Agenda item

The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the demolition of existing two-storey building at 84 Ravensbourne Park, SE6, and construction of 9 self-contained flats, together with 3 car parking and 14 bicycle spaces and associated landscaping.

The committee noted the report and that the main issues were:

Principle of Development

·       Housing

·       Transport

·       Living conditions of neighbours

·       Sustainable Development

·       Natural Environment

Following members’ enquiries relating to site location and mature tree loss, the Officer clarified the location of the proposed site in context to its current surroundings. He also confirmed that the site contained and, was bounded by mature trees and hedging. The Officer divulged that one tree within and one adjoined to the site was protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPO). The Officer advised the Committee that the non-TPO trees proposed to be removed, were of insufficient value to warrant their protection with TPOs and, the loss of the on-site trees was considered to be acceptable. The Officer noted that a Section 106 agreement with the applicant would provide a contribution of £11,000 for additional tree planting outside of the site boundaries.

The agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee, advising of the extensive consultation undertaken with the Planning Inspectorate, planning officers and local residents. The agent described the proposed application site and, the ‘landscape led’ design approach. The agent reiterated the Section106 tree planting funds, agreed with the applicant. The agent stated that the professional team involved in the site development were ‘extremely proud’ of the work undertaken. It was stated that the proposal was ‘a very high quality, sustainable design solution’ and, the new homes would be a valuable contribution to the housing supply.

Following a members enquiry relating to materials and fire safety,

the agent advised the Committee that the material used looked like timber, but was in fact cement and, therefore would not burn. The intention was not to extend the look of the built environment into the park.

Residents, addressed the Committee, advising they represented the immediate neighbours to the application site. Residents were opposed to the proposal because of concerns relating to the design and scale of the proposal, impact on parking in the surrounding area, the loss of trees on site, and the impact on neighbouring residential amenity.

Questions were raised by members relating to mass and bulk, window design, density and, the weight that should be given to prior planning decisions.

The Officer confirmed the schemes design, measurements and explained the difference between mass and bulk. The Officer also advised the Committee that previous planning permission was refused because the Planning Inspectorate ruled the proposed development was ‘unattractive in its massing and design’.

The agent advised the Committee that the decision to use reflective windows and, rotate the proposed scheme to a 45 degree angle, would serve to reflect the trees and, blend the scheme into the surrounding woodland.

The DMTL advised the Committee the Draft London Plan would soon be published, with the removal of the density matrix. The DMTL confirmed the current 2016 Plan with alterations since 2011, was still the adopted Development Plan, but the Draft London Plan was a material consideration in planning decisions. The DMTL also advised that the density matrix should be applied flexibly. It would contribute to the Borough’s housing targets in a predominantly residential and highly sustainable urban location, making the most efficient use of land and optimising density. This was considered a planning merit, to which very significant weight was given.

The Legal Representative gave advice regarding the weight the Committee should give to the previous Planning Inspectorate decisions when considering the current planning application.

The Legal Representative advised that previous planning decisions were material considerations, but not binding precedent. The Committee should give regard to the prior decisions, but consider the current planning application on its own merits, in context to all material considerations put before them.

During the member discussion that followed, the majority view was that there were no grounds for the application to be rejected.

Members voted on the recommendation in the report with a result of 5 in favour and 1 against of the proposal.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That planning permission be GRANTED for the demolition of existing two-storey building at 84 Ravensbourne Park, SE6, and construction of:

·       9 self-contained flats (3 x one, 4 x two bed and 2 x three bed), together with 3 car parking and 14 bicycle spaces and associated landscaping.

Subject to Conditions and Informatives outlined in the report and subject to,

The prior completion of a Legal Agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the 1990 Act (and other appropriate powers) to secure the following PLANNING OBLIGATIONS, authorise the Head of Law to complete a legal agreement to cover among other things the following matters: -

(a) Payment on completion of the deed of the Council’s legal and professional fees in preparing and thereafter monitoring the agreement

(b) Notice of commencement 28 days prior to a material operation.

(c) Tree replanting contribution.

(d) Car club membership for residents.

That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to negotiate the Legal Agreement.

That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions (and informatives).

That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the Committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by Committee.