Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of the existing building and erection of 3-9 storey buildings providing residential accommodation (Use Class C3) and retail use (Use Classes A1-A4) plus associated site access, car and cycle parking, landscaping works and ancillary development.

The Committee considered an application for: Demolition of the existing building and erection of 3-9 storey buildings providing residential accommodation (Use Class C3) and retail use (Use Classes A1-A4) plus associated site access, car and cycle parking, landscaping works and ancillary development.

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

Officers and the Applicant responded to questions from the Committee:

-           It was not unusual for developments close to good public transport links to have majority one or two bed dwellings.  However, since the application had been lodged, it had been amended to increase the two bed dwellings and decrease the one beds.

-           It was proposed that the retail units would be split and marketed as smaller units to address the changing demands for retail space.

-           The three bed houses had private amenity space, with an internal courtyard on the first floor.  These courtyards contained rooflights to provide daylight to the kitchen / living spaces below.  This was an increasingly common solution to dense housing areas.  These houses would also be exempt from paying service charges as they did not share the communal facilities of the flats.

-           There were only two rooms in the whole development which would not achieve BRE standards for daylight levels.

-           A review mechanism had been built in to ensure that any extra profit made would be split between the Council and the developer.

-           It was unfair to describe the communal courtyard area as a canyon.  The area received lots of daylight and sunlight, which had been tested to BRE standards.  The minimum space required for child play space was 260sqm, and the space provided by the courtyard was 480sqm. 

-           There had been no objections raised in relation to air pollution.

-           The density was higher than the London Plan guidelines, however the Committee needed to be mindful that the development was in a metropolitan area within walking distance of two tube stations and buses. 

-           The second Quality Review Panel meeting were supportive of the proposals and were broadly happy with the high road frontage.  The flats from the podium upwards were set back from the high road, which ensured that the building was not in one block.

-           There was one flat which did not meet the minimum requirements for sunlight, however it still received more than the recommended daylight levels. 

-           BRE standards recommend that amenity space received 2 hours of sunlight in 50% of the area on Spring Equinox – the plans showed that the communal amenity space would receive considerably more than the minimum recommendation.

Councillor Rice moved that the application be rejected on the grounds that it failed to provide significant affordable housing.  Councillor Bevan seconded the motion, but added that it should also be refused on the grounds that the application failed to address the concerns raised by the Quality Review Panel.

The Chair moved that the application be refused, and following a vote with seven in favour and four against, it was

RESOLVED that the application be refused.