issues was set out in the report.

d.  The Planning Inspector had not supported the safety concerns.

e.  The main difference in the current application was the change in orientation. Slides were shown of the context with Fox Lane and the relationship with the properties in Caversham Avenue.

 

2.  Receipt of two further letters of objection, including the following points:

a.  Too much flexibility had been given by the Planning Inspector.

b.  Insufficient amenity space.

c.  The housing would not be high quality.

d.  The development would produce a feeling of enclosure.

e.  The potential of overlooking would remain from some first floor windows.

f.  Safety was still an issue.

g.  Visibility was compromised by the bridge.

 

3.  Receipt of an additional four letters of support, including the following points:

a.  The development would provide needed family housing.

b.  Safety and security would be improved if the site was developed.

c.  The site was an eyesore, attracting anti-social behaviour and vandalism.

 

4.  The deputation of Mr William Cook, local resident, including the following:

a.  He represented residents of Caversham Avenue who were opposed to the development.

b.  The distance from existing properties was insufficient as the site was too narrow having a width of only 22 metres.

c.  There would be problems of loss of privacy, overlooking, and loss of sunlight especially in winter.

d.  There would be overlooking from first floor windows due to the close proximity of houses to the common boundary.

e.  Reasons for rejection of the first application still applied.

f.  The site entrance was close to the hump-back bridge and dangerous and he suggested a site visit was made to assess.

g.  There was a TPO on the site but trees would be lost.

h.  The wildlife corridor was unique and thriving and should be saved.

i.  The site was a soakaway for the whole Lakes Estate, with the drainage ditch dating from the time the railway was built. Loss of trees and vegetation would also affect drainage in the area. The natural springs needed inspection.

 

5.  The statement of Councillor Elaine Hayward, Winchmore Hill Ward Councillor, including the following points:

a.  She acknowledged there were residents with different points of view on the proposal, and that residents living directly adjacent would like to see a speedy resolution to end their security concerns.

b.  She had been asked to speak against the recommendation by the Fox Lane and District Residents’ Association and was representing residents who objected to the application, whose objections were also set out in the report.

c.  The three points raised by the Planning Inspector at the time of the previous appeal still applied.

d.  Overlooking and loss of privacy would result from the development.

e.  The safe future of the oak tree was questionable given the works.

f.  A green space should be left for the community.

 

6.  The statement of Councillor Martin Prescott, Winchmore Hill Ward Councillor, including the following points:

a.  He was on record as having raised objections previously and he also objected to this application on behalf of residents and himself.

b.  He highlighted the reason for refusal in relation to access which was over-ruled by the Planning Inspector and considered that the S106 highway works would not be possible to implement and this reason would be valid for refusal.

c.  An office block directly opposite already had an access to the road which would also be heavily used if the block was converted to flats as was likely.

d.  The hump-back bridge made sight lines very difficult and he recommended a left-out, left-in only rule for the access. To turn across the carriageway at that point was dangerous and arguably sufficient reason for refusal alone.

e.  This was no longer classed as a brownfield site and there was no longer a presumption of approval.

f.  He fully understood residents’ concerns, and if Members were minded to grant approval would ask that they make a site visit.

 

7.  Councillor Prescott left the room having made the statement and took no part in the discussion or vote on the application.

 

8.  The response of Mr Luke Emmerton, of DP9, the agent, including the following points:

a.  The suitability of the site for residential development was acknowledged by the Council and the Planning Inspectorate.

b.  The report made clear that officers supported these proposals and that they were policy compliant.

c.  The Planning Inspectorate supported the design, appearance and access arrangements. The proposed Section 106 agreement could be secured to introduce measures on Fox Lane to improve safety at that access.

d.  The developer had worked closely with Council officers to remove overlooking concerns. There would be no windows on flank walls, buildings had been re-orientated, there was greater visual permeability, and the oblique views had been accepted by officers.

e.  Amenity space had been improved. There was private amenity space for families. Communal space was now green space not hard landscaping.

f.  The site area had been extended, there was more protected area for the first oak tree and the second oak would also be safeguarded.

g.  The 33 garages on the site previously generated more traffic movements than this proposal would.

 

9.  Advice of the Traffic and Transportation Officer, including the following:

a.  The application must be considered in the current circumstances; potential future use of the office block opposite could not be taken into account.

b.  The block opposite did have an access point which would be available to any successive user.

c.  Any application made for the block would be considered at that time.

d.  Refuse vehicles’ access to the site had been considered.

e.  A left-in left-out rule, and methods to ensure compliance, was an option which could be investigated.

 

10.  Advice of the Planning Decisions Manager, including the following points:

a.  In relation to distances from a common boundary, there were no set standards in relation to a flank wall. Overall, the relationships and separations were considered sufficient to address overlooking and overshadowing.

b.  Discussions with the developer had led to amendments of the gable end to a hipped roof design to reduce the bulk and massing.

c.  Changing the orientations had in officers’ opinion addressed the concerns in relation to overlooking. There would be windows on the first floor but they would be oblique and there would be no undue impact.

d.  The arboricultural officer was satisfied that with the additional open area the trees could be safeguarded.

e.  The Planning Inspector had stressed the need for flexibility and that the space was reasonable and would provide for family accommodation.

 

11.  Councillor Neville’s concerns in relation to the need for quality design in the borough and conservation areas in particular; and in relation to road safety around the access to the development. He also considered the development would be very narrow and cramped.

 

12.  Councillor Simon’s comments in relation to the former garages and traffic generation from that use to Fox Lane, which had been satisfactory for numerous years. He also considered that the trees on the site would also have affected light to the existing houses and gardens, and highlighted that the borough had a need for housing.

 

13.  Councillor Anolue’s agreement that all issues had been addressed to the satisfaction of Planning officers.

 

14.  Councillor Savva’s comment that the entrance to Skinners Court was nearer to the hump back bridge and was heavily used with no safety issues.

 

15.  The Planning Decisions Manager’s advice in response to Councillor McCannah’s query, that PP3 was not relevant to this application as the site was not classed as back garden land.

 

16.  Councillor Hurer’s ongoing concerns in relation to road safety and the proximity to the hump back bridge.

 

17.  Officers’ advice in response to Members’ queries, including:

a.  Confirmation that cleansing vehicles would be able to enter and turn.

b.  It had not been possible to access accident reports to bring to the meeting, but that highway safety issues were raised at the appeal and did not carry weight with the Planning Inspector.

c.  Clarification of the width of the access road and confirmation that it was sufficient for vehicles to pass.

d.  Overall separation was still 22 metres and there would now be no direct overlooking from first floor windows.

e.  Amenity space was on balance considered suitable: four gardens did not meet the overall standard, but the Planning Inspector had given a clear direction for flexibility and there was a larger open space to benefit residents.

f.  The site itself was not inside the conservation area, and Condition 3 would cover Details of Materials, which could be used to deal with fenestration.

 

18.  Members voted in support of the officers’ recommendation 7 for and 5 against with no abstentions.

 

AGREED that subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement contribution regarding a contribution towards education provision and off site highway works planning permission be granted, for the reasons set out in the report, subject to the conditions set out in the report and amendments to Condition 3 and 5.