Agenda item

Demolition of extensions and outbuildings, the conversion of the former police station, and the construction of new residential buildings to provide 28 x 1, 2, 3, and 4 bedroom dwelling units, parking provision, cycle and refuse storage.

 

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 Legal Agreement 

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for demolition of extensions and outbuildings, the conversion of the former police station and the construction of new residential buildings to provide 28 x 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwelling units, parking provision, cycle and refuse storage. The report set out details of the section 106 heads of terms/ s278 agreement, proposed development, site and surroundings, relevant planning history, consultation and responses, material planning considerations and CIL.

 

The Planning Officer gave a presentation outlining the key aspects of the report.

 

Cllr Blake, ward councillor for St Ann’s addressed the Committee in support of the application and raised the following points:

 

·         The increase in affordable units compared with the previous application which had been refused permission was broadly welcomed.

·         The separation between the existing police station building and the new block was welcomed; the police station was a well-loved local building and it was important to maintain its integrity.

·         It was positive that this application included more communal space and a garden area.

·         Local councillors and residents asked for the buildings to be as sustainable as possible.

 

In response to a question from the Committee regarding their intention to proceed with the appeal against the previous refusal of planning permission, the applicants advised that it would not make financial sense for them to appeal in the event that they had an implementable planning permission in place. The legal advisor to the Committee asked for clarification on this point in respect of the application currently before the Committee, and the applicants confirmed that the permission as set out in the report before the Committee, including the conditions and section 106 agreement, would in their view be an implementable permission if granted.

 

The Committee asked a number of questions of the applicants and officers, and the following points were raised during the discussion:

 

·         In response to a question regarding the roof, it was confirmed that a shallow pitch was proposed in order to reduce the overall height of the scheme, compared with the height that would be needed in order to accommodate a flat roof.

·         The Committee asked how the reduction in density had been achieved, in response to which the applicants confirmed that introducing the gap between the police station and new block as well as the reduction in the depth of the plan had contributed to the lower density. It was noted that the smaller plan depth had also enabled all units to be dual aspect.

·         In response to a question from the Committee regarding how the parking spaces would be allocated, the applicants confirmed that allocation would be on a basis of need, with priority given to the family-sized units. The applicants confirmed that none of the open-market units would be advertised as having a dedicated parking space and that allocation would be solely on the basis of need.

·         In response to a question regarding the gap between the police station and new block, the applicants confirmed that this would be for the use of residents to access the bicycle park. It was confirmed that this would be secured by means of a gate and would be lit for additional security. It was agreed that an informative should be added to ensure that lighting of the gap was included explicitly in the landscaping scheme required by condition.

·         The Committee welcomed this application as an improvement on the proposal previously submitted.

 

The Chair moved the recommendations as set out in the report, with the additional informative that lighting of the gap be included explicitly in the landscaping scheme, and on a vote the motion was carried and it was therefore:

 

RESOLVED

 

(i)        That the Committee grant planning permission and that the Head of Development Management be authorised to issue the planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out below and subject to the prior completion of a section 106 / section 278 Legal Agreement providing for the obligation set out in the Heads of Terms below.

 

(ii)       That the section 106 / section 278 legal agreement referred to in resolution (i) above is to be completed no later than 16^th March 2016 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management shall in her/his sole discretion allow; and

 

(iii)      That, following completion of the agreement(s) referred to in resolution (i) within the time period provided for in resolution (ii) above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

 

Conditions

 

1)    Development  begun no later than three years from date of decision

2)    In accordance with approved plans

3)    Materials submitted for approval

4)    Central satellite dish – removal of PD rights for antennas

5)    Refuse and recycling details

6)    Construction management statement

7)    Dust management

8)    NOX boilers

9)    Communal boilers

10) NRMM

11)Carbon reduction

12)Removal of PD rights to 5 x mews houses

13)Minimum cycle parking provision and maximum on site car parking provision

14)Site wide landscaping

15)Drainage:  Greenfield run-off rates to be achieved

 

Informatives

 

1)            Co-operation

2)            CIL liable

3)            Street Numbering

4)            Hours of construction

5)            Thames Water

6)            London Fire Brigade

 

Section 106 Heads of Terms / S278 Agreement:

 

1)            Car capped;

2)            Residential Travel Plan, Car Club, Electric Charging Points;

3)            £3,000 per Travel Plan for monitoring;

4)            £20,000 CPZ review;

5)            £3,514.55 in s278 contributions;

6)            £15,000 towards cycling and walking improvements;

7)            21% (by unit number) Affordable Housing;

8)             Employment and training obligations. Notification to Council of any     job vacancies during the construction phase;

9)             Review mechanism should the development not be implemented within 18months; and

10)      Considerate Contractors Scheme.

 

(iv)    That, in the absence of the agreement referred to in resolution (i) above being completed within the time period provided for in resolution (ii) above, the planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

 

1. In the absence of the provision of residential and work place travel plans, a travel plan co-ordinator, a financial contribution towards the monitoring of the Travel Plan, the scheme being car capped, and contributions towards CPZ review, cycling and walking improvements, traffic management studies, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on local traffic movement and surrounding road network and would be contrary to Local Plan Policy SP7, saved UDP Policies M8 and M10, and draft DM Policy DM32 and London Plan Policies 6.11, 6.12 and 6.13.

 

2. In the absence of the provision of 21% on site affordable housing and review mechanism to secure further affordable housing, the proposal would fail to contribute to the identified need for affordable housing in the area and would be contrary to Local Plan Policy SP2, London Plan Policy 3.12 and draft DM Policy DM13. 

 

3. In the absence of a considerate constructor’s agreement, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of surrounding neighbours and would be contrary to saved UDP Policy UD3, and draft DM Policy DM1 and London Plan Policy 7.6.

 

4. In the absence of a scheme towards Construction training / local labour initiatives and a financial contribution towards Work Placement Co-ordinators (WPCs), the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the community and would be contrary to Local Plan Policy SP8 and London Plan Policy 4.1

 

(v)     In the event that the Planning Application is refused for the reasons set out in resolution (iv) above, the Head of Development Management (in consultation with the Chair of Planning sub-committee) is hereby authorised to approve any further application for planning permission which duplicates the Planning Application provided that:

 

(i) There has not been any material change in circumstances in the relevant planning considerations, and

(ii) The further application for planning permission is submitted to and approved by the Head of Development Management within a period of not more than 12 months from the date of the said refusal, and

(iii) The relevant parties shall have previously entered into the agreement contemplated in resolution (i) above to secure the obligations specified therein.