Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to completion of Section 106 agreement.

WARD: Southgate Green

NOTED

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

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

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

4.   Clarifications / corrections to the report:

?  Para 7.6.18 under the first table it should read: “the proposed development would result in the parking provision range in Table 1.”

?  Para 7.6.19 error reference source not found should read Table 1.

?  Para 7.6.21 error reference source not found should read Table 1 and Table 2.

5.   An update from the Sustainable Design Officer as referred to in para 7.11 – confirms 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.

6.   Confirmation of amounts for legal agreement.

7.   Amendment to Condition 33b – should read “the D1/D2 commercial unit” as opposed to premises.

8.   The deputation of Nikki Salih, Chair of Ritz Parade Traders Association, including the following points:

a.  The proposed development would be too high.

b.  The mews houses would have no windows at the back.

c.  The shared pathway for traffic and people caused great concerns.

d.  The proposed access road was dangerous.

e.  It was questioned how local schools would cope.

f.  Concerns regarding lack of green space, travel plan, bin space, and cycle storage.

g.  The strength of opposition was evidenced by the Planning Panel turnout, petition and banner. A clear message had been sent, but the community was not being listened to.

9.   The deputation of Peter Travis (Headteacher) / Adam Beamish, on behalf of Broomfield School, including the following points:

a.  This was the wrong development and would not enhance Broomfield School. The mews houses in particular would have a damaging effect.

b.  A narrow but pleasant quiet playground area with plenty of trees and plants would be made claustrophobic and dark by the mews element along the boundary which would be very close and block the sunlight.

c.  The condition in respect of the landscaping buffer would not work and there seemed to be reliance on negotiations between the school and developer.

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

a.  The design should be in keeping with the street scene. This development was hugely different from nearby 1930s residential homes.

b.  Parking space provision to serve the flats was inadequate. For the flatted element, the parking ratio would not meet minimum requirements.

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

a.  This site had also been identified for residential development in the pre-submission draft Area Action Plan (AAP).

b.  Together with Site 14 it was part of a complimentary cohesive approach for the area.

c.  The current 10 houses adjacent to the footbridge were in poor condition and overlooked. The rear alleyway suffered flytipping and gave poor quality access to refurbished houses.

d.  Considerable revisions had been made to original proposals in response to feedback.

e.  It was considered that objections in respect of traffic, parking, and pressure on services had been addressed, and officers were satisfied with the proposals.

f.  Appropriate uses for the community space were being identified, to address local need with allocated parking.

g.  A further study had been done to address Broomfield School’s concerns. Sunlight in the playground area would be above the minimum level deemed acceptable. The dominance, bulk and impact on the school had been considered.

h.  A ‘home zone’ had been incorporated in many developments, was sustainable and child friendly and reduced the dominance of cars.

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

a.  Members’ concerns regarding amenity space provision, design not in keeping with the street scene, and impact on Broomfield School.

b.  The levels of amenity space were clarified.

c.  Sunlight levels to the playground area were confirmed.

d.  Confirmation of construction access and acceptability of flood risk.

e.  Advice in respect of widening of the existing access, and accessibility for refuse vehicles.

f.  Confirmation that the access served the development only and not the school.

g.  Comments that this would be a positive gateway into the borough.

13. The support of a majority of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation: 8 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 amendment above and delegated authority to review conditions relating to sustainable design and construction, for the reasons set out in the report.