Agenda item

4.         54 Avonley Road, SE14 5EW (DC/17/103958) (item 4 on the agenda)

Richard McEllistrum, the presenting officer, outlined the facts of the proposal and reminded members that they had previously deferred the decision for this application when the case was heard at the Committee A held on 16^th of January 2018, pending submission of further details in respect of emergency vehicle access to the site, the proposed lighting, management of car parking on site. He stated that this information had now been submitted, including consultation responses from the London Fire Brigade, tracking/swept paths for fire trucks, the addition of sprinklers to properties, proposals for parking management (1 space for each property), and a lighting schedule.

He stated that this information was considered acceptable and officers were recommending the scheme for approval.

Councillor Walsh raised concern over the management of parking, and asked what physical barriers had been proposed to manage illegal parking which may impede access during an emergency situation, as was requested at the last committee where this was heard. The presenting officer stated that he did not have the specific additions in front of him, but that a hard landscaping condition would form part of the permission, which would ensure these were added if not already.

The committee then received verbal representation from the applicants’ representative Johnny Horne, who was supported by the agent, Barry Cansfield, and their transport consultant Peter Caneparo.

He argued that the concerns from the previous committee had been addressed: sprinklers had been installed and the Fire Brigade had been consulted, and were satisfied that the properties could be serviced in an emergency.

With regard to parking, he stated a survey had been carried out at 2am on a Wednesday and a Thursday and the results showed there is capacity. Further to this double yellow lines would be added close to the site entrance to ensure access would not be impeded in an emergency.

He stated that the parking management, access signage and lighting schedule would be implemented as shown on the plans and secured by way of condition.

He added that the proposed refuse storage capacity exceeded the recommended volume. He concluded by stating he hoped the committee was satisfied with the additional information.

Questions from members followed:

Councillor Paschoud asked which properties had sprinklers, and the applicant replied all of them would. She then asked whether these would be set of by normal cooking, to which it was replied that they were specifically designed for residential properties so this would be unlikely. Chair Amrani sought further confirmation that the sprinklers would be installed, and the applicant confirmed they would be.

Bill Randle, an adjoining neighbour who spoke in objection at the last committee, spoke on behalf of the scheme’s objectors. He stated that the proposal had many flaws with regard to its design, overlooking issues, parking management, refuse storage arrangements and emergency vehicle access. He stated that a similar proposal with a larger access to this was recently refused by the Council. He suggested there was not enough time to raise all of the concerns he and the other objectors have against the scheme. Quoting Policy DM33 he stated that the proposal would be against the provisions of this due to its unsafe access, its impact on neighbouring amenity, lack of security, over dense development, and unsympathetic design.

In response to the objector, the presenting officer stated that with regard to Policy DM33, officers consider the amenity and highways impacts are considered to be acceptable. He reminded the committee that the Fire Brigade had said the access arrangement are acceptable and that the parking and highways issues would be dealt with and managed by the Council’s highways team. He also reminded the committee that the existing use classification of the site is an unrestricted industrial (B2), which is classified as heavy industrial activities that are generally not acceptable in residential areas, and do or would generate larger vehicle traffic themselves.

Questions from Councillors followed:

Councillor Paschoud stated that the houses, as single family dwellings, should have garden waste as well as food waste bins, as per current Council policy. The presenting officer stated that he was aware that the Council’s refuse policy had recently been changed. Nonetheless officers were satisfied with the proposed arrangement and this would be secured by condition.

Councillor Walsh sought further clarification on emergency access arrangements, and how the parking would effectively be managed to mitigate any issues. He was concerned that the arrangement was still unsafe, and questioned whether the Fire Brigade had been given all of the necessary information before raising no objections. The presenting officer reiterated that the Fire Brigade had been consulted and found the arrangement to be acceptable.

Councillor Walsh noted that the length of a standard car (4.8m) had been used in the swept path models for emergency vehicle access, and asked what could be done to stop a longer vehicle which would overhang the bay from parking there. The presenting officer replied that this was the standard length of a vehicle parking space that is worked to and is stuck to. To consider longer vehicles then we would need to change the standard.

Councillor Adefiranye questioned the validity of the letter from the fire brigade and asked whether the letter had been received by the planning department or by the developer and the forwarded to the department. The presenting officer clarified that the letter had been received by the planning department, and that it was considered to be sufficient evidence that the proposal would be accessible in an emergency situation. 

Regarding the proposed parking permit system, Councillor Walsh asked if it was the developer who had suggested this and who the permit fee would be paid too. The presenting officer stated that he was not sure who had proposed the permits, but that generally the planning department would not get involved at this level.

Councillor Amrani summarised the debate, and reminded members that they had previously deferred this decision, and that they were only assessing the additional information that had been presented. Councillor Paschoud moved to accept the officer’s recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Kennedy.

Members voted as follows:

FOR RECOMMENDATION: Councillors Amrani (Chair), Paschoud, Kennedy, Raven, Till and Walsh.

AGAINST RECOMMENDATION: Councillor Adefiranye

ABSTAINED:            None

RESOLVED:    Grant the application, as per the officers’ recommendation. 

There was a 5 minute comfort break before the next item.