Decision details

The Planning Officer presented the report for this application.

The planning application was for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of a part-3 and part-4 storey building to accommodate 20 residential units with basement plant room and associated works at Inglemere Domus, 27 Inglemere Road.

There were verbal corrections to the written report as follows: paragraph 11, mention of the 6 parking spaces where 5 are being proposed; paragraph 98 states that Flat 19 is not dual-aspect when in fact it is.

The officer stated that the application site is not in the conservation area, nor is it in close proximity to a listed building, it is within a PTAL 3 area and the surrounding area is residential in character. The building was last used in 2015 as a residential care home. The applicant successfully demonstrated that a care home is no longer needed at the site. The materials and design of the proposed development had been considered high quality. Parking, bin storage and a communal garden to the rear had been included in the site plans. The proposed development had been set to exceed the floor space according to London Plan minimum standards. The application followed the viability tested route and will deliver 3 units for London affordable rent, which will be secured by section 106. 2 wheelchair accessible unit were also proposed.

The key material planning considerations were as follows: principle of development (loss of care home and provision of residential accommodation); affordable housing; urban design (scale and massing); impact on neighbour amenity; transport and Highway (car parking, refuse, construction); sustainability. Planning officers consider all of these justified.

Permission was recommended subject to conditions and the section 106 agreement.

Councillor Lavery asked for context as to why only 3 of 20 of the properties were under London affordable rent. The officer stated that initially, no affordable housing was proposed and the applicants liability assessment was reviewed by a third party viability consultant and it was indicated that a nominal quantity of affordable housing was deliverable, so negotiations took place. This resulted in the above affordable housing proposal. It was felt that this was the maximum that can be achieved through the viability route.

Councillor Johnston-Franklin stated that the spaces which are for affordable rent, are not suitable for families and why it wasn’t considered that one of the larger units be used for affordable rent. She also raised concern about the potential lack of light in flat 3 which has been made accessible for a wheelchair user. The Presiding Officer stated that a judgement had to be made for affordable housing as choosing one of the larger properties for this would result in fewer units being rented out affordably, potentially just 1. Regarding the sunlight levels, it was said that flat falls marginally below the 2% recommendation- all of the other flats meet or exceed the percentage. This is because Flat 3 is mostly north-facing. It is not considered to be significantly below the recommendation to warrant a reason for refusal.

The agent of behalf of the applicant then gave her presentation. She discussed that following:

The building had been vacant since 2015 after the NHS concluded that it was no longer needed to accommodate the required services for modern day elderly care. The proposed development had responded to the advice of officers and represented the effective and efficient use of the sustainable site. The development will proved 20 much needed home in the borough. At the request of officers, the property provides a genuine mix of different homes in size and affordability. They are all space standard compliant. Neighbouring amenity has been protected by policy compliant separation distances between buildings. The application is accompanied by a comprehensive package of technical information as agreed at the pre-application stage. These have been reviewed and accepted. The committee report outlines that merits and plans of the development are considered to substantially outweigh any harm that may be identified. Furthermore, no objections were received from any internal or external statutory consultees. On the basis of these points, the proposed development is considered to be in line with national planning policy guidance and the development plan policies.

As the objector was unable to attend the meeting, the planning officer read out the objector statement which highlighted the following:

The objector was concerned that proposed development will overlook her garden because of the multiple balconies. She stated that she uses her garden a lot as she is often at home with her child who has a disability- she felt the change would impact her quality of life as there would be a lack of privacy and a direct view into her home and garden.

The Chair asked for clarity on this overlooking and the views from the balconies. The officer said that the rear elevation of the proposed building is approximately 9 metres from the shared boundary. The properties on Acorn Way have rear gardens of around 11-12 metres in length. Officers are happy that there would be a sufficient amount of space between the two properties. The balconies to the rear are on the 4 storey element. The balconies are approximately 1.5m deep and there is a slight reduction in space between the edge of the balcony and the rear of the properties in Acorn Way. It is considered sufficient. There are also large mature trees on the boundary which are not proposed to be uprooted which provide privacy.

Councillor Paschoud moved the motion to approve the recommendation to approve the application as outlined in the report.

The Committee voted in favour of the application.