Agenda item

Proposal: Redevelopment of the derelict undercroft car park behind Woodridings Court and provision of 33 new Council rent in four and five storey buildings. Provision of associated amenity space, cycle and and wheelchair parking spaces, and enhancement of existing amenity space at the front of Woodridings Court, including new landscaping, refuse/recycling stores and play space.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for redevelopment of the derelict undercroft car park behind Woodridings Court and provision of 33 new Council rent in four and five storey buildings. Provision of associated amenity space, cycle and and wheelchair parking spaces, and enhancement of existing amenity space at the front of Woodridings Court, including new landscaping, refuse/recycling stores and play space.

 

Valerie Okeiyi, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         The Head of Development Management confirmed that the proposal was for council rent units, also known as formula rent; it was noted that any changes would require a variation. The Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards, and Sustainability noted that council rent and London Affordable Rent (LAR) were both considered to be low cost rent for planning purposes. In this case, reference to council rent was included in the description for the development and, if a different approach was proposed, a future application would likely be required.

·         It was noted that the development would be car free and some members expressed concerns that there might be additional stress on the area that was not covered by a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). The Transport Planning Team Manager noted that the site was on the edge of a CPZ but was within the CPZ area and, therefore, there was a policy requirement that the scheme was car free. It was commented that an extension of the CPZ area could be sought. It was added that residents within the development would be restricted from applying for permits in existing of future CPZs.

·         In relation to the zinc and concrete cladding proposed, the Principal Urban Design Officer noted that some comparable buildings were visible in the Design and Access Statement. It was explained that the zinc cladding was not a widely used material but was intended to look like a contemporary building and the red colour aimed to echo and respond to some of the surrounding brick houses, such as those on Dagmar Road.

·         In relation to play space, the Planning Officer confirmed that this area would be for existing and future residents; this would be gated and would be more secure than the current arrangements.

·         The Planning Officer commented that the buildings would be designed to Passivhaus energy efficient standards which would include thicker insulation for external walls, airtightness, and acoustic reduction which would act as a noise barrier. Members raised concerns that the development would be next to a busy train track, including large trains and overnight journeys, and it was enquired whether this had been taken into account as part of the noise report. The Head of Development Management noted that there was a distinction between constant and intermittent noise and it was stated that the conditions had been assessed appropriately. In response to a query about vibrations, it was commented that design elements such as the building façade and insulated windows were intended to mitigate the impact.

·         In response to a question about sunlight, the Principal Urban Design Officer noted that all units would have at least dual aspect. It was commented that some units would mainly have morning sunlight but that all units would get sunlight.

·         The Planning Officer confirmed that there were no lifts at present but that lifts were proposed in the scheme.

·         The Transport Planning Team Manager noted that there were different Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTALs) on the site as the level depended on the distance from interchanges. It was explained that the site had part-3 and part-5 PTAL and was considered to have good public transport accessibility overall.

 

Cllr Alessandra Rossetti spoke in objection to the application. She stated that the new building would be eight metres higher than the existing building and would be visible from all angles. She considered that the proposal was not in line with the neighbourhood. She added that there were outstanding questions in relation to Council Policies DM1 and DM12 and she did not believe that these had received a response. It was stated that the area was currently subject to congestion and parking difficulties and that the proposal would increase pressure on the area. It was anticipated that an additional 18 cars could be accommodated in the area but that there would be 33 new flats and concerns were expressed about how car ownership by new residents would be monitored. It was accepted that the area had good access to public transport but it was noted that residents might still have cars. Cllr Rossetti said that the construction of the scheme would result in issues for residents in relation to parking suspensions, additional pressure on parking and the road network with large lorries, and building works from 6am-6pm.

 

It was commented that there were concerns about noise and vibrations for residents and that the proposed mitigations would not be sufficient. It was stated that there would be a significant number of passing trains, including during the night, and it was not considered that there was evidence to show that residents would not be impacted. Cllr Rossetti said that the vibration report noted that additional advice would be sought in the design phase but she was not sure that this had been undertaken. She urged the Committee to refuse the application.

 

Members of the applicant team addressed the Committee. Jack Goulde, Senior Housing Project Manager, stated that the development would replace a vermin-infested area of undercroft parking that had been in disuse for about 25 years and was subject to significant anti-social behaviour. He explained that there had been an 18 month period of engagement with residents of the existing block to design the scheme and it was noted that no planning objections had been received from these residents. In relation to vibrations on the site, it was commented that an assessment had been undertaken over several days which had monitored all trains during the day and night; the vibration calculation was based on sound engineering philosophy and there would be further design development at the next stage of development.

 

Roy Collado, Architect, commented on some features of the existing building; it was noted that there were no lifts, that residents were not comfortable in using their gardens, and that corridors were dark. In response, the proposals would re-organise the internal circulation and the walkway would be better connected with high quality glazing.

 

The applicant team responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In response to a query about the modern methods of construction, the applicant team explained that the component parts would be assembled off site and would then be moved to the site; it was stated that this would use high quality materials and would shorten the build time.

·         Members enquired about the hours of operation set out in the Construction Statement, which were 6am-6pm, and the hours of operation set out in the report, which were 8am-6pm. The applicant team noted that this was likely a typographical error and that the hours of operation would be the standard timing for all planning permissions. It was commented that the detail of timings would be agreed as part of the conditions and would be subject to approval from officers.

