Paul Buckenham introduced the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing building and ballcourt and construction of a part-7 and part-9 storey building, with part-basement, containing 36 in number dwellings (Class C3) and replacement community centre (Class E (e-f), Class F1 (e-f), Class F2 (b)) with associated amenity areas, accessible car parking, cycle parking, refuse/recycling stores and landscaping works, including formation of a raised crossover on Malmesbury Road/Caxton Grove intersection, associated public realm alterations, and alterations to retained public open space (Four Seasons Green).

Daniel Jeffries provided a presentation to accompany the application, which highlighted  the proposal’s site, height and surroundings. The details included the proposed sites proximity to the Four Seasons Green, the multi-unit games area (MUGA) and proposed designs for the 36 self-contained residential units, which would be classified as affordable housing and social rent tenure.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the meeting.

Jack Dunmore, a resident of Morville Street, addressed the Committee and raised objections to the application, on behalf of himself and 32 neighbours;

·       Residents provided consultation feedback on the scheme which was excluded from the final document.

·       The applicant did not  engage with residents of  properties most affected by the proposed development.

·       The proposal is located outside of the school building areas and causes harm to heritage areas and a negative impact to neighbouring properties.

·       Further requests for information on the consultation were not made available to residents from Council Planning and Capital Delivery departments, which caused distrust around the process.

·       Environmental considerations have not been adequately addressed, particularly the loss of daylight / sunlight for Morville Street properties and increased noise levels.

Jack Leaming, a resident of Fairfield Road, addressed the Committee and raised objections to the application;

·       The 9 storey scheme is too high and  not in keeping with the neighbourhood.

·       The proposed development will cause loss of daylight / sunlight and privacy for neighbouring residents.

·       The area is too small for a social housing scheme of this size.

Camilla Lecznar, a resident of Ambrose Walk, addressed the Committee and raised objections to the application;

·       The proposed scheme does not comply with the Local Plan policy (reference: DHC 6).

·       The Council’s Urban Design and Conservation departments have expressed concerns regarding the proposed height which is out of proportion to the Four Seasons Green.

·       Requested the applicant submit a revised proposal, more in keeping with the area.

Tim Waters,  Stockwool Architects / RENEW Planning Limited, spoke in support of the scheme and highlighted the following;

·       The proposal would provide 36 dwellings, all in the form of affordable housing and for social rent. This  will comply with both the National and Local Planning policies objectives to  utilise brownfield land and provide affordable homes in London.

·       Council planning policy does not specify that tall buildings outside of the tall building zones should be considered unacceptable. The Mayor of London did not object to the proposal at stage one of the application and the 30 metre height accommodates a rooftop plant screen.

·       The second ball court will be upgraded as part of the development to an improved facility for the local community.

·       The building has been designed to ensure that there is no loss of daylight or sunlight concerns for neighbouring residents. The BRE assessment states that an overall compliance level of more than 75% for windows is either fully compliant or has minor impact. No windows in the scheme will overlook residents homes, ensuring no loss of privacy.

·       The proposed development will provide 100% affordable housing and community infrastructure improvements to the area.

Further to the presentation, the Committee asked questions to the Officers regarding the following issues;

·       Confirmed that daylight / sunlight impacts were evaluated using the ‘Vertical Sky Component’ and NSL measurements. These determined the visibility of the development observed through a window and the amount of daylight that was created within a room.

·       Acknowledged that two of the 5 properties tested demonstrated minor to major adverse observable daylight impacts, from between 20% to 40% loss for neighbouring properties on Morville Street on the north of the proposal and Fairfield Road on the east.

·       Explained that an initial public consultation for a 6 storey scheme was conducted, the building's height was then increased to 7 and 9 storeys and the revised scheme was not submitted for a second public consultation. All consultations stipulate that proposals may alter in dimensions and size and are subject to technical surveys, requirements or policy compliance concerns.

·       Clarified that the proposal will improve the available child play space and enhance the Four Seasons Green.

·       Confirmed that the proposal would demolish the existing Community Centre during the construction period, although Council departments are considering is the use of the land and are currently engaging with end users.

·       Explained that the applicant undertook public consultations with residents groups, relating to a different proposal, which resulted in confusion with this scheme. The proposed development size was expanded to accommodate more social housing. Family sized units have increased to 14 units within the developments, approximately 40% of the total provision.

·       Acknowledged that feedback from the Quality Review Panel (QRP) has not been included in the report, although those comments are in line with the Conservation and Design feedback obtained in relation to the height of the building. The proposal constitutes a tall building outside of the tall building zone and fulfil the demand for affordable housing in the borough. The QRP comments will be made available on the planning register.

·       Explained that the initial pre application proposal was for a six storey development comprising three 3 bedroom properties and three four bedroom properties. The revised proposal submitted to the Committee is for  a part-7 and part-9 storey building,  which comprises 10 three bedroom properties and 4 four bedroom properties.

·       Confirmed that a sum will be agreed for a scope of works to enhance the MUGA near Boundary Road and will be secured through the planning application.

·       Clarified that the Statement of Community involvement was used to conduct a public consultation for the proposed development. 237 letters were sent out as well as a press release.

·       Observed that Environmental Health officers examined noise levels from the railway and determined that occupiers would have sufficient noise mitigation.

Upon a vote of six in favour, one against and two abstentions, the Officers recommendations as set out in the main report to grant planning permission was agreed.

It was therefore RESOLVED;

1.    That conditional planning permission be GRANTED at Caxton Hall Community Centre and Adjoining Land, Caxton Grove, E3 2EE for:

Ø  Demolition of existing building and ballcourt and construction of a part-7 and part-9 storey building, with part-basement, containing 36 in number dwellings (Class C3) and replacement community centre (Class E (e-f), Class F1 (e-f), Class F2 (b)) with associated amenity areas, accessible car parking, cycle parking, refuse/recycling stores and landscaping works, including formation of a raised crossover on Malmesbury Road/Caxton Grove intersection, associated public realm alterations, and alterations to retained public open space (Four Seasons Green).

Subject to:

1.    Subject any direction by the Mayor of London.

2.    Section 106 agreement including obligations.

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 9.12pm and reconvened at 9.25pm. The Committee were asked to vote on hearing the remaining planning matters since the meeting had exceeded 3 hours. Members voted to continue.