Application Number:  16/P4853  Ward: Village

Recommendation: Grant Planning Permission subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement and conditions.

Proposal: Erection of 7 x flatted blocks with a maximum height of 5 storeys (including roof space and lower ground floor accommodation) to provide 75 residential units with associated arrangements including basement car parking and the provision of public and private landscaped spaces.

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the Supplementary Agenda.

The Objectors  raised concerns including (full details of objections received are summarised in the Officers report):

·         Application is invalid

·         Housing Density is too high, and much higher than previous application

·         Housing Density is too high for a PTAL (Passenger Transport  Accessibility Level) rating of 1

·         Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) should not be included in application site

·         Disturbance to wildlife

·         Trees are deciduous and so will not provide screening in the winter

·         Inadequate provision of parking for visitors and service vehicles

·         Air Pollution survey by residents suggests that levels of pm10s and Nitrogen Oxide  are double those in the report

The Agent made points including:

·         The site is defined by the hospital buildings

·         The application has been reduced in scale

·         Community sessions have been held

·         The DRP have made positive comments

·         The Scheme will substantially enhance the Conservation Area and MOL with the provision of a community pavilion, playing fields, and measures to ensure biodiversity

·         The development will provide  much needed homes

Councillor John Bowcott made points including:

·         Application is unacceptable and will dominate the Conservation area

·         Buildings are too tall and monolithic in this sensitive area.

·         The Council has  policies to protect views

·         This is a semi-rural area and the MOL is protected

·         The development is a threat to air quality

Councillor Jill West made points including:

·         This application does not protect  the Copse Hill Conservation Area

·         It is too dense, lacks affordable homes and is subject to flooding

·         No evidence that the Applicant has listened to residents

·         There are no other tall blocks in this area

·         It is a semi-rural area, and this development would set a precedent

In reply to Members’ Question, Officers made points including:

·         The affordable housing provision was 18 units for shared ownership. This was a 24% provision and had been set by the independent viability assessment. A ‘clawback’ review mechanism could be required by condition to review this provision at a later date.

·         The site density of 298 habitable homes per square hectare is higher that the figure of 150-200 suggested in the London Plan. However, the London Plan is clear that its figures are indicative not absolute, and the density of this site is considered acceptable.

·         Members must remember that there was a large ugly hospital on this site and that would have generated many car journeys

·         London Plan allows for inclusion of grass land into site boundary

·         The height of the buildings is considered to be acceptable in the setting.

Members commented that it was a well designed scheme with significant gaps between the buildings to maintain the view, and was a considerable improvement on the previous hospital buildings.

Other Members considered the proposal to be to high and bulky in its setting within the conservation area and next to MOL.  They did not consider that the application met the criteria of protecting and enhancing the Conservation Area.  They also felt that residents of  the site would be reliant on their cars. They were also disappointed about the amount of affordable housing.

A resolution to refuse on the grounds that the development neither protected nor enhanced the Conservation Area was proposed but was not carried by the vote.  The Chair used her casting vote to support Officers Recommendation to grant Planning Permission. An additional condition requiring a review of the viability arrangements in the future (a ‘clawback’ mechanism) was agreed.

RESOLVED

A.   The Committee voted  to GRANT Planning Permission subject to completion of s106 agreement and conditions set out in the Officers Report and an additional condition requiring the viability arrangements to be reviewed in the future.

B.   The Director of Environment and Regeneration be given delegated authority to agree the detailed wording of the above additional condition