Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:

1. That the Head of Development Management be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions listed in this report:

2. That the Head of Development Management be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the conditions.

WARD: Town

NOTED

1.    The introduction by Andy Higham, Head of Development Management, clarifying the proposal and the scheme.

2.    The deputation of Kieran McCarthy (on behalf of the Churchbury Lane, Fyfield Road & Fir Tree Walk community) against the officers’ recommendation.

3.    The response of Savvas Michael (Applicant).

4.    Members debate and questions responded to by officers.

5.    During discussion, the following concerns were raised:

·       Clarity was sought regarding the traffic impact on the area, relating to the 19 rooms of the development and 20 staff. Accident records showed no accidents had occurred in this area in the last 23 years. Traffic calming improvements had been made in the area.

·       The need for this type of accommodation in the borough. Social Services team confirmed that there was no overwhelming demand in this borough which there may be elsewhere in London.

·       Compliance with the internal layout, planning was happy to accept a condition that details of compliance with the internal layout was provided and confirmed.

·       20 staff at the development, these would be split on a shift basis with 10 working during the day and 10 at night. Since the appeal decision by the inspector, there has been the implementation of Churchbury Lane being closed at its junction with Parsonage Lane which has affected and changed the nature of traffic movements along that road.

·       Fire safety – a condition could be put in place to cover this and obtain a fire statement, but the main reliance would be under the building regulations.

·       Tree survey – officers had re-inspected the site and are satisfied that there had been no change in circumstances that would require another survey to be done and are therefore comfortable with the conclusions in the tree survey.

·       Loss of privacy/overlooking – this was for Members to make a judgement on. The flank elevation showed that there are windows that have been obscure glazed so members would have to judge what the loss of privacy is, as a result of those obscure glazed windows, to the neighbouring properties.

·       Roof lights on the 2^nd floor and obscure glazing in certain areas – Members were reminded of the requirements for a tilted balance. The nature of the accommodation meant that there are communal spaces that the residents could come out into and would benefit from other uses. These were not traditional flats. In planning terms there were no such regulations regarding roof lights, obscure glazing and whether rooms should also be doubles.

·       Supported living standards and challenging behaviour of residents – Residents could be stuck in rooms with only roof lights for ventilation if unable to be taken outside. A condition could be imposed detailing how rooflights could be controlled as regards opening them.

·       Communal areas/Amenity space. Members wanted to know if there were any standards from social services for amenity space for supported living of this nature.

6.    The proposal by Councillor Rye to defer the application, seconded by Councillor Steven, for the following reasons:

·       To provide certainty as to how the internal layout will work.

·       Regarding Trees – what is being retained, provided and any re-planting.

·       What amenity space is being offered for 1^st and 2^nd floor occupants, and if adequate.

·       Fire safety – to see if standards are being met.

·       To investigate if there are any access to daylight/sunlight issues.

7.    The unanimous support for the motion to defer for the above reasons.

Officers Recommendation NOT Agreed.

Application DEFERRED for further consideration.