Agenda item
Oakfield House, Gale Street, London
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission for the demolition of existing 8 dwellings (4 x bedsit and 4 x one bed flats) and erection of a building up to 5 storeys in height to provide 18 new residential units (5 x 2 bed flats, 6 x 3 bed flats, 7 x 4 bed houses) proposal including the provision of associated parking and landscaped amenity space be GRANTED subject to
(2) The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations listed in the report.
(3) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be granted delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated in (2) above.
(4) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be granted delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the report
(5) That, if by 15th March 2010 the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is granted delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Mr Pete Smith (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application regarding Oakfield House, Gale Street, London
The Chair invited statements from persons who had previously registered to address the Committee.
Mr Charlie Rabicano said that he was representing a large group of residents in the area. They had submitted petition and a report. Whilst they supported affordable housing on the site, this scheme was inappropriate for the site and it did not comply with policy. The site area had been wrongly calculated to include adjacent land. It was unfair to include this as amenity land. The scheme was too high therefore would affect the amenity of the surrounding properties. It would cause loss of light. The figures for sunlight were in access of the BRE requirements. The worst affected windows were the main bedroom windows. Our report showed that there would also be overshadowing in evening when the residents would be coming back from work.
He considered that the internal space between the buildings would create a high fence and a back street. The Council should uphold the Planning guidance and refuse the Application.
(Note: The second registered speaker failed to attend the meeting. Therefore the two supporters were allocated 1 ½ minutes each to address the Committee).
Ms Sunara Begum spoke in support of the Application. She stated that the scheme would provide housing for large families. She and her large family had lived in the Borough for nine years in a tiny overcrowded flat with no play area for her children. Many of her friends and family also lived in similar conditions. Therefore there was a real need for decent family homes in the Borough. Whilst noting the concerns about parking, she considered that many of the parking spaces in the area were underused. The scheme would also provide additional green space.
Mr David Black speaking in support of the application considered that the site area had been calculated in the correct way. The density of the buildings complied with requirements. Mr Black read from the sunlight assessment submitted by the applicant. He objected to the assertion made by the objector that some of the results had not ‘passed’ the BRE tests. The term was not used in the BRE guidance. He argued that proposals met BRE requirements. In relation to the internal space, this would provide communal open space. There would also be balconies providing private amenity space.
Ms Ila Robertson (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) made a detailed presentation explaining the scheme. She explained the site and the outcome of the public consultation. The responses included: 4 individual responses (3 for 1 against), 1 supporting and 1 objecting petition.
She addressed each of the planning issues around land use, density, height, design and appearance, affordable housing, amenity and highways.
The scheme would provide much needed affordable housing given the housing shortages in the Borough. The density calculation complied with the government and the Council’s guidance. It was also considered that the design and scale of the building was appropriate given the character of the area. In terms of amenity, Officers considered that the overall amenity impact would be acceptable with no significant concerns.
The daylight/sunlight report showed that most of the habitable rooms would receive adequate light. Although there would be some loss of light, this loss was not strong enough to warrant a refusal.
The parking survey showed that in the immediate surrounding area there was sufficient capacity to accommodate the displaced bays. Overall it would provide much needed affordable family sized housing on a brown field site in line with policy. Therefore it should be granted.
The Committee considered images of the proposals.
The Committee then asked questions around the following issues:
- Overlooking to the gardens from the balconies above.
- That the advice about parking permits be clarified.
- The measures to protect green spaces, given the Green Grid Strategy.
Ms Robertson addressed each of the Committee’s points.
She advised that overlooking from the balconies above would be limited given the oblique nature of any potential views. Therefore the privacy of the occupiers would be protected in line with policy.
The car free agreement only related to on street parking. The future residents could apply for alternative off street spaces if they wished and this would be a civil matter between the residents and the RSL. The recent parking survey found that there was an abundant number of parking spaces in the area enough to accommodate the displaced bays.
Ms Robertson also clarified the reasons why contributions to the Green Grid were not required.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission for the demolition of existing 8 dwellings (4 x bedsit and 4 x one bed flats) and erection of a building up to 5 storeys in height to provide 18 new residential units (5 x 2 bed flats, 6 x 3 bed flats, 7 x 4 bed houses) proposal including the provision of associated parking and landscaped amenity space be GRANTED subject to
(2) The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations listed in the report.
(3) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be granted delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated in (2) above.
(4) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be granted delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the report
(5) That, if by 15th March 2010 the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is granted delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Supporting documents: