Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval of delegated powers to officers to negotiate an appropriate level of off-site affordable housing contribution together with the various obligations as outlined in the report. Subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement, the Head of Development Management / Planning Decisions Manager be authorised to grant planning permission subject to conditions. Should no agreement be reached within 12 weeks, officers be granted delegated powers to refuse the application.

WARD:  Grange

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Sean Newton (Principal Planning Officer) clarifying the development site. Members also attended a site visit of the development area on Saturday 21 November 2015.

2.    Redevelopment of the site includes the demolition of three existing detached dwelling houses. No.s 18 and 20 Bush Hill and Lane End and the erection of 4 x 3 storey blocks of 20  self-contained flats comprising 8 x 2-bed, 8 x 3-bed and 4 x 4 –bed with basement car and cycle parking.

3.    The development complied with national guidance and local policy on design, as set out in the report from paragraph 6.2.4 to 6.2.15. The development would represent a significant change to the street scene but change itself was not a material planning consideration.

4.    The scheme would meet or exceed all of the criteria of adopted policy as regards sustainable design and construction. Parking provision had met with London Plan standards.

5.    The receipt of an additional letter which had been circulated to Members. The points raised were considered to have been addressed within the officer report. However, it should be noted that at the top of page 3 (4 lines down) of the report officers contended that the report at para 6.2.9 was not misleading in its reference to the development on Cunard Crescent and Princessa Court. What officers are describing is that there is no singular architectural style in the area. There are large 2 storey dwellings of various styles and design, bungalows, townhouses and flatted developments. As detailed at para 6.2.9 and 6.2.10 of the report, there is sufficient variety in the built form to allow for a more contemporary style development.

6.    There was one additional letter to report, from the London Fire Brigade. The Brigade had advised that they were not satisfied with the proposal and of the need to provide adequate turning facilities for fire appliances and recommending the use of sprinkler systems.  The applicant had been in discussion with the Fire Brigade and had confirmed the location of a proposed fire  dry riser to serve each apartment and a 1 hour minimum protected escape route. The Brigade has verbally indicated that they are satisfied with the proposals.

7.    The deputation of Roy Conway (Local resident).

8.    The statement of Councillor Terry Neville, Grange Ward Councillor, against the application.

9.    The views of Dennis Stacey speaking in an individual capacity.

10.  The response by Michael Calder (Agent).

11.  Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers. Concerns were raised regarding building quality, lack of amenity space for two of the properties, that the development did not preserve or enhance the area, speeding vehicles and the potential for accidents due to a blind bend in road, that the development size impacted on density/changes character of area, and design should be sympathetic to street scene. Other members felt the development would be beneficial in the light of the housing shortage in the Borough.

12. The officers’ recommendation was supported by a majority of the Committee:  7 votes for and 4 against.

AGREED that Members grant delegated powers to officers to negotiate an appropriate level of off-site affordable housing contribution together with the various obligations as outlined in the report, to include a contribution to traffic calming to mitigate the concerns expressed. Subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement, the Head of Development Management / the Planning Decisions Manager was authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report. Should no agreement be reached within 12 weeks, officers were granted delegated powers to refuse the application.