Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval Subject to Conditions

WARD:  Grange

NOTED

1. Receipt of an additional letter of objection from David Burrowes MP.- read out by the officer.

2. The request of Ward Councillor Glynis Vince that the application be deferred for a Members site visit.

3. The deputation of local residents, Peter Claxton and Noelle Skivington including the following points:

i. Local residents felt that the information presented to the Committee was heavily flawed.

ii. A drainage and water search showing a main sewer running across the proposed site had been circulated to Members. Thames Water had not been consulted and would not permit building over a sewer for new developments.

iii. The accuracy of statements 4.1.4 and 6.8.2 of the Planning Officers’ report was questioned.

iv. The gross internal area had been quoted incorrectly.

v. 97% of the building and amenity space is within the Conservation Area and felt that CAG comments had been misrepresented.

vi. Objectors felt that a clear and transparent decision could not be made regarding the proposed development on this plot of land due to the inaccuracies in the Planning Officers’ report and urged the Committee to investigate the application further or to refuse the application.

4. The response of Mrs Fitzgerald, the applicant, including the following points:

i. The proposed development was amended following consultation with Planning Officers.

ii. The design and scale does not detract from the character of the Conservation Area but helps preserve its setting.

iii. The proposed development would contribute to increasing London’s supply of housing and assist in meeting with the provision of family housing within the Borough, having regard to PPS3.

Iiv. In terms of PPS5 the site is not of any significance to the Conservation Area.

v. The proposed amenity space, layout and parking provision all meet the required standards and policies.

vi. In accordance with PPS9, planting will be protected during construction.

vii. The recent changes to PPS3 seek to promote such developments.

viii. With regards to consultation, 72 residents are registered on the Electoral Register.

5. In response to points raised, the Head of Development Management’s confirmation that Thames Water had advised that they had no objection to the development and that alignment of infrastructure would not be affected by the proposed development.

6. The Planning Officers’ acknowledgement that the proposed amenity space stated in paragraph 6.2.2 of the report had been misquoted. The proposed amenity space should have read approximately 174sqm, thus providing a ratio of 117%. On this basis, the level of amenity provision still exceeded the adopted standards. Comments that the test was whether the application preserved or enhanced the Conservation Area and that this is a subjective matter.

7. The Planning Officers’ advice I relation to the recent changes to PPS3.

8. Dennis Stacey spoke on behalf of the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) to amplify their comments set out on page 114 of the agenda pack. CAG felt that the dominance of the buildings would impact on the view into the conservation area from Walsingham Road.

9. Councillor Neville strongly opposed the application on the grounds mentioned by the deputees and highlighted the request of Ward Councillor Glynis Vince that the application be deferred for a site visit.

10. Councillor Neville moved that consideration of the application be deferred to enable Members to conduct a site visit as the photographs didn’t do the area justice. Councillor Anolue seconded this motion. A vote was taken; 6 votes in favour of deferring consideration of the application and 4 votes against.

AGREED that a decision be deferred to a future Planning Committee meeting to enable Members to make a site visit.