Agenda item

Proposal: Redevelopment of the car park adjacent to Wat Tyler House to provide 15 new Council rent homes in a part 4, 5 and 7 storey building. Provision of associated amenity space, cycle and refuse/recycling stores, a wheelchair parking space on Boyton Road and enhancement of existing communal areas and play space to the rear on the Campsbourne Estate.

 

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered the application for the redevelopment of the car park adjacent to Wat Tyler House to provide 15 new Council rent homes in a part 4, 5 and 7 storey building. Provision of associated amenity space, cycle and refuse/recycling stores, a wheelchair parking space on Boyton Road and enhancement of existing communal areas and play space to the rear on the Campsbourne Estate.

 

James Mead, Planning Officer, introduced the report. In response to the points raised by councillors, the following responses were provided:

·         The Planning Officer stated that the car club and Travel Plan would be secured through the planning obligations.

·         In response to a question about transportation, the Transport Planning Team Manager explained that the Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) assumed that services were only relevant within 640 metres, even though many people would travel further to access bus and rail services. It was noted that officers were working with Transport for London (TfL) to increase the PTAL of the site but that this was very challenging without substantial funding. It was explained that there were plans to increase connectivity as part of the proposal, including improvements for cycling and walking.

·         In relation to a question about kitchen provision, it was clarified that the proposal included a combination of units with separate kitchens or with larger kitchen and dining or living areas.

·         It was noted that the water use reduction target would be enforced and monitored through Building Regulations.

·         In response to a query about the impact of satellite dishes, the Head of Development Management noted that the standard condition relating to satellite dishes should be included to ensure that they did not have an unacceptable impact.

·         It was noted that the proposal was a smaller development which was not required to meet the target to provide 10% of dwellings for wheelchair users. The applicant team clarified that, overall, the Council’s Housing Delivery Programme would provide more than 10% of dwellings for wheelchair users.

·         Some members enquired how the proposal would provide dual aspect without overshadowing neighbouring properties. The Principal Urban Design Officer explained that the design involved three cubes which were slightly offset and aligned with neighbouring buildings; this was able to provide dual or triple aspect without overshadowing neighbouring properties.

·         In response to a query about parking, the Transport Planning Team Manager noted that the site would not be car free but that council tenants would now have on street, rather than off street, parking. It was commented that extensive parking surveys had demonstrated that there was capacity for on street parking. 

·         It was noted that the report commented on bay windows on the northern elevation of Tennyson House and found that, as these did not appear to be primary openings, the proposal would have no material impact on living conditions. The Principal Urban Design Officer noted that the uses of these rooms were not known but that, as the windows were less than two metres from the corner of building, it was very likely that there would be a second window for the room; it was commented that a window near the corner of the building would still have some outlook even if a building was located immediately beside it.

·         In relation to a query about parking restrictions in the area, it was confirmed that consultation for a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) was ongoing but that there was currently no CPZ in the area. It was noted that the scheme did not propose car capping or car restrictions and so residents of the development could apply for a permit in any future parking scheme.

·         Some members noted that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had raised concerns relating to fire safety and it was enquired whether this had been resolved. The Planning Officer explained that the HSE had commented on the ancillary accommodation and had expressed concerns about the cycle stores opening into the lobby. It was explained that the ground floor units had separate exits and that the upper floors had an escape door to the side of the staircase which meant that they would not have to exit through the lobby. The Head of Development Management highlighted that another fire door had been added to separate the ancillary accommodation from the fire escape and that, with the additional separation and means of escape, officers were satisfied that the measures were sufficient. It was added that the scheme would also have to satisfy the Building Regulations and that Building Control had indicated that they had no anticipated objections. It was noted that the cycle store could be accessed externally but explained that this was considered to compromise the usage of the cycle store.

 

The applicant team responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was stated that the green roofs were intended to be self-sustaining with some elements of biannual maintenance and that safe access for this was included as part of the building control measures for the scheme.

·         The applicant team commented that service charges for residents were set at a particular level across the borough and that there would be no variation in the charges for individual residents.

·         Some members acknowledged the asymmetrical design of the proposal but queried the decision to have two colours and felt that this was more visually intrusive. The applicant believed that the differentiation of materials provided some variation which reduced the visual impact and noted that the proposal had been developed alongside extensive conversations with Planning Officers. It was also commented that the materials would be subject to condition and the applicant would continue to consider the exact colour of materials.

 

It was confirmed that the recommendation was to grant planning permission, as set out in the report and the addendum, and including an additional condition controlling the use of satellite dishes to ensure that they did not have an unacceptable impact.

 

Following a vote with 10 votes in favour, 0 votes against, and 0 abstention, 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 an agreement providing for 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 agreement referred to in resolution (1) above is to be completed no later than 30^th March 2023 or 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 agreement(s) 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 Year Time Limit

2)    Approved Plans

3)    Use Class & Tenure

4)    Materials

5)    Obscured Glazing

6)    Air Source Heat Pump

7)    Accessibility, Adaptability & Wheelchair Accessibility

8)    Landscaping Proposals

9)    Arboricultural Report

10)  Biodiversity

11)  Living Roof

12)  Reinstatement of Crossover and Provision of Parking Bay

13)  Cycle Storage Details

14)  Construction Management Plan

15)  Construction Environment Management Plan

16)  Secured by Design Accreditation

17)  Secured by Design Certification

18)  CCTV Locations

19)  External Lighting

20)  Fire Statement

21)  Sustainable Drainage

22)  Management of Drainage Scheme

23)  Piling Method Statement

24)  Contamination

25)  Unexpected Contamination

26)  Non-Road Mobile Machinery

27)  Energy Plan

28)  Sustainability Review

29)  Occupant Energy Use

30) Be Seen

31) Overheating

32)  Water Efficiency

33)  Residents Satisfaction Survey

34)Satellite dishes

 

Informatives

 

1)    CIL Liable

2)    Land Ownership

3)    Party Wall Act

4)    Hours of Construction Work

5)    Numbering

6)    Designing Out Crime Officer

7)    London Fire Brigade (Building Regulations)

8)    London Fire Brigade (Signage)

9)    Thames Water (Groundwater Risk Management Permit)

10)  Thames Water (Water Pressure)

11)  Thames Water (Underground Water Assets)

 

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 Director of Placemaking and Housing has confirmed in writing that the payment of contributions for the matters set out below will be made to the relevant departments before the proposed development is implemented.

 

Heads of Terms

 

1)    Affordable Homes for Rent;

2)    Local Employment;

3)    Employment & Skills Plan;

4)    Carbon Offset Contribution (based on £2,850 per tonne of carbon emissions);

5)    Car Club and Membership Subsidies;

6)    Travel Plan;

7)    Travel Plan Monitoring;

8)    Off-Site Highways & Landscaping Works; and

9)    Obligations Monitoring Costs;

 

Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development

 

9.    The Council at this present time is unable to fully evidence its five-year supply of housing land. Therefore, the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ and paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF should be treated as a material consideration when determining this application, which for decision-taking means granting permission unless: (i) the application of policies in the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusal; or (ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. Nevertheless, decisions must still be made in accordance with the development plan (relevant policies summarised in this report) unless material considerations indicate otherwise (of which the NPPF is a significant material consideration).