Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to conditions, completion of necessary S106 Agreement and subject to referral to the Greater London Authority.

WARD: Ponders End

NOTED

1.    The introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager clarifying the application site which includes further additional sites, as detailed at 1.2 (page 15) of the report.

2.    The additional sites had been incorporated into the application site to achieve a more comprehensive approach to redevelopment, increase housing numbers and provide the opportunity to enhance the community facilities.

3.    The demolition of all existing buildings including the existing 746 residential units and the re-provision of 993 new dwellings, an increase of 247 dwellings, spread over 4 phases. Further details of the application proposal at paragraph 2.3 (page 18) of the report.

4.    Provision of car parking in a combination of on street and dedicated parking. The proposed parking ratio was equivalent to 0.6 spaces per unit.

5.    The accommodation mix is not policy compliant but the proposed mix had been viably tested to establish whether a greater proportion of family units could be provided. The independent viability consultant concluded that a more fully compliant mix would not be financially viable.

6.    40% of the total number of units proposed would be affordable units comprising a 50:50 split of social rent and intermediate housing.

7.    Two further representations had been received:

·         London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority – No objection.

·         Alma Residents Association (ARA) – No objection in principle and expressed support for both applications, but have concern about some aspects of the design on the south side of Street particularly around the Welcome Point Community Centre.

8.    Committee Report discrepancies – There were a number of minor discrepancies/updates in terms of the points identified in the report:

·         Para 6.5.40 – The applicant has submitted alternative proposals to the zip car proposal for the car club and this will be considered by officers as part of the Section 106 discussions.

·         6.2.41 – where the 4 bed + units in the table, the difference between proposed and existing is 26 units, not 25 units, and the percentage should therefore be 520%.

·         6.5.42 – The need or otherwise for a CPZ will first need to be established through monitoring and then if confirmed required, secured through a CPZ.

·         6.5.45 – Delete the sentence – Cycle parking should be provided in the form of Sheffield stands across all phases and replaced with ‘A condition is recommended requiring details of cycle parking across all phases, together with a strategy for allocation/management of spaces and strategy to secure an uplift in provision where possible towards the new London Plan standards.

9.    The Alma Road Residents Association did not wish to make a deputation but their written concerns regarding the Welcome point site were noted.

10.The deputation of Jeff Field (Longwood Properties London Ltd).

11. The deputation of Caroline Harper (Metropolitan Housing Trust (MHT).

12. The response of Rosie Baker and Leigh Bullimore, on behalf of Terence O’ Rourke (Agents) and Pollard Thomas Edwards, Architects, respectively.

13.Members discussion and questions responded to by officers, including Members comments of support for the scheme.

14.Following a debate, the unanimous support of the officers recommendation by the committee.

AGREED that subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and referral to the Greater London Authority, the Head of Development Management/Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report.