Agenda item

Proposal: Erection of two-storey replacement light industrial unit.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the erection of two-storey replacement light industrial unit.

It was noted that there had been a final revision to the parking which had been included in the addendum that was circulated to the Committee and published online.

Tania Skelli, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was noted that there were expected to be 18 employees across the units and it was enquired why 36 long stay cycle units were proposed. It was also noted that there appeared to be some discussion about parking and it was enquired how the number of parking spaces had been calculated. It was commented that, as the units would be separate, it was unlikely that the unit occupiers would be able to co-ordinate service deliveries.

·         The Head of Development Management explained that there had been a previous building on site and an established position so there had been a balance between the applicant’s expectation on floor space and modernising the standards and layout. The Transport Planning Officer noted that the existing parking arrangements were quite congested and that work had been undertaken with the applicant to agree on a layout that worked well and complied with the London Plan parking standards. It was explained that the proposal was to have three loading bays to respond to the needs of the development and two parking spaces.

·         In relation to parking, Mr Upadhyay, applicant, stated that he had occupied unit 3 on the site for 20 years. He noted that it had been possible to park four cars in front of the unit if required so there was potentially room for 12 parking spaces across the front of the units.

·         It was highlighted that the completion date for the section 106 legal agreement, noted in part 3 of the recommendations, should read 18/01/2022 rather than 18/01/2021.

·         The Head of Development Management stated that the recommendation was to grant planning permission, subject to conditions, the amended drawing, and the amendment of the date relating to the completion of the section 106 legal agreement from 2021 to 2022.

Following a vote, it was

RESOLVED

1.    To GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management 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 below.

2.    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 Chair (or in their absence the Vice-Chair) of the Sub-Committee.

3.    That the section 106 legal agreement referred to in resolution (1) above is to be completed no later than 18/01/2022 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning shall in his sole discretion allow; and

4.    That, following completion of the agreement(s) referred to in resolution (1) within the time period provided for in resolution (2) above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

5.    Not applicable.

6.    That, in the absence of the agreement referred to in resolution (1) above being completed within the time period provided, 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 travel plan would significantly exacerbate pressure for onstreet parking spaces in surrounding streets, prejudicing the encouragement of alternative transport modes and would be detrimental to the amenity of local residents. As such, the proposal is contrary to SP7 of the Local Plan 2017 and Policy DM13 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 SI2 and SI 4 of the London Plan 2021, 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 a construction management plan, by reason of its lack of measures to ensure 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 Policies SP7 of the Local Plan 2017 and Policy DM13 of the Development Management Development Plan Document 2017.

7.    In the event that the Planning Application is refused for the reasons set out in resolution (6) 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.