Issue - meetings

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10