Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of existing structures and construction of two buildings to provide eight units for light industrial (Use Class B1(c); industrial (Use Class B2); and/or storage and distribution (Use Class B8)) purposes, with ancillary offices and associated landscaping, car parking, servicing and access arrangements.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of existing structures and construction of two buildings to provide eight units for light industrial (Use Class B1(c); industrial (Use Class B2); and/or storage and distribution (Use Class B8)) purposes, with ancillary offices and associated landscaping, car parking, servicing and access arrangements.

Councillor Gideon Bull addressed the Committee in support of the application.  He informed the Committee that he was impressed by the level of engagement with residents and ward councillors by SEGRO on the scheme.  The current site was a blight on the local landscape, and the development would provide a much improved site and a number of jobs.

Steve Lord and Stuart Mills (Applicants) were present and responded along with officers to questions from the Committee:

-           The development would create some traffic in the area, and studies of the area had shown that the current measures in place at the junction of Perth Road and White Hart Lane were sufficient unless the area was monitored further for incidents.  A s106 contribution could not be included, but the developers could make any contributions that they wished to do so.  The applicant confirmed that a contribution would be made to improve safety at the junction.

-           A specialist landscape maintenance company would maintain the green walls, and the cost added to the service charges.  A management plan for the landscaping was required to be submitted as part of the conditions.

-           The estate was a secured development, therefore no match day parking would be possible.  A parking management design plan was required as part of the planning permission to look at the monitoring of parking.

The Committee commended the applicants on a well presented design.

The Chair moved that the application be approved, with the additional conditions and informatives as set out in the addendum, and following a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED

(i)        That planning permission be granted and the Head of Development Management or Assistant Director for Planning is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to the signing of a section 106 Legal Agreement providing for the obligation set out in the Heads of Terms and referral to the Mayor of London.

(ii)       That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended heads of terms and/or recommended conditions as set out in this report and to further delegate this power provided this authority shall be exercised in consultation with the Chairman (or in their absence the Vice-Chairman) of the Sub-Committee.

(iii)      That the section 106 legal agreement referred to in resolution (i) above is to be completed no later than 12/09/2020 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning shall in her/his sole discretion allow; and

(iv)      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.

(v)       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.         The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to work with the Council’s Employment and Skills team would fail to support local employment, regeneration and address local unemployment by facilitating training opportunities for the local population. As such, the proposal is contrary to Local Plan 2017 Policies SP8 and SP9.

2.         The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations for mitigation measures to promote sustainable transport, by reason of its lack of car parking provision would significantly exacerbate pressure for on-street parking spaces in surrounding streets, prejudicing the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highway and would be detrimental to the amenity of local residents. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy 6.13 of the London Plan 2016, SP7 of the Local Plan 2017 and Policy DM32 of the Development Management Development Plan Document 2017.

3.         The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement securing sufficient energy efficiency measures and/or financial contribution towards carbon offsetting, would result in an unacceptable level of carbon dioxide emissions. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies 5.2, 5.3 and 5.7 of the London Plan 2016, Local Plan 2017 Policy SP4 and Policy DM21 of the Development Management Development Plan Document 2017.

4.         The proposed development, in the absence of a legal agreement to secure works to the public highway and other public realm improvements including White Hart Lane and the connection through Swaffham Way, would have an unacceptable negative impact the visual amenity of the area and the operation of the public highway. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies DM1 and DM33 of the Development Management DPD 2017, Policy 7.5 of the London Plan 2016.

(vi)    In the event that the Planning Application is refused for the reasons set out in resolution (v) 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 Assistant Director 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 (1) above to secure the obligations specified therein.