Agenda item
(Locksley Estate Site D) Land at Salmon Lane and adjacent to 1-12 Parnham Street, London (PA/17/01618)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 11th October, 2017 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.1)
- View the background to item 5.1
Proposal:
Residential development comprising 17,one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranges from five to eight storeys.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives
Minutes:
Update report
Councillor John Pierce (Chair) for this item
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the residential development comprising 17,one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranged from five to eight storeys.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.
Alicia Joseph and Randone Francesco (local residents) spoke in objection to the application. They considered that the site should remain green space and provide a community garden for such things as food growing. Residents had held a number of meetings with local organisations including local schools and the Canal and Rivers Trust who were supportive of this approach in view of the community benefits. It was also felt that the proposal would have an oppressive effect on the surrounding area. Concern was also expressed about the significant biodiversity of the site and the clearing of the site and it was felt that the site should be brought back into use in its original state prior to the tree clearing. Reference was also made to the representations opposing the proposals. Overall, it was considered that the concerns with the previous application had not been addressed.
In response to questions, the speakers explained their concerns about the lack of engagement with residents about the plans (up until this new application had been submitted in the summer). They also emphasised the biodiversity value of the site, its current use as green space (noting it was locked because of security concerns but that local resident with a key could open it) and informal nature reserve, and outlined their alternative plans for the site. They also clarified their concerns about the clearing of trees without planning permission and the adverse effects of this in terms of the biodiversity value of the site. At this point, Officers clarified that none of the trees affected were protected and that they were not in the Conservation Area, therefore, this would not have been a breach of planning control.
Tim Bell (Architect) and John Coker (LBTH Housing) spoke in support of the application. They drew attention to the changes to the scheme to address the previous concerns in terms of the height, measures to further protect amenity, the setting of the canal and also the biodiversity enhancements. They also advised of the character of the existing space marked as A and B in the Committee report. Site A would accommodate the new housing and had been fenced off. The site had become overgrown and was cleared in 2016. Residents were informed of these works and only one response was received to the consultation. Site B had a gate and had been used by a few residents and the entire site carried no special protection. This area would provide green space and be opened up for the community. Overall, there would be a net increase in biodiversity benefits. The proposals would also provide much needed affordable housing including units at TH Living rents and London Affordable rents and a range of other benefits.
In response to questions, the speakers explained the changes to preserve amenity in terms of sun lighting and privacy. With the permission of the Chair, Jen Pepper (Housing Services) clarified the rent levels for the affordable rents units. Regarding the consultation, the speakers explained that the Council had issued a bulletin in the summer informing residents of the changes to the plans. In response to questions about the impact on the open space, it was considered that the proposal would enhance the biodiversity value of site B - based on the condition of the site prior to its clearance. Whilst the plans would result in the loss of site A, the re - provided site B would provide a much wider and diverse mix of biodiversity improvements in addition to the other enhancements.
Nasser Farooq (Planning Services) presented the detailed report explaining the site and surrounds including the condition of the site pre and post its clearance. It was reported that a similar application was considered by the Committee in January 2017 and that Members were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over the following issues:
- 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
The application was then withdrawn.
The Committee noted the key features of the application compared to this previous scheme including the reduced height of the proposal, the revised design to preserve the setting of the canal, the child play space improvements and the enhanced biodiversity measures and wider improvements. They also noted details of the housing mix, the layout and that the Canal and Rivers Trust maintained their objections to the application.
Officers considered that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of height, scale, design and appearance; preserving the adjacent Regent’s Canal conservation area. The scheme would result in the loss of open space as defined in the Committee report. However it was considered that the proposed benefits including the biodiversity enhancement measures and wider estate amenity and play space improvements would off - set this. Details of the improvements were noted.
The development would result in the provision of 100% affordable rented housing. This was strongly supported given the extremely high priority for affordable housing. Concern had been raised at the previous scheme about the overprovision of one type of tenure, however given that the surrounding area comprised a wide mix of housing tenures, this could be considered acceptable. The amenity impact of the development would be acceptable. Officers considered that the changes to the application (to reposition the balconies amongst other measures) overcame the previous concerns. The scheme would meet the full obligation of financial contributions. However, given the Council was unable to enter into a s106 agreement with itself, the financial and non-financial contributions were to be secured by the imposition of conditions.
The Committee asked questions about the comments from the Canal and Rivers Trust. Officers confirmed that whilst they welcomed the setbacks in the design, they remain of the opinion that the proposal would cause harm to the setting of the blue ribbon network and the setting of the canal and tow path. Officers explained the nature of their concerns and their suggested conditions as set out in the Committee report.
The Committee also asked questions about the loss of site A as open space and also the impact of its recent clearance in terms of its policy status. It was questioned whether the clearing of the site might have compromised its condition and therefore prevented its designation as protected open land. Some also questioned whether the proposed enhancements would offset this loss of open space within the development site and whether it was desirable to replace green space with a tall building given the need for green space in this area as set out in the Council’s Local Plan. Some support was also expressed for the site’s retention and restoration to it pre clearance state given its value to the local community.
Officers reported that following the January Committee meeting, Officers had looked into the site history but could only find anecdotal evidence on the site history. Given the lack of any records detailing the site history, the Committee were advised to place limited weight on the comments about its historic status. Officers also emphasised the nature of the green space improvements. It was also confirmed that due to the absence of a legal agreement and formal arrangement for its use, officers considered that the proposal did not result in the loss of publically accessible open space. The site did however have some visual amenity, so it was considered that it could fall within the wider definition of open space. Despite this, it was considered that the benefits of the proposal would offset this loss.
In response to further questions about the affordable housing, it was confirmed that the accommodation would provide housing for residents on the waiting list, potentially families due to their size. Officers also clarified the location of the entrance to the housing and the outcome of the affordable rent review exploring different scenarios for the affordable rent mix.
In summary Members commented on the loss of the open space, the nature of this space and the benefits of the proposals.
On a vote of 2 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 3 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Andrew Cregan proposed and Councillor Chris Chapman seconded a motion that the officer recommendation to grant planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 3 in favour, 2 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at (Locksley Estate Site D) at land at Salmon Lane and adjacent to 1-12 Parnham Street, London be NOT ACCEPTED for residential development comprising 17,one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranges from five to eight storeys (PA/17/01618).
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.
· Loss of green open space.
Supporting documents: