Application number: 16/P1208     Ward: Dundonald

Officer Recommendation: Grant permission subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement and conditions.

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide offices (1,201 sq.m - class b1) and residential (99 units - class c3) accommodation in buildings of two - six storeys, provision of car parking (24 cars, 12 disabled spaces), cycle parking (224 spaces), vehicle access, landscaping, plant and associated works

The Committee noted the officer’s report and presentation and additional information in the supplementary agenda including a statement from Children Schools and Families and a summary of late letters of representation.  The Planning Team leader asked the committee to note that 10 late letters of representation had been received on the day of committee and placed on the planning explorer system one of these was in support of the application and 9 were objecting to the application.

The Committee received representations from two Ward Councillors.

Councillor Suzanne Grocott made points including:

·         The housing is badly needed and pleased to see affordable housing

·         But object to bulk and scale of this application

·         It increases the flood risk, flooding is an annual event in this area

·         5 stories is overdevelopment

·         It will overpower and overshadow The Apostles area, residents of this area are disappointed with the lack of time before committee.

Councillor Michael Bull made points including:

·         Agreed with previous points about height and appearance, and flood risk

·         Concern regarding infrastructure – Schools and Health provision

·         A major concern for many local residents is that there are only 24 parking spaces for 99 properties, and that the local CPZ is only from 8.30am to 6.30pm. Predicted that many residents of the proposed building will park on local roads after 6.30pm.

·         Need to consider the impact of the new Dundonald Church next to this and other new accommodation on the site of Southey Bowls Club

Members asked officers about the height of the proposal compared to the height of the previously allowed commercial block, and also if any part of the proposal was 7 storeys high?

The Agents were asked to answer these questions, and they confirmed that there was no part of the proposal that was 7 storeys – the wording in the report was an administrative error.  Compared to the allowed commercial building the front of the proposal was a very similar height, within 1m.

The Agent also stressed that the front of the proposal was not one continuous block.

In reply to Member’s questions about flooding, the planning team leader replied that the Council’s Flood Risk Engineer, had assessed the application site as low risk of flooding but the surrounding roads were at medium risk of surface water flooding. Therefore a detailed drainage condition requiring a Sustainable Drainage system (SuDS) to remove surface water is attached to the recommendation.

Member’s asked if officers agreed that the car parking spaces were sufficient given that car ownership across the borough was 0.67%, which would suggest that 67 spaces were needed at this site.  The Planning Team Leader replied that car ownership across the borough was 64% for all types of properties and incomes.  This development would have lower car ownership as it included affordable housing, was not all family housing and had a high PTAL score – all of which reduce car ownership. The permit free nature of the development would further reduce the demand for parking.

Members asked if there was any parking for the Businesses in the commercial section of the proposal. Officers noted that there would be loading bays across the Kingston Road frontage, as the building was set back there was sufficient space for these and a footpath .

Members asked if it could be conditioned that all parking spaces should have electric charging points. Officers replied that the application provides sufficient to meet London Plan standards and requiring additional charging points by condition  would therefore be unreasonable and was not recommended.

Members asked what would happen if Planning Permission was granted, with the proposed level of affordable housing, but the applicant were to sell the land on with the valid planning permission – could the new owner submit a new viability assessment supporting a lower level of affordable housing?

Officers replied that in such a situation the agreed heads of terms would form the starting point of negotiations with a new developer, but that all information submitted by a new developer would be scrutinised by Officers, and any such developer could not permit different  occupation arrangements of the build without an amended S106 agreement being in place.

Members asked if the provision of cycle parking was correct and would the cycle parking be secure  and noted that Officers reply that it met London Plan Standards and that by splitting up the cycle stores this was more likely to encourage their take up by residents.

Members commented that they liked the ‘Build to Rent’ plan for the development, with affordable housing peppered throughout, which is good news for key workers and will prevent units being left empty

Other members said that they were concerned about the parking provision being too low.

RESOLVED

The Committee voted to GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions

Councillor David Dean did not vote on this item.