To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Carli Harper – Penman and Peter Golds .

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Carli Harper – Penman and Peter Golds .

To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992.  See attached note from the Chief Executive.

Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:

Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 10^th November 2010.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 November 2010 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following action -

Item 7.3 Cutty Sark House, Urdine Road, London.

Democratic Services to confirm whether Councillor Oliur Rahman requested to speak on this item or another item.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 November 2010 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following action -

Item 7.3 Cutty Sark House, Urdine Road, London.

Democratic Services to confirm whether Councillor Oliur Rahman requested to speak on this item or another item.

To RESOLVE that:

1)   in the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

2)   in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

The Committee RESOLVED that:

1)           In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

2)         In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

The Committee RESOLVED that:

1)           In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

2)         In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee.

Please note that the deadline for registering to speak at this meeting is

4pm Monday 13^th December 2010.

The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections and those who had registered to speak at the meeting.

The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections and those who had registered to speak at the meeting.

It was noted that Councillors Judith Gardiner and Stephanie Eaton were not able to vote on this item as they had not been in attendance when the application had been previously considered by the Committee.

On a vote of 3 for and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED

That planning permission  for the erection of 2 x 2 bed duplex residential units on the roof space of the existing four-storey flatted building be REFUSED for the following reasons:

It was noted that Councillors Judith Gardiner and Stephanie Eaton were not able to vote on this item as they had not been in attendance when the application had been previously considered by the Committee.

Owen Whalley (Service Head Planning and Building Control Development and Renewal) introduced this item. It was explained that, at the last meeting, the Committee were minded to refuse the application due concerns around overdevelopment, loss of privacy, daylight and the car free agreement.

Consequently in accordance with the Constitution, the Committee resolved to defer the application pending a further Officer report detailing the implications their decision.

The purpose of this item was to consider that further supplemental report and to finalise their decision.

Ila Robertson (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the report.

It was reported that Officers had examined the grounds and had concluded that the issues around the car free agreement could not form a valid reason as it concerned procedural issues. Concerns around processes and procedures could not form a valid reason for refusal.

However Officers felt that the remaining three grounds were valid and were recommending that the application be refused on these grounds.

In reply to questions, Officers confirmed that nothing had changed since the last meeting.

As a result.

On a vote of 3 for and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED

That planning permission  for the erection of 2 x 2 bed duplex residential units on the roof space of the existing four-storey flatted building be REFUSED for the following reasons:

Update report tabled.

On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED

1.         That planning permission for the demolition of existing building and erection of two buildings (1 x 4-storey and 1 x 5-storey) to provide 25 residential units and associated landscaping be GRANTED subject to:

A.        The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations:

a)         Twenty-five units (100% of the development) is secured as affordable housing, with a tenure spilt of 64% social rent to 36% intermediate in terms of habitable rooms.

b)         A contribution of £148,300 towards mitigating the demand for local primary school places.

c)         A contribution of £ 6,136 towards library facilities in the borough.

d)         A contribution of £27,622 towards leisure facilities in the borough.

e)         A contribution of £47,342 towards mitigating the demand for local open space.

f)          100% of development to be car free.

g)         Any other planning obligation(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal.

2          That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above and that, if within 6-weeks of the date of this committee (26^th January 2011) the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.

3          That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the following matters:

4          Conditions

1.         Three year time limit

2.         Consent granted in accordance with Schedule of Drawings

3.         Samples / pallet board of all external facing materials (including reveals and timber cladding) and typical details to be approved prior to commencement of works

4.         Obscure glazing to all windows proposed within east flank elevation of western block.

5.         Detail of landscaping scheme to include hard and soft landscaping, child play space, any gates, walls, fences and a  Landscape Maintenance and Management Plan to be submitted, approved and implemented prior to occupation

6.         Green and brown roofs to be implemented in accordance with plans

7.         Details of cycle parking.

8.         Construction Management Plan to be submitted, approved by the LPA and implemented prior to commencement

9.         All residential accommodation to be completed to lifetimes homes standards plus at least 10% wheelchair accessible

10.       Disabled parking bay to be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards described in the Department for Transport 'Inclusive Mobility' guidance.

11.       All units shall have heat and domestic hot water supplied by Air Source Pumps.

12.       Renewables shall be implemented in line with the Sustainability Report

13.       Development shall achieve level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes

14.       Development to be completed in accordance with submitted Flood Risk Assessment

15.       Site investigation shall be carried out prior to commencement of development

16.       If contamination is encountered at the site, development must cease and the contamination dealt with

17.       Piling or other penetrative foundation designs must be approved by the .         LPA prior to commencement of development

18.       Bat survey to be carried out  ...  view the full decision text for item 7.1

Update report tabled.

Owen Whalley (Service Head Planning and Building Control, Development and Renewal) introduced the report regarding the Cutty Sark House, Undine Road London.

Mr Whalley outlined the reasons why the application had been brought back to the Committee. It was reported that, since the last meeting, the Applicant had made some minor changes to the scheme. 

As a result, it was necessary that the application be considered in its entirety afresh to fully consider the changes.

Whilst the Committee may take into account the previous decision, they were required to consider the application as new.

The Chair invited statements from persons who had previously registered to address the Committee.

Mr David Merson spoke in objection to the application.

He expressed concern that the update report had not been made available to the objectors beforehand.

He considered that the neighbouring wall had always been a material consideration which the Council should have taken into account.

He contested the assertion made by the Applicant that the changes were not significant and that the Applicant had acknowledge it would have an impact.

He also raised concerns that there had been no further consultation since the last application, which breached procedures. Any new application should be considered afresh and subject to consultation.

He also complained over insufficient notice. The Council were required to give residents adequate notice of the changes.  However, some residents did not receive the notice until Monday this week, some not at all. 

Mr Merson also raised concerns over the housing proposals, the adequacy of the Section 106 Agreement.

He also expressed concern over unauthorised parking on his companies land on Undine Road.

Mr Merson requested that the application be deferred to enable a proper report accurately explaining the issues to be prepared, and for a balanced fair decision to be made.

Mr Peter Fordham addressed the Committee in objection. He considered that the flat roof design was out of keeping with the surrounding area, including the Conservation Area. 

He also raised concerns over following matters

• Density does not comply with policy.
• Overshadowing.
• Lack of parking spaces given number of family sized units. This would lead to a competition for spaces between new /existing residents.
• No children’s play area.
• Impact on Mudchute Farm which was only 80 metres away.
• Distance between the façade and the wall. As a result there would be a loss of defensible space.
• Proximity of western block to gas site.

He requested that the Council should work with the community and formulate some more suitable proposals in view the concerns.

Councillor David Snowdon also spoke as an objector. He considered that he was speaking on behalf of local residents. Whilst they were not objecting to development on this site in principle, they wanted the best possible housing scheme on the site. He expressed concern over low quality design, and the proposed distance between the windows of the scheme and the wall which was inadequate. There would be poor outlooks from these windows. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.1