Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Remodelling and extension to existing church. Demolition and replacement of existing hall on church site with new community facility / nursery. Proposed 22 new build residential units to church site and 10 new build residential units to Acacia Avenue site with a mix of 1, 2, 3, and 4 bedroom accommodation over 2 - 4 storeys.

RECOMMENDATION: That Members delegate authority to the Head of Development Management or Assistant Director for Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditionsand subject to a S106 Legal Agreement and the expiry of the publicity period.

The Committee considered an application for remodelling and extension to an existing church. Demolition and replacement of existing hall on church site with new community facility/nursery. Proposed 22 new build residential units to church site and 10 new build residential units to Acacia Avenue site with a mix of 1, 2, 3, and 4 bedroom accommodation over 2 - 4 storeys.

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

Cllr Bull spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Bull welcomed redevelopment of the site as it had been largely abandoned for 20 years. The Committee was advised that residents were concerned that development of the site had involved cutting back some of the overgrown land adjacent to neighbouring properties and that they felt exposed as a result. Concerns were raised that this could result in increased crime levels in an area with an existing high level of crime.

Cllr Bull informed the Committee that his primary concern was with Site B and a perception that the site was going to be over-developed. Cllr Bull advised that local residents were also concerned that; the proposal did not blend into the local architecture, loss of light to surround properties, the roof line did not match the neighbouring properties, and the prominence of the site within the local area.

Roger Molineux, the architect for the site spoke in support of the application. The site was being developed on behalf of Christian Action Housing.  The Committee were informed that in relation to Site B, the distances to other buildings and depth of gardens had been discussed with officers at the design development stage and was entirely compliant with regulations. Mr Molineux commented that the church had worked closely with officers throughout the process.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

a.    In response to a question around the recommendations of the quality Review Panel, officers advised that the surrounding gardens had been reinstated to 1 metre wide and the front of the development had been set back.

b.    Officers also advised that in regards to the parapet detailing, this had been raised in order to simplify the design by reducing the number of steps on the side profile to two.

c.    In response to a question, officers advised that given the 24m distance to neighbouring property and given the site’s orientation relevant to those houses and the sun, the loss of privacy and loss of light to surrounding houses was not considered to be significant.

d.    In response to concerns about the busy road and a neighbouring nursery, officers advised that as the 40 MPH limit was a pre-existing situation, there was not much that could be done through the planning permission. The Head of Development Management agreed to write the relevant person in TfL and raise concerns about the suitability of the local speed limit. (Action: Dean Hermitage).

The Chair MOVED that the application be GRANTED and following a vote, with 11 in favour, zero against and no abstentions or refusals, it was

RESOLVED that

That Members delegate authority to the Head of Development Management or Assistant Director for Planning to GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION subject to conditionsand subject to a S106 Legal Agreement and the expiry of the publicity period.