·         It was noted that the afternoon peak times for traffic in the area generally started at 3pm when schools finished; it was enquired whether deliveries could be avoided from 3pm-6pm, rather than 4pm-6pm. It was also asked whether this could be conditioned and whether the reference to ‘where possible’ could be removed. This was agreed by the Committee.

·         It was queried whether deliveries to the site would be possible as the suggested delivery route included some small roads and a large vehicle restriction zone. The applicant team stated that each module of the development would be 3.8 by 4.2 metres and would be accommodated on a conventional truck. It was added that the final delivery routes would meet all planning and highways requirements.

·         In response to a query about noise, the applicant team confirmed that the current building was not well insulated and that, with the new buildings, residents would notice a significant improvement.

·         In relation to parking pressures, the Transport Planning Team Manager noted that the assessment had compared a ‘best case’ and ‘worst case’ scenario, both of which took into account the 18 displaced spaces. In the best case scenario, where cars used five metres to park, there would be an excess of 100 parking spaces and in the worst case scenario, where cars used six metres to park, there would be an excess of 57 parking spaces. It was acknowledged that there was a CPZ in the area and that there was naturally some pressure on parking at the edge of a CPZ; it was noted that residents often campaigned to extend a CPZ if pressures increased and it was highlighted that a car free restriction would apply to current and future CPZs.

 

It was confirmed that the recommendation was to grant planning permission, as set out in the report and the addendum, and with the following amendments:

·         To update Condition 13(c)(v) to start the peak time in the afternoon at 3pm and to remove the reference to ‘where possible’ so that the condition read: Timing of deliveries to and removals from the Plot (to avoid peak times, as agreed with Highways Authority, 07.00 to 9.00 and 15.00 to 18.00).

 

Following a vote with 10 votes in favour, 0 votes against, and 0 abstentions, and subject to the amendments above, it was

 

RESOLVED

 

1.    To GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director of Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to the measures 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, Building Standards and Sustainability to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended measures 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 measures referred to in resolution (1) above are to be completed no later than 23/12/2022 within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability shall in his sole discretion allow; and

 

4.    That, following completion of the measures referred to in resolution (1) within the time period provided for in resolution (3) above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

 

Conditions

 

1)    Three years

2)    Drawings

3)    Materials

4)    Boundary treatment and access control

5)    Landscaping

6)    Lighting

7)    Site levels

8)    Secure by design accreditation

9)    Secure by design certification

10) Land contamination

11) Unexpected contamination

12) NRMM

13) Demolition/Construction Environmental Management Plan

14) Landscape Ecological Management and Maintenance Plan

15) Arboricultural Impact Assessment

16) Tree Protection Measures

17) Tree Replacement Programme

18) Cycle parking

19) Construction Logistics Plan

20) Satellite antenna

21) Restriction to telecommunications apparatus

22) Piling Method Statement

23) Architect retention

24) UKPN

25) Energy strategy

26) Energy monitoring

27) Overheating

28) Ecological Enhancement and Ecological Enhancement Measures

29) Resident Satisfaction Survey

30) Refuse and Waste

31) Accessible and Adaptable Units

32) Vibration Assessment

 

Informatives

 

1)    Co-operation

2)    CIL Liable

3)    Hours of construction

4)    Party Wall Act

5)    Street Numbering

6)    Sprinklers

7)    Water pressure

8)    Asbestos

9)    Secure by design

10) Thames Water underground assets

11) Water pressure

12) Operational Railway

13) Thames Water Groundwater Risk Management Permit

 

Planning obligations:

 

5.    Planning obligations are usually secured through a S106 legal agreement. In this instance the Council is the landowner of the site and is also the local planning authority and so cannot legally provide enforceable planning obligations to itself.

 

6.    Several obligations which would ordinarily be secured through a S106 legal agreement will instead be imposed as conditions on the planning permission for the proposed development.

 

7.    It is recognised that the Council cannot commence to enforce against itself in respect of breaches of planning conditions and so prior to issuing any planning permission measures will be agreed between the Council’s Housing service and the Planning service, including the resolution of non-compliances with planning conditions by the Chief Executive and the reporting of breaches to portfolio holders, to ensure compliance with any conditions imposed on the planning permission for the proposed development.

 

8.    The Council cannot impose conditions on planning permission requiring the payment of monies and so the Assistant Director of Housing will confirm in writing before planning permission is granted that the payment of contributions and the matters set out below will be made to the relevant departments before the proposed development is implemented/occupied.

 

Heads of Terms:

 

·         General needs low cost rented housing

·         Employment and Skills Plan Skills contribution

·         Highways works

·         TMO

·         Travel Plan

·         Travel Plan Monitoring Contribution – TBC

·         Car Club - a credit of £50 per annum for a period of three years from the Occupation Date in respect of each Residential Unit to the Occupiers of each residential Unit up to a maximum of two

·         Carbon Offset Contribution (in case the development does not meet the zero carbon target of reducing carbon emissions by 100% compared to a Part L 2013 Building Regulations notional building)

·         Obligations monitoring fee