Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide a building of 4 storeys to provide residential units (Use Class C3) with associated residential amenity space, landscaping, car and cycle parking, refuse storage and access.

Detailed Description: 27 residential units comprising 5 x 1-bedroom, 16 x 2-bedroom and 6 x 3-bedroom.

Recommendation: Refusal

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be refused; and

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration to draft an informative recommending a more sympathetic site layout.

Officers introduced the application which was recommended for refusal for the reasons as set out in the report.

By way of written submission, a petitioner addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Key points highlighted included:

·         By reason of its excessive height and frontage width the proposal represented an overdevelopment of what was a compact site, out of keeping with the street scene and the character of the area.  The site was contrary to Mayor of London’s, Policy 7.18 Protecting open space and addressing deficiency.  

·         The higher elevation of the development would negatively impact on the privacy of Charolais House residents.

·         The report stated, “all windows met the target value” but no flats were accessed during the time stated to gain such data, therefore such data & related conclusions should be deemed inadmissible.

·         The building would encroach on the setting of a listed building and listed wall across the road at Springwell Nursery.

·         The proposal would be detrimental to the free movement of traffic on Hayes End Road, as well as pedestrian safety, by the creation of a “bottle-neck” due to the increase in traffic.

·         The siting of car parking next to the gardens and balconies of the flats at Charolais House would subject these homeowners to noise and fumes, making the gardens and balconies unusable. 

·         Future users of the proposed car parking bays will have full and open views into the gardens and windows at Charolais House.

·         Residents health would be impacted by increased traffic, resulting in increased ultrafine particles, carbon monoxide, NO2, black carbon, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, etc.

·         The proposed bin area would be clearly visible from the main road, contravention of guidance from the CFPA-E on bin separation distances from dwellings, Proximity of the bins to resident homes would result in increased smell and would attract vermin.

·         The proposed substation was extremely close to resident property contrary to the Healthy Streets agenda, as habitable rooms were within the detectable magnetic field. 

Officers advised that in their opinion, the concerns regarding separation distance, overlooking, and impact on residential amenity were not sufficient reasons for refusal. However, it was suggested that delegated authority could be given to the Deputy Director of Planning to add an informative suggesting any further submissions consider a more sympathetic site layout.

The agent for the applicant addressed the Committee. Key points highlighted included:

·         The applicant had undertaken significant consultation with Council officers which had resulted in a positive development which would improve the character of the area, with no adverse impact on listed buildings or walls.

·         The proposal would provide family unit that would help reduce pressure for family housing within the Borough.

·         The application would result in a significant CIL contribution and would also attract new first-time buyers residents to the area.

·         The development would regenerate a site that was currently in industrial use.

·         Due to higher construction and material costs, the additional of affordable homes would render the application economically unviable.

·         It was requested the application be deferred to allow for a S106 agreement to be drafted, which in turn would allow for a review of the viability of affordable housing in the future.

Officers advised the committee that a deferral was not supported, as the review mechanism referred to required officers and the applicant to agree a benchmark figure, which was unlikely. The Council’s opinion of the viability of affordable housing remained contrary to that of the applicant.

The Committee supported the officer’s recommendation, inclusive of the suggested informative, for the reasons set out in the report. This was moved, seconded, and when put to a vote, unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: 

1.    That the application be refused; and

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Deputy Director of Planning and Regeneration to draft an informative recommending a more sympathetic site layout.