Issue - meetings

Redevelopment of the site to erect a part 10 storey and part 11 storey residential led development comprising 127 flats and residents lounge with associated access (including Public Access Improvements) and landscaping works following demolition of existing light industrial building (Amended plans submitted 19/04/22).

Recommendation: Approval + Section 106

RESOLVED: That the application be approved.

Redevelopment of the site to erect a part 10 storey and part 11 storey residential led development comprising 127 flats and residents lounge with associated access (including Public Access Improvements) and landscaping works following demolition of existing light industrial building (Amended plans submitted 19/04/22)

Officers introduced the item and gave Members an overview of the application. It was highlighted that a similar development on the site was refused permission in 2018 and upon appeal by the applicant, the Planning Inspectorate upheld the decision to refuse permission on the grounds of the proposed scheme’s design, overbearing development and the scheme conflicting with the details of the site allocation. Members were shown a masterplan of the immediate area showing a prospective arrangement of how future development may come forward, although it was highlighted that the plan was indicative in nature and had not received planning consent; this had been requested by officers to ensure adjoining developments in the immediate vicinity would not blight one another. Officers also highlighted that the proposal’s 35% affordable housing allocation represented a significant increase in affordable units following discussions with the applicant. The benefits of the scheme were deemed to outweigh any potential harm and the application was recommended for approval subject to the proposed planning conditions, a Section 106 agreement and a Stage 2 Mayoral referral.

The Committee commended officers for their work and noted that the scheme was considered a car light development with seven disabled parking spaces provided. Officers noted that Viveash Close was not currently within a controlled parking zone (CPZ), however there were planning obligations to ensure a consultation on options to include Viveash Close in a CPZ. It was also highlighted that the site currently had a PTAL rating of 4 and was moving towards a rating of 5. It was deemed that within PTAL 4/5 areas, the local planning authority should be supporting car light developments, discouraging parking and ensuring that there were adequate measures in place to minimise car use. Members queried the potential impact this could have on parking pressures within nearby roads which were not subject to their own parking restrictions; it was noted that prospective residents would have strong local access to shops, services and facilities in addition to good public transportation links in bus and rail services. Officers highlighted that instances of car parking displacement leading to parking stresses on other nearby roads would be mitigated through a mix of parking restrictions and enhancing opportunity for transport by alternative means, namely public transport.

Members questioned what measures were in place to ensure privacy between residents using their balconies as private amenity space and sought to amend condition 7 to ensure details would be known as to any balcony screens.

The Committee sought clarification on how the amount of financial contribution towards child play space was calculated, to which officers noted that child play space contributions were based on a formula within the Planning Obligations SPD 2014 which included reference to the number of children and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149