Agenda item

Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission ref. 8396/APP/2016/777 dated 04-11-2016 (Redevelopment of the site to provide a new three storey building containing 26 flats (Class C3) with associated parking, balconies, landscaping and rear communal amenity space) to relocate the bin storage area and to introduce an additional studio unit with associated elevation, parking and landscaping alterations.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED – That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendation and subject to the changes in the addendum.

Officers introduced the report and provided an overview of the application. Planning permission was sought for the variation of Condition 2 of planning permission ref: 8396/APP/2016/777 dated 04-11-2016 (Redevelopment of the site to provide a new three storey building containing 26 flats (Class C3) with associated parking, balconies, landscaping and rear communal amenity space) to relocate the bin storage area and to introduce an additional studio unit with associated elevation, parking and landscaping alterations). Officers highlighted the addendum and made a recommendation for refusal.

Three petitioners spoke in objection to the application for a total of five minutes, and in summary, submitted that the residents at Snowdon Avenue would be adversely affected by noise and odour if this development were to go ahead. Car exhausts fumes and odour towards the kitchen existed. One of the properties had a kitchen air vent which faced the proposed bin area which was less than six metres away. This was wholly inappropriate and living space would be ruined if the application was approved. Petitioners were disappointed with the 30 m limit for rubbish in transit and considered that the scheme represented a massive hurdle for disabled residents. There was also an issue with foxes in the area which could affect waste bins. Petitioners were encouraged by the fact that officers made a recommendation for refusal. The relocation of cycle store, expansion of the car park and loss of the soft space would bring unacceptable noise and disturbance. It would endanger what remained of the trees on the site and, if approved, would revert back to the cramped overdeveloped area. The layout of the car park seemed to differ to the approved land. The process had been stressful for petitioners. Petitioners asked for the application to be refused.

The agent addressed the Committee and made the following points. The agent referred to a briefing note that had been circulated earlier to all Members, the petitioners and officers. The agent asked Members to consider the facts, have regard to the suggested planning conditions and asked for them to support this application. This application was a minor amendment to an approved scheme which was now under construction and substantially complete. It was submitted that the officer’s report raised no objection to the additional housing unit, waste officers confirmed the acceptability of the bins location, highways officers supported the application for additional car and cycle spaces and the design and the window, door and size were all supported. The agent referred to national planning policy guidance where it was stated that in cases where conditions could be suitably imposed, planning permission should not be refused. The agent noted the refusal reasons and commented on them each individually. The agent submitted that, in light of the need for more housing in urban areas and the suggested planning conditions, this application should be approved.

Members questioned whether the refusal reason on the trees and whether the suggested conditions could overcome the refusal reasons. Officers explained that the purpose of lodging the planning application was to ensure that there were no uncertainties.  In this case, there had been no assurances that there would not be a detrimental impact on the tree. The onus was on the Council to protect the trees and in this case, there was insufficient evidence to suggest that refusal reason two should be removed.

Members noted that the current developed site was already above the density of the London Plan. Members questioned whether this was going to be higher and could this be another refusal reason. Officers explained that refusal reasons were formed based on the actual issues and that could be defended at appeal.  It was confirmed that the density was rising but was not enough to form a refusal reason as this was outweighed by the need for more affordable housing.

Members commented that it was a nice development, however accepted the petitioners concerns regarding noise and odour. Members also considered that the design in relation to the location and distance of the bins did not serve all residents of ages and accessibility. Officers clarified that accessibility issues were included in building regulations.

The officer’s recommendation was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED – That the application be refused as per officer’s recommendations.