Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to completion of Section 106 Agreement

WARD: Southgate Green

 

NOTED

 

1.   Councillor Prescott arrived at the meeting at this point.

 

2.   The introduction of the Head of Development Management, clarifying the proposals and officers’ conclusions.

 

3.   Four residents who had previously objected had written to re-affirm objections.

 

4.   A further objection submitted on behalf of residents of Hastings Road, Bexhill Road and Pevensey Avenue.

 

5.   A summary was given of objections received.

 

6.   Clarification that reference to Broomfield Road Residents Association should be Broomfield Home Owners and Residents Association.

 

7.   Councillor Cranfield arrived, but having missed the beginning of the item, would not be permitted to vote on this application.

 

8.   Clarifications / corrections to the report:

?  Para 2.1 should read: 9x3 and 6x4 bed houses as opposed to 13x3 bed and 2x4 bed.

?  Para 7.4.9 should read it is considered the scheme does not create any significant residential amenity concern.

?  7.6.10 was a typographical error and should be disregarded.

 

9.   An update from Sustainable Design Officer was provided on sustainability issues as referred to in para 7.11 – confirming that the proposals are broadly acceptable and considers there are no reasons why the scheme can not achieve the required Code Level 4. There are a number of green incentives included as part of the scheme such as green roofs and solar panels which are encouraged. Overall at this stage the information presented is acceptable, however a number of conditions have been proposed to ensure the site achieves the optimum requirements but requests delegated authority to review these conditions to ensure the objective is achieved.

 

10. The deputation of Caroline Chenier, local resident, including the following points:

a.  It would be impossible for the short roads of Bexhill, Hastings and Pevensey to cope with such a dense population increase, being in a cul-de-sac formation and landlocked by the Telford Road section of the A406.

b.  Site 14 would introduce a minimum of 240 residents, with additional residents to come from Sites 15a, b and c, and a private development, which would create an untenable burden on the current community.

c.  The meeting should be deferred as there had been insufficient time to read the report, ask questions under the Freedom of Information Act, review the information and formulate objections.

d.  They had wished to request the Process Documents.

e.  The high level of public objection was shown at the Planning Panel and the petition of 507 signatures.

 

11. The deputation of John Andrews, local resident, including the following points:

a.  He would be directly affected by the development, with overlooking directly from a large number of balconies, and noise from residents.

b.  The density, scale and height did not have regard to the context of houses at the rear.

c.  There would not be a buffer as the building did not exist yet.

d.  Notting Hill tenants did not feel able to make objections.

e.  A decision should be delayed for issues to be looked at again.

 

12. The statement of Councillor Achilleas Georgiou (Bowes Ward councillor) including:

a.  He was speaking on behalf of his constituents and others.

b.  His objections focused on parking and traffic issues.

b.  With this development, other Notting Hill development, and the private development, nearly 100 homes would be added in this small area.

c.  The parking ratio for this site would be 0.59, whereas the site opposite would have a ratio of 0.73. In the area currently the parking ratio was 0.83. It was unfair that new residents would receive substantially less parking space than current provision. There was leeway to have this amended. The London Plan specified a range. Notting Hill should come up with new plans which recognised the parking ratio in the area.

 

13. The statement of Councillor Henry Lamprecht (Southgate Green Ward councillor) including:

a.  He echoed everything said by Councillor Georgiou.

b.  He had requested a separate meeting to listen to all the arguments.

c.  There would be large numbers of new residents coming into the area where schools and doctors surgeries were already full.

d.  School children would have to cross the North Circular Road.

e.  There had already been 52 accidents since works to the A406.

f.  Notting Hill should be asked to reconsider and come back with smaller and more sustainable proposals.

g.  The applications were being rushed through so Notting Hill could gain government grants.

 

14. The response of Ken Barnett, Project Director, Notting Hill Housing, including:

a.  He had been working with the Council since 2009.

b.  This site had been identified for residential development in the pre-submission draft Area Action Plan (AAP), which identified the need to build 1300 new homes in the wider area. This application contributed to meeting this need.

c.  The application would optimise provision of homes for sale/rent to local people at an affordable level. 40% of homes would be affordable, split between rental and shared ownership.

d.  There were currently 13 properties on site, overlooked by the new bridge, in a poor condition, unviable and undesirable for refurbishment.

e.  Public exhibitions and consultations were held in 2011 and 2012, and there had been ongoing consultation. Significant changes had been incorporated into the proposals as a result of feedback received.

f.  More intensive use of previously developed land was encouraged across London at densities of up to 700hrph. The density in this development was 547hrph.

g.  The position and height would have a minimal impact on current homes due to distances and the site gradient.

h.  There would be 15 new family homes provided.

i.  Traffic and parking had been discussed with Council and TfL officers. Increase in car trips would be minimal and there would be minimal impact. Car ownership was reducing. 39% of local households did not own a car or have access to a car. 37 parking spaces would be provided for 62 units, including one for each of the 15 family units. The site across the road had 20 family units, which explained the difference in parking ratio at that site.

j.  Parking was in line with that at the recently approved Ladderswood development.

k.  There would be S106 contributions to health and education.

l.  Regeneration would be provided to an area which had been subject to decades of blight.

 

15. The Head of Development Management advised (i) all information held on a planning application was publicly available to be viewed at any time and as such was exempt from Freedom of Information regulations; and (ii) infrastructure requirements were identified in the AAP and this development would make a contribution to those.

 

16. The Schools Organisation & Development Officer advised that Garfield School was expanding as part of the Primary Expansion Programme, and a further phase of school expansions was being worked on as projections indicated higher numbers of pupils in coming years. Barnet and Haringey Councils were also looking at potential expansions of nearby schools in their respective areas. These issues would be discussed when all three councils met in the near future.

 

17. The Traffic & Transportation Officer confirmed that parking provision differences between sites related to the housing mix and that dedicated parking would be provided for family units. Parking levels were consistent with London Plan ranges. A downside of providing more parking spaces would be the generation of more trips to and from the site. He considered that the affect on local roads would be a not unacceptably high impact.

 

18. Members’ lengthy debate and questions responded to by officers, including:

a.  The position of the children’s play area was clarified.

b.  The levels of amenity space were clarified.

c.  Distancing was clarified by officers and considered adequate.

d.  Concerns that the living environment would be unsatisfactory for new residents, and there would be unacceptable harm to the existing community.

e.  There was a need to provide affordable housing for local people.

f.  S106 contributions were confirmed.

g.  Concerns that details on pollution were sketchy.

h.  This was a high density area. Such development could be sustainable.

i.  Ongoing concerns regarding traffic and parking; housing density; and massing and scale raised.

j.  This would be a vast improvement on current accommodation, which was not viable to bring back into use.

 

19. The Cabinet Member for Business & Regeneration’s advice in respect of the Council’s Core Strategy, and declining car ownership data.

 

20. The support of a majority of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation: 7 votes for and 6 votes against.

 

AGREED that subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement, the Planning Decisions Manager / Head of Development Management be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the report and delegated authority to review conditions relating to sustainable design and construction, for the reasons set out in the report.