Application No: 21/P2028

Ward: Abbey

Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to conditions and s.106 legal agreement.

The Planning Officerpresentedthereport.

The Committeereceiveda verbal representation from one objectorwho madepoints including:

•   Asimilar applicationhadbeen refusedtwo years agoandthis hadbeen broughtback with an additional 25 flatsandmore singleaspect dwellings

•   Therewasnoseparationbetweenresidentialandcommercial wasteand services

•  Theschemeofferednoaffordablehousing

•   Changes are limited totheground floorandthe previous grounds for rejection werestill relevanttothis applicationwhere similarities remained.

•  Theapplicationdidnotcomply withtheLondon plan

•   Theapplicationcouldnotprovidecomfortablelivingfor future residentswithits current plans

•   The Objector raisedconcernsontheapplicationnotprovidinglightventilation in allhabitableroomsandkitchens

•   The Objector found theapplicationwontingin provisionofcontextualdesign narrative

•   The ObjectorurgedtheCommitteeto rejecttheapplicationespecially as the sites sitson trafficthoroughfare

A statementwas readonbehalf ofCouncillor Benbow.CouncillorBenbow statedthat theapplicationwas in poor designand didnot provideaffordable housing.The architectural conceptisofpoordesign andthe heightwouldcauseoverlookingand lossoflightto the neighbouringresidents.Pollutionof noise trafficwould be distressingto residents.Therewasno mentionofair qualityandthedeveloper had failedtocontactthelocal Policeto discuss secure by design.

The Planning Officer respondedandmadecommentsincluding:

•  Thatthis application differedtothepreviousapplicationsignificantly

•   The  Urban  Design  Officer  had  raised  no  significant  concerns  on  the applicationandthecommentswere noted bythedeveloper

•  Theapplicationallowed for signagefor commercial units

•   Unitsonthegroundflooraresingleaspectasresidentialunitsareattherear and thesingleunitsare facingEast orWest

•   Thebinstorageareaislarge forthesize ofthedevelopmentanddevelopers cansub-dividethespace ormanagetherefusecollection fromonespot

•   ThecommentsfromthePlanningInspectoraterelatedto thegroundfloor, whichis setaside for commercialuseandnotresidential

•  Conditionscanbeplacedin relationtomechanical ventilation

•   ThePlanningOfficerconfirmedtheneedfor40%housingand35fasttracked whichis subjectto afinancial viability assessment

•   The  pointraised forloss oflightwas nota concernforrefusalfrom  the previous  application  and  bulk  and  mass  are  the  same  as  the  previous

application

•   Therequestforsecurefordesignhasbeennotedanda conditionplacedfor details likeairlockeddoors

Members raised questions on affordablehousingon thesite.The developmentis close tothestreetsandamenities and flats canbeeasily sold,sowouldbeableto achieveviability to accommodate affordablehouses.

The Planning Officerrespondedto furtherquestionsfrom members:

•   ThePlanningOfficeradvisedtheCommitteethatthecostingsareavailableto viewontheCouncilswebsite.Therewas acontrastbetweentheapplicants and thecouncil’sviabilityreport astheyhad differentviews inconcludingthe viabilityreport.TheSchemesviabilityreport showeda deficiencyof£3 million whilsttheCouncils viability reportshoweda deficiencyof£500,000

•   Thereportis stillnotviable.Thepolicyis subjectto agetoutclauseandthe applicanthas provideda viabilityreport,whichwas subjectto scrutinybyan independentassessorwho ruledtheschemenotviable

•   ThePlanningInspectoratedecisionwas aplanningconsiderateandcannotbe overlooked, it was notedthat thesingle aspect schemewas acceptablebut notedtheEastandNorthfacingwindows. Thecurrent applicationhastaken intoconsiderationconcernsraisedandconditionsplaced.   PlanningOfficers

consideredthattheapplicationhasovercometheconcerns.

The proposalto refuse wasproposedand seconded and puttothe vote.The votefell andThe Chair movedto theofficer’srecommendationto grant permission

TheChairmovedtothevote,it was

RESOLVED

That  planning  permission  was  granted  subject  to  conditions  and  section  106 agreement