Agenda item

Erection of 5 part 4, part 5 storey blocks to provide 125 residential units (Use Class C3) with 99 car parking spaces and 150 cycle parking spaces and associated highways alterations, together with associated landscaping (outline application).

Recommendation – Approval

Erection of 5 part 4, part 5 storey blocks to provide 125 residential units (Use Class C3) with 99 car parking spaces and 150 cycle parking spaces and associated highways alterations, together with associated landscaping (outline application).

Officers introduced the report and outlined the changes as per the addendum.

The concerns and comments raised by petitioners in both objection and support are noted in Item 5 of the minutes, including comments from the applicant/agent.

Members discussed the size, scale and bulk of the proposals.  Members were not satisfied with the height of the hotel and suggested it would appear too large and overshadowed buildings located opposite the proposed site, which included the hotel and health centre on Freezeland Way.

Members discussed the traffic impact the proposal would have on the local area.  Members questioned the number of entry and exits on to the site and whether they met visibility requirements. Members also questioned the speed limits as they varied between the A40 and slip road.  Officers informed the Committee that the visibility requirements had been met and vehicle activated speed signs could be used to lower the speed of vehicles.

Members questioned the pedestrian crossings and stated that there was a risk for pedestrians should they have to cross 4 lanes of traffic.  Members were concerned that pedestrians would not use the crossing and could put their lives at risk. 

Officers informed the Committee that there had been 3^rd party highway consultants employed to carry out the transport assessments.  Transport for London (TfL) used the same expert consultants.  Officers stated that there was confidence in the external highway consultants, although additional traffic surveys would be carried out through the legal agreement.  Officers informed Members that it was not common practice to include the whole detailed wording of the legal agreement in the officer’s report.

Members stated that the cumulative reports clearly indicated that it would be wrong to approve both applications due to the impact on town centres, traffic and air quality in the local area.  Members also stated that there were 2 local schools in local proximity and concern was raised about an additional minute being added to pedestrian waiting times on the crossing.

The Chairman stated that further detailed traffic surveys would need to be agreed by the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transportation and Recycling.

Members discussed the proposed park on the site and that there were no designated parking spaces for the park.  Members discussed the planting of trees, including species that absorb pollution. Officers stated an informative could be added.  Members questioned whether the landscaping condition could be altered so that the boundary could act as a buffer zone.

Members raised concerns as to how residents living on the site would gain access.  It was noted that residents would need to follow a one-way system and go back on themselves which Members thought was impractical.

Members had concerns in relation to the use of the other 3 retail units proposed for the site.  In answer to a question raised officers informed the Committee that the store was to open 24 hours.

Members discussed the residential aspect of the application and agreed that the proposals could not be approved in isolation.  Members also agreed to refuse permission due to the height of the residential blocks and highways concerns.

Approval was moved and seconded and on being put to the vote was lost.

Refusal was then moved and seconded and on being put to the vote was agreed.  The reasons for refusal were to be brought back to Committee to be agreed before 7 January 2014.

Resolved - Refused