Agenda item

Seven x 3-bed dwellings with associated parking and amenity space.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be refused; and

2.    That  refusal reason 1 be amended to include reference to refuse vehicles.

Seven x 3-bed dwellings with associated parking and amenity space

Officers introduced the report, and provided a summary of the application.

The Committee was informed that there were three main areas of concern that should be examined, namely: the principle of development, highways and parking issues, and the quality of the development.

Regarding the principle of development, it was highlighted that the development did not comply with London Plan minimum internal floorspace standards and did not represent efficient use of land given the strategic location of the site, which was within a Housing Zone. The proposed development was heavily constrained by the irregular shape of the site, and was below London Plan density standards which recommended 50 units per hectare for a suburban area.

While it was not expected that the development would have a material impact on traffic in the area, the site had very poor access, both from Nestles Avenue into Sandow Crescent, and from Sandow Crescent into the site. It was therefore considered that the site was not suitable for access by larger vehicles, including emergency service vehicles, and there were concerns regarding pedestrian and vehicle safety.

With respect to the quality of the accommodation provided, it was confirmed that the London Plan standards mandated 93sq.m of internal floorspace for a development of this size. This development provided 87sq.m of floorspace, and was therefore unacceptable.

The addendum was highlighted, and it was confirmed that since the publication of the officer's report, three additional responses had been received from occupiers in Sandow Crescent and Nestles Avenue, however these did not raise any issues that were not addressed within the report.

The applicant had attempted to address the reasons for refusal, and had discussed the development with the fire brigade, who had confirmed that the concerns regarding fire safety and emergency vehicle access could be overcome by the installation of safety sprinklers and fire hydrants. However, given the potential impact on pedestrian and highway safety, the Council's highways officer considered the access unsuitable, despite the installation of sprinklers and fire hydrants.

In addition, the applicant had asserted that the development was for a two storey, three bedroom dwelling, which required an internal floor area of 84 sq.m which complied with minimum standard of 87sq.m as set out in the London Plan. However, officers confirmed that the figures quoted by the applicant were for a two storey, 4 person unit. Officers considered that the room sizes within the dwellings were two storey, 5 person units, for which the minimum standard was 93sq.m. The proposal therefore did not comply with the London Plan requirements.

The applicant had approached the owners of the two sites that immediately adjoined the development site, and neither was interested in selling. Officers accepted the difficulty of the site assembly, however the density of the proposed development meant that the potential of the site, in a Housing Zone, was underutilised. It was requested that reference to point 3.4 of the London Plan policy be added to refusal reason 3, to further address this matter.

For these reasons, it was recommended that the application be refused.

A petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application, on behalf of petitioners and local residents. Concerns highlighted included the difficulty of vehicle access through what was a very narrow alleyway, often further restricted by parked cars. It was asserted that current access required driving over neighbouring property, which had resulted in property damage to fencing.

In addition, the lack of vehicle access by emergency services in the event of a fire could lead to fire spreading to neighbouring properties, whilst refuse collections would not be available, which could exacerbate an existing rodent problem. The safety of children who played in the area was highlighted, as it was felt that they would be at risk of injury from vehicles using the area, whilst residents who leased garages would be affected.

Members sought clarity from the petitioner regarding how refuse collections from existing properties was currently being conducted. The petitioner confirmed that refuse bags were left at the corner of the road, as the refuse vehicles could not get into the Crescent.

The Head of Planning suggested that the wording of refusal reason 1 could be amended to make reference to refuse vehicles.

The Chairman opened the item for debate, and confirmed that the impact on residents leasing garages was not a consideration for the Committee.

Members shared the concerns raised by planning officers and the petitioner, particularly the lack of access to emergency services and refuse vehicles, and on this basis the officer's recommendation was moved. This was seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be refused; and

2.    That  refusal reason 1 be amended to include reference to refuse vehicles.