Agenda item

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1) That subject to referral of the application to the Greater London Authority (Stage 2) and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the matters covered in this report, the Head of Planning be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

2) That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the Section 106 Agreement and the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.

WARD: Whitewebbs

Lap-Pan Chong, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report, highlighting the key aspects of the application.

A deputation was received from Daniel Ishack, a local resident, who spoke against officers’ recommendation.

A deputation was received from Cllr Hannah Dyson, Whitewebbs Ward Councillor, who spoke against the officers’ recommendation.

The agent, Emma Hardy, spoke in response.

Officers responded to comments, and advised that the road safety and accessibility had been considered. The segregated pedestrian route, addition of give way signs, and lighting were tools being requested as a way of improving safety. It was estimated that during the AM peak, 40 vehicles would leave and 14 arrive, thus there would not be a large conflict of traffic, and the narrow nature of the road meant there should be a low vehicle speed, alleviating concerns regarding accidents. The trip rate was said to be calculated internally by officers using an industry standard database; this is separate to the applicant’s transport consultants, who conduct the same process, each of which produce a broadly similar estimate. It was advised that parking on the road did take place but that this was for short periods and would not have a huge impact on safety, and the removal of the existing aquarium site would increase general parking provision. The Council-led new southbound fixed bus stop would be relocated further away from the bend to make it safer. Parking provision would be accommodated onsite, thus there was unlikely to be an overspill.

Officers advised that with regards to the application being on the greenbelt, it was considered that very special circumstances did exist such that the application could be supported. The section 106 obligations meant the applicant was fully committed to mitigate the impact of the development through various contributions. An air quality assessment had been submitted and officers raised no objections to this, or the potential for noise issues. Officers had raised no objections to the character of the proposals, and the applicant was committed to conditions to mitigate its impact, including being only 2 storeys with a maximum ridge height at 8.5m, and having a 15m distancing landscape buffer to the north boundary. Further landscape and visual impact assessments had also been committed to by the applicant. The Applicant was also committed to attend Design Review Panels prior to submission of reserved matters applications.  

In response to Member’s queries regarding the housing mix, officers advised that a section 106 agreement would secure the affordable housing provision offered through the application. Officers reassured members that if the applicant sought to reduce the quantum of affordable housing offered through this application that given the significant weight in the planning balance, that such a request would lead to a new application being required, at which point different weight would be attributed to the consideration of the circumstances that cumulatively make the case for very special circumstance. It was confirmed that there would be 6 accessible units, but the mix of 2 and 3 beds of these had not yet been discussed.

In response to Member’s queries regarding access/ traffic, officers advised that the visibility at the Clay Hill junction was good, and only 1 accident had taken place in the past 7 years. As well as the transport assessment that had been submitted, officers also had checked it themselves.

In response to Member’s queries regarding allotments, officers advised that included in the proposal was a shared area which could be used for food growing. It would support residents in the community and the applicant had committed to provide basic infrastructure for the community food growing area and a financial contribution to support the future non-profit making management group.

In response to Member’s queries regarding the consideration of very special circumstances, officers advised of the collective factors in favour of the application. These factors included delivery of 100% affordable housing including family homes, which officers attributed substantial weight to, (given the affordable housing provision is above the policy requirements particularly in the context of shortfall in five-year housing land supply, under-delivery of housing in the last 3 years and long-term under-delivery of affordable housing). Officers also attributed moderate weight to biodiversity net gain and food growing provision given the proposal had also gone above and beyond the policy requirements with respect to these two factors. Together with all other factors that weighed in favour of the application (despite limited weight being attributed to these), officers considered that very special circumstances existed.

Brett Leahy, Director of Planning and Growth, expressed that officers recognised the challenge of the application being in the Greenbelt. He advised that the applicant was of the reasoned view that the land was Previously Developed Land within the Greenbelt and therefore they considered that the application of Very Special Circumstances did not need to apply; that officers were of the different view that it was not Previously Developed Land, but that Very Special Circumstances existed, and that if the application went to public inquiry, this difference of opinion may play out.

Members had ongoing concerns with regards to: transport/ travel safety; the difficulty in accessing any amenities, which were some distance away; and building on Greenbelt, some feeling that Very Special Circumstances had not been demonstrated and alternative sites outside the Green Belt had not been fully exhausted.

Cllr Rye proposed a countermotion, that planning permission be refused, on the basis that: Very Special Circumstances had not been demonstrated for development on the Greenbelt, particularly in relation to the harm to openness, and reasonable alternative sites had not been exhausted. This was seconded by Cllr Chamberlain.

Officers asked whether the councillor would be willing to amend this countermotion to a deferral to consider refusal, so that officers could seek guidance on the merits of the concerns expressed, namely the impact on the Greenbelt and the arising harm. Cllr Rye agreed to this, on the proviso that the application would then come back to planning committee for a decision.

This proposal, having been put to the vote; Members voted:

4 FOR

8 AGAINST

0 ABSTENTIONS

and so, this countermotion was not passed.

The original officer’s recommendation, having been put to the vote; Members voted:

8 FOR

4 AGAINST

0 ABSTENTIONS

and so, it was AGREED:

1) That subject to referral of the application to the Greater London Authority (Stage 2) and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the matters covered in this report, the Head of Planning be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

2) That the Head of Planning be granted delegated authority to agree the final wording of the Section 106 Agreement and the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.