Agenda item

3.         54 Avonley Road, SE14 5EW (DC/17/103958) (Item 3 on the agenda)

The presenting Planning Officer Michael Forrester explained the details the existing site which is in a backland location, fully enclosed by residential properties and is currently occupied by an MOT Centre which ceased operation in December 2016. He then outlined the proposal which is a change of use of the site from a vehicular repair and MOT centre (Use Class B2) to residential (Use Class C3). This would involve the demolition of all three buildings on site and the reprovision of two buildings in the form of nine residential units (4, four bed units, 3, three bed units and 2, two bed units).

Councillor Adefiranye took his seat at 19:35.

He went on to mention that there had been 9 letters of objection and 14 letters of support, and summarised the main concerns raised by objectors. He also outlined the involvement the Council’s Highways team had with the application, and noted that their initial concerns had now been satisfied by additional information provided during the course of the application. He stated that officers raised no objections to the scheme and asked the committee to approve the proposal.

Questions by members followed relating to emergency vehicle access to the site, the access arrangements for Units 8 and 9, design of parking within the site and whether the swept path drawings had used a smaller than standard fire engine for their model. They also raised concerns over the Highways officer’s initial comments.

The presenting officer reiterated that additional information had been submitted and was found to be acceptable by the highways officer, as outlined in the Planning Considerations section of the report.

Councillor Walsh raised concerns that the future residents and their visitors may mount the curbs, parking outside of the set parking spaces which could impede emergency vehicle access. The presenting officer stated that Condition 11 could be revised to provide details of curbing, should the proposal be accepted.

Councillor Kennedy took his seat at 19:45.

The committee received verbal representation from Johnny Horn, one of the Founders of the applicants Horn & Horne, who explained that they were trying to provide much needed family housing on a site which is more suited to residential that the existing usage, and would be less disruptive to the existing residents. He outlined the level of community engagement that has taken place and stated that the letters of support outnumbered those of objection. He assured members that disruption would be kept to a minimum during construction and explained how the current application has been altered and improved from the last following advice from officers.

Questions from members followed relating to increased traffic movement within and exiting/entering the site and whether an assessment had been carried out on this. The applicant stated that this had been done and reiterated that highways have agreed to the transport assessment which has been submitted.

Councillor Jeffrey questioned the predicted period of construction to which the applicant stated approximately 12 months.

Members asked whether emergency services had been consulted on the access to the site, or on the swept path drawings which were provided. The applicant stated that the documents had been produced by a professional transport consultant to the industry standard, but did not know if they had consulted the emergency services.

The committee then heard from Bill Randle an objector who lives on Edric Road who stated that they do not oppose any residential development on the site, but that the current proposal was an overdevelopment of it. He stated that the number of units had only been reduced by 1bedroom since the previous refusal, and couldn’t see how the current proposal had addressed the previous refusal reasons. He stated the main concerns relate to access; parking; noise, light and vehicle pollution; privacy and security.

Plan drawings were tabled and objector stated that the swept path drawings submitted by the applicant were factually incorrect and that a fire engine would not be able to access the site and that the access and parking arrangements would be generally unsafe for residents. He also stated that the swept path drawings assume no cars to be parked near or opposite the access on Avonley Road, which is rarely the case in reality.

He stated that the development goes against the Development Plan, and that a development of reduced height and less units would be supported.

Councillor Paschoud asked whether the proposal was smaller than the existing building, to which the objector replied it was, but it would still be overbearing and impact on their privacy.

The presenting officer went on to clarify some of the conditions that have been suggested, and explained how these would alleviate the issues raised by the objector.

General questions from members followed:

Councillor De Ryk sought clarification on the security concerns during construction which were raised, as well as effectiveness of the louvre windows and the obscure glazing and whether future occupiers could simply remove these. The presenting officer stated that the new dwelling would not have PD rights so planning permission would be required to alter the windows and that there is a suggested condition for the applicant to submit a Construction Management Plan which would address the security issues.

Councillor Walsh had outstanding concerns over access, including for emergency vehicles, refuse trucks and the blocked sightlines of any drivers exiting the site. The presenting officer reiterated that Highways has approved the swept path and access details, and clarified that refuse would be brought to the bin store at the front of the site, meaning refuse trucks would not need access.

Councillor Walsh again queried whether the swept path drawings model had taken account of vehicles parked on Avonley Road and noted that if there was not 100% clarification on this then his concerns would stand. The officer noted that they did not have this information to hand.

Councillor Amrani looked up the size of a standard fire truck online and noted that there would only be 45cm leeway along the narrow access path which is concerning.

Councillor Walsh sought clarification on why the number of units had only reduced by 1 bedroom and queried if this was significant reduction in density. The presenting officer stated that the changes since the last refusal are outlined in the report, and that the proposed density conforms with and is at the lower end of the prescribed densities in the London Plan.

Deliberations over the safety of the access, and suitability for emergency vehicles continued, as well as concerns over the adequacy of the refuse storage and members wanted this examined further should the proposal be deferred. It was stated that the main issue is one of safety and access to the site.

Members discussed that should the proposal be deferred they would like further information on access to and parking within the site. They stated that they would also like to visit the site, would like further comments from highways on how the access could be improved (including controlled parking), as well as comments from the fire brigade if possible. Councillor Walsh wanted more detail on the lighting levels within the site, and the suitability of these to ensure safety for drivers and pedestrians.

Following further deliberations Councillor De Ryk moved a motion to defer the decision to a later committee which was seconded by Councillor Walsh.

Councillors Adefiranye, and Kennedy were ineligible to vote as they took their seats once the case hearing had begun.

Members voted as follows:

FOR:               Councillors Amrani (Chair), De Ryk (Vice-Chair), Paschoud, Bourne, Till and Walsh.

ABSTAINED:            Councillor Jeffrey

RESOLVED:    Defer the decision of application DC/17/103958 to a later committee date, following the submission of further details.