Agenda item

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be approved;

2)    That the relevant condition be amended to include a requirement for pollution absorbing trees; and

3)    That condition 29 be divided into two parts for the purposes of clarification.

Demolition of the existing retail warehouse and re-development of the Site to provide a mixed-use development comprising 150 residential units (Use Class C3) and flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class B1b/B1c), within two development blocks, with associated amenity areas, landscaping, car parking and all ancillary and enabling works.

Officers introduced the item noting that the site was split into two parts, east and west; Members were informed that the application pertained to the west side of the site, it was likely that a separate application would be submitted for the east side of the site.

Members attention was drawn to the addendum which stated that the proposed number of three-bedroom units within the affordable housing allocation had increased from two to four at the request of the Council’s Housing team. It was further noted that, although the overall development would not provide policy compliant levels of affordable housing, it was agreed by officers that amount provided was the maximum viable amount within the tenure that best meets the needs of the Borough.

Members were informed that concerns were raised with regard to the number of proposed parking spaces and the impact on the local highway network. It was noted that proposed parking allocations came to 0.43 spaces per unit which was deemed to be, on balance, acceptable. The site was also deemed to be well connected and that mitigation measures such as highway improvements, parking permit restrictions, a car club scheme and a controlled parking zone review, were all secured by the Section 106 agreement.

Members welcomed the additional three-bedroom affordable housing units but asked for clarification with regard to amenity space and the designated public open space. It was confirmed that the public open space would be accessible by the general public, not just residents of the development. In relation to amenity space, it was noted that private amenity space, such as balconies and roof terraces, had been separately assessed to communal spaces.

A specific concern was raised as to compliance with policy DMCI 4, Open Spaces in New Development; whereby the proposed development was seen to provide a significant shortfall of what is required from the policy. Officer’s noted that due to the difficulty of delivering the policy requirement within a scheme such as this, mitigation measures had been put in place of financial contributions to improve local areas of public open space, this was then deemed to be policy compliant.

With regard to daylight and sunlight issues, Members highlighted that 40 rooms out of 144 in the ‘affordable block’ fail to meet ‘no-sky line’ target values. It was noted that, although there were daylight and sunlight failures, a scheme such as the one proposed would expect a certain level of daylight and sunlight issues, these weren’t deemed significant enough to warrant a reason for refusal.

In relation to the density of units, Members were concerned that the provision of 238 units per square hectare exceeded local policies requiring a maximum of 170 units per square hectare. It was noted that the proposed density was compliant with the requirements of the newly adopted London Plan (2021), albeit since publication of the new London Plan, local policies may have become out of line with acceptable requirements. On balance, officers deemed the density levels to be acceptable. Members were discouraged by the new density limits in the London Plan which were seen to be at the expense of the quality of living environment.

Further concern was raised as to the non-conformity with policy H5 of the London Plan (2021), that there should be a 50% threshold level of affordable housing on gross residential development on Non-Designated Industrial Sites. Members were informed that policy H5 states that there should be a provision of 50% affordable housing unless it is demonstrated through a viability review that the maximum reasonable percentage of affordable housing is being provided. A viability review had been received and the proposed number of affordable housing was deemed the maximum reasonable amount.

Clarification was sought with regard to highways access. It was confirmed that there would be new vehicular access to the site from North Hyde Road and access from Keith Road would be for cyclists and pedestrians only; the proposals had been subject to a road safety audit and were found to be satisfactory.

Members also highlighted a need to add a landscaping condition with regard to the planting of pollution absorbing plants and trees. Officers confirmed that this would be possible.

Though condition 29 of the officer’s report confirmed that full details of the mechanical ventilation heat recovery system within the buildings would be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, Members requested the condition be amended to clarify that the entire development demonstrate appropriate mitigation to minimise the risk of overheating of the residential units.

The officer’s recommendation, subject to the changes discussed by the Committee and the amendments listed on the addendum, was moved, seconded and, when put to a vote, agreed by six votes to one, with one abstention.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the application be approved;

2)    That the relevant condition be amended to include a requirement for pollution absorbing trees; and

3)    That condition 29 be divided into two parts for the purposes of clarification.