Agenda item

Demolition of all existing single/two storey buildings including outbuildings within the site and construction of residential development comprising 69 residential units, 71 car parking spaces and associated works.

Recommendation: Approval

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to:

1.    The Head of Planning being given delegated authority to amend condition 16; and

2.    The Head of Planning being given delegated authority to amend the wording related to recommendation A)ii), in consultation with the Chairman and Labour Lead.

Bourne Court - 11891/APP/2016/3583  (Agenda Item 8)

Demolition of all existing single/two storey buildings including outbuildings within the site and construction of residential development comprising 69 residential units, 71 car parking spaces and associated works

Officers introduced the report, and confirmed that the site layout displayed on the presentation was different to that within the Member Plans Pack. This was due to the addition of 9 parking spaces to allow for 1:1 parking for the one and two bed flats, with 2 spaces each for each of the three-bed units. These additional parking spaces had been added following the realignment of the previously proposed spaces. Members were informed that small street trees had previously been located within the proposed parking space. It was now proposed that these be removed, and replaced by feature trees at the ends of each parking ‘strip’. This would result with a satisfactory landscaping outcome, together with a better parking ratio.

A key difference between the previously approved scheme and this was the proposed increase in units, from 49 to 69. This had been facilitated by the removal of some of the proposed houses and their replacement with a block of flats.

No objections had been raised to the principle of the development, given that it had previously been approved, and it was considered that the development would result in an acceptable appearance within the street scene, and would provide suitable landscaping and appropriate living conditions for future occupiers. It was considered that the application would have no detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby residential occupiers.

The addendum was highlighted, which showed the proposed changes to the site layout inclusive of the new parking spaces, which had resulted in slight amendments to conditions 3 and 10, and an amendment to the Head of Term 5, which related to the provision of a travel plan. This had been changed to specify a requirement of a travel plan statement, rather than a full travel plan, due to Transport for London (TfL) guidance which stipulated that for developments comprising between 50 and 80 units, only a travel plan statement was required. In addition, it was proposed that condition 17 be removed, and replaced with a car parking management strategy.

The officer concluded by recommending that the application be approved.

The Chairman advised that, as the bins and cycle stores were listed on the plans, conditions 10/2A and 2B could be removed. In addition, clarity was sought over whether living roofs were included within the proposal. Officers confirmed that the plans did include some living roofs, but no living walls.

Members sought comment from officers regarding the breach of the 45 degree sightline proposed at Block A, as the previous report appeared to state that there was no breach. With regard to the unit located at first floor level, officers confirmed that 15m was the standard overdominance distance, with 21m as the standard overlooking measurement. The proposed development was therefore sufficiently far away, with several gardens intervening, which meant that officers were not unduly concerned over the potential for overdominance in this instance.  With regard to overlooking, it was recommended that the proposal be conditioned to include balcony screens and appropriate window arrangements to ensure sufficient privacy.

Members referenced the balcony of Flat 14, Block B, which overlooked the gardens of the adjacent road, and asked whether a privacy screen was necessary. Officers drew the Committee’s attention to condition 16 within the report, and advised that this could be strengthened by way of delegated authority to the Head of Planning, to ensure all issues of overlooking were dealt with appropriately.

Members sought clarity over recommendation A)ii which stated that the scheme was to deliver 35% affordable housing on site, or to demonstrate how equivalent provision could be delivered elsewhere through an in lieu contribution. Members discussed the merits of amending this so that it mandated 35% affordable housing by habitable room, rather than by value. It was agreed that this be reworded by the Head of Planning in consultation with the Chairman and the Labour Lead.

RESOLVED: That the application be approved, subject to:

1.    The Head of Planning being given delegated authority to amend condition 16; and

2.      The Head of Planning being given delegated authority to amend the wording related to recommendation A)ii), in consultation with the Chairman and Labour Lead.