Agenda item

3.1.      The application proposed for the Demolition of the 2 existing dwellings and the construction of a 4-storey building with roof terrace above to provide 16 self-contained flats at (Greenbank Cottage and Taymount Lodge) Taymount Rise SE23, together with the provision of accessible parking spaces, cycle and bin storage and associated amenity space, play area and landscaping. The application received 119 objections.

3.2.      The Planning Officer gave an illustrative presentation on the application. The key considerations were: Principle of Development; Housing; Urban Design; Impact on Adjoining Properties; Transport; Sustainable Development; Natural Environment; Planning Obligations. All of the considerations were deemed acceptable and supported by officers. It was the officer recommendation to approve the application.

3.3.      Members asked private external amenity space such as balconies. It was responded that 6 of the units do not have balconies which prevents noise and overlooking. The balconies were removed to provide better relationship with unit adjacent to the site. The Planning Officer said that a communal amenity space is provided at roof level.

3.4.      Members also asked what pressures were placed on the infrastructure with concerns that 16 units could lead to further flooding. The Presiding Officer replied that Thames Water did not have any concerns and that the are was a flood risk zone 1 location so there was a low level risk- the applicant therefore did not need to provide a flood risk assessment. It was said that the drainage manager was unable to provide feedback on this application but on the last application, they had no objections.

3.5.      Members mentioned that there is significant parking stress in the area and asked how would this be managed. The officer responded that the London Plan policy T6 determines a high public transport rating for such locations and that developments should be car-free. There are 2 accessible parking spaces also located on site.

3.6.      It was asked why the development did not include any affordable housing. The Presiding Officer replied that this was becoming more common and likely a consequence of current economy. The London Plan framework allows a viability tested route for any scheme that is not delivering 50% affordable housing. He said that, in this instance, the application was accompanied with a financial viability assessment which was interrogated to assess if affordable housing could be included in the development as the submission came in at 0%. It was concluded that the scheme could not viably provide affordable housing, either on-site or in a cash in-lieu option.

3.7.      The applicant was invited to speak on their application. The following was discussed:

3.8.      The officers report was robust and balanced; The previous site was for 20 properties and was revised down to 16; Scale and sighting was original reason for refusal; The scheme was developed with conservation officers and co-signed by the highways and design officer; The change allows a reduction in hard surfacing and allows disabled parking; The 5 trees will be replaced by 38; The site will continue to be car free, which is more environmentally friendly; The potential impacts are reduced in comparison to the previously proposed scheme; There is also now an increase of family sized units as recommended by Local Plan.

3.9.      Members asked what the service strategy was for the development. The applicant responded that there is a delivery bay on the frontage and the bins are placed within a short distance of the road for collection.

3.10.   When asked how residents can use the available parking spaces, it was responded that the bays are right-angled to the road so can reverse in or park with front.

3.11.   It was asked how the roof garden design prevents overlooking and if there was a children’s play space- the applicant responded that they had done studies and the actual roof garden is set back from the roof itself, and a model was made to ensure this would not happen. He also stated that the children’s play space was at back of site.

3.12.   The objector was then invited to speak. Their main points were:

3.13.   Firstly, it is an excessive scale and mass which falls just within what is deemed acceptable; the footprint of the new proposal is reduced somewhat but still impacts negatively in terms of overlooking both to Forest Croft and Taymont Grange; both flats affected are single aspect and some of the studios only have 1 liveable window. Some of these places impacted are non-habitable. Secondly, the loss of greenspace and roof terrace: the 3rd floor of Forest Croft looks directly into the roof terrace. There will also be a negative impact on residents because of the noise that would come from the roof terrace, as well as light pollution. Thirdly, regarding traffic and parking- there is concern of the safety of the service strategy. Taymont Rise has a steep camber and most service vehicles park in the middle of the street.

3.14.   The objector also stated that it was not reasonable for residents in the development to not own cars. Overall, there is a huge negative effects on residents and no affordