Agenda item
(Locksley Estate Site D) Land at Salmon Lane and adjacent to 1-12 Parnham Street, London (PA/16/02295)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 11th January, 2017 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.2)
- View the background to item 5.2
Proposal:
Residential development comprising 20 one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranges from six storeys to nine storeys.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informative as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for residential development comprising 20 one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranges from six storeys to nine storeys.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee
Alicia Joseph and Francesco Randon spoke in opposition to the application. The speakers considered that the proposal would result in the loss of publically accessible open space that acted as an informal nature reserve. They also expressed concern about the removal of trees at the site, following the recent clearance of the site that shielded residents from the surrounding environment and noise. Concern was also expressed about the impact of the development on neighbouring amenity due to the separation distances and the consultation process. In response to questions from Members, they expressed concerns about the clearance of the site and lack of consultation on this. They also commented further of the benefits of the green space to residents, potential future uses of the site, and the separation distance to Parnham Street. They felt that the measurement in the report was inaccurate.
John Coker (LBTH Strategic Housing) and John Lineen, (Architect) spoke in support of the application. They drew attention to the need for additional good quality affordable housing in the Borough. They also explained the proposed rent levels for the affordable housing and did not consider that the development would result in an overconcentration of one housing type in the area given the wider profile of the area in terms of housing types. The proposed development would take up about third of the site, and a section of the site would be given over for community gardens. The site had become overgrown. The plans had been carefully designed to preserve amenity. The speakers also provided reassurances about the height of the proposal and the materials in relation to the setting of the surrounding area.
In response to questions by the Committee about the loss of the trees, the speakers reported that no mature trees had been removed and the site carried no protections in this regard anyway. In relation to the clearing of the site, Officers explained that this was not a planning issue and that the completion of such works predated Planning’s involvement in the application. Officers advised the Committee to consider the planning merits of this application. They also reported that, from a planning perspective, there was no requirement to maintain the land as open space given the lack of site designations in this regard. The site was Council owned land held for the purposes of providing housing. So there was no guarantee that it would revert back to open space in the future. In response to further questions, they considered that the plans would have a negligible effect on the setting of Regents Canal tow path. In response to further questions, the speakers explained the proposed biodiversity measures and that the proposed garden would be for the benefit of the new and existing residents.
Brett McAllister (Planning Services) presented the report, describing the site and the surrounds, and its good transport links. He also explained the proposed layout of the application, its height and appearance. Consultation had been carried out and the results of this were noted including the representation from the Canal and Rivers Trust about the impact on the character of the Regents Canal Conservation Area. Turning to the assessment, it was reported that all of the proposed residential units would be affordable rent units. The existing green space had no specific designation as outlined above and there would be contributions for biodiversity enhancements. The level of amenity and play space exceeded policy (to be shared with 1-2 Parnell Street) and would meet the combined target for both developments. It was also considered that the application had been sensitively designed to protect the setting of the tow path and the regents Canal Conservation Area. There would be appropriate separation distances between the development and surrounding properties. So the plans would not give rise to major issues in terms of residential amenity. In view of this, Officers were recommending the application for approval.
In response to the presentation, Members sought clarity about the status of the green space. Based on the maps (used in the Officers presentation), it was questioned whether the space was meant for use as a community garden. Members also asked questions about the clearing of the site and whether such works had undermined its biodiversity value . They also asked questions about the comments of the Canal and Rivers Trusts as set out in the update report. Officers reported that there was no evidence to suggest that the land formally was public open land but it may have in the past provided a small garden for residents of one of the housing blocks. The site carried no designations for such use and as explained above, the decision to clear the site was taken outside the planning regime. Furthermore, there would be mitigation to offset the impact on biodiversity.
Members also asked questions about the proposed housing. It was questioned whether the plans complied with the policy for creating mixed and balanced communities by housing tenure. In response, Officers reported that that the plans met the policy in this regard. Given the profile of the wider community (that the policy recommended should be taken into account), Officers considered that it posed no risk of causing an overconcentration of one housing type. Furthermore, the proposal would deliver much needed affordable housing that was a key policy priority.
Officers also responded to further questions about the likelihood of the land reverting back to open space given the lack of designations for this and the Canal and Rivers Trust comments on the application. Officers also outlined the energy efficiency measures.
On a vote of 1 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 4 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Andrew Cregan proposed and Councillor Andrew Wood seconded a motion that the recommendation to grant planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 4 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at (Locksley Estate Site D) Land at Salmon Lane and adjacent to 1-12 Parnham Street, London for a residential development comprising 20 one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranges from six storeys to nine storeys (PA/16/02295)
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
· The impact on the setting of the Canal Towpath and the Regents Canal Conservation Area.
· Impact on the properties at Parnham Street due to the separation distance.
· Loss of publically accessible open space.
· Overconcentration of one housing type.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Supporting documents: