Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:

1.    That the Head of Development Management be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

2.    That the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

Ward: Chase

The introduction by Lap Pan Chong, Principal Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals and updates following the publication of the agenda.

Written representations against the officer’s recommendation received separately from residents, Nick Churcher and Sarah Rickard had been circulated ahead of the meeting.

The response of Simon Chouffot (Applicant) and Nour Sinno (HTA Design LLP, Agent).

Members’ debate and questions responded to by officers:

General statements:

1.    Although the proposal was acceptable in planning terms it was back land development.

2.    There were issues regarding the proximity of the site to the existing neighbouring properties.

Trees:

1.    The number of trees to be planted compared to those to be removed was insufficient. 

2.    Although the trees which were to be removed were not of great value, they enhanced the environment and provided greenery to a non-designated heritage asset (i.e. New River) located next to the proposed development. 

3.    A condition to increase the number of replacement trees should be required.

The Principal Planning Officer responded:

4.    Twelve, category U and C trees would be removed, and nine replacement trees would be planted.  The landscaping condition (condition 13) could be amended to secure additional replacement trees and specify the minimum number of replacement trees (12).

5.    The Ash tree is protected by a Tree Protection Order.

Traffic:

1.    The proposed parking layout, in a very heavily parked area, when alternative spaces were at least a five-minute walk away where inadequate.

2.    The number of parking spaces would not work. 

The Head of Traffic and Transportation reported that:

3.    Vehicle tracking had confirmed that fire appliances were able to access the site in the event of an emergency.

4.    Although the site was a back land development, access and parking had been assessed and found to be safe.

5.    London Fire Brigade had confirmed that access for emergency vehicles was acceptable and had confirmed that the proposed layout with six parking spaces was satisfactory.

Construction Materials:

1.    It was difficult to gain a clear image of the finished development in context with the existing surrounding properties from the presentation slides. 

2.    The slides showed examples of other developments and did not clearly show the exact materials which would be used at this site. 

3.    Physical samples of the building materials, particularly the colour of the exterior finishes, such as the bricks to be used would enable members to make an informed decision should be brought to the meetings of the Planning Committee at the appropriate time.

The Principal Planning Officer responded:

1.    The proposed masonry blocks are mainly terracotta-coloured and had been selected considering a basket of factors. Officers have reviewed the samples of the proposed masonry blocks. Given the architectural styles in the area varies, the proposed masonry would not harm the character of the area. The details of the construction materials to be used and samples had been conditioned and would be selected carefully.

Communal Refuse Store:

1.    The location of the communal refuse store, at approximately 30 metres, was a considerable distance from the properties and would not encourage residents to place their refuse in the bins on a day-to-day basis.

2.    The location of the communal refuse store was impractical on a day-to-day basis and would encourage fly-tipping and not just by residents.

3.    Fly-tipping across the Borough was an increasing problem, one which was resource intensive.

4.    The position of the communal refuse store, on a corner, was considered to have been selected for the convenience of the refuse collection vehicles rather than the convenience of the residents.  Access to the site was too narrow for the large vehicles.

5.    Access to the store, if secured by a padlock, would discourage residents from using the store.  Residents would be less likely to return to their property if they had forgotten their key.

6.    The communal refuse store was considered to be located too near to the neighbour at 89 Worcesters Avenue.

7.    Refuse stores should be located outside individual premises, which would encourage residents to separate their rubbish for recycling.

8.    The standalone refuse store may be suitable but not in the proposed location.  Possible solutions could be relocating the communal refuse store to nearer the properties or the provision of individual bins for each property.  Closer proximity of the bins to the proprieties would encourage residents to increase their recycling.

The Principal Planning Officer responded:

1.    The Waste Team had been consulted and conducted a site visit. Different refuse collection options had been explored.  The position of the on-site communal refuse area, which would be lockable with a keypad, had been identified as the most suitable location, which gave access to the refuse vehicles.  The future residents would only need to carry their bin bags to the communal refuse store instead of dragging wheelie bins to the refuse collection points on either Meyer Green or Worcesters Avenue.  The communal refuse store would also be fully covered, enclosed and integrated with soft landscaping to deter fly tipping and reduce visual and amenity impacts on the existing residents.  This arrangement was considered as a reasonable compromise

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr Chouffot (Applicant), reassured the Committee that the issues raised regarding the collection and disposal of refuse would be re-examined and a manageable solution would be found.  He confirmed that the lady who resided near the proposed refuse store had been consulted and had not expressed any concerns regarding the proximity of the refuse store in relation to her property.  Careful consideration had been given to the landscaping around the refuse store.  However, the Company was committed to improving the proposal through negotiation with the Council.  It was not their intention to make problems for the existing and future residents.

In conclusion:

The Head of Development Management confirmed that on balance there would be no overall harm caused by the proposed development.  A number of options regarding the location of the communal refuse store and the operation of day-to-day refuse disposal by residents and collection by the refuse vehicles had been considered. A managed arrangement could be further explored with the applicant which could be included into an additional condition, subject to the agreement of the Chair.

On being put to the vote there was unanimous support for the officer’s recommendation subject to two additional conditions: i) specifying at least 12 replacement trees to be planted and ii) requesting details of the managed arrangements for refuse collection to avoid the need for a standalone refuse store.

AGREED:

1.         That the Head of Development Management be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the report and the two additional conditions in relation to trees and refuse collection and disposal; and

2.    That the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the recommendation section of the report and the two additional conditions in relation to trees and refuse collection and disposal.

3.    That the final approval of details of the managed solution, be agreed in consultation with the Chair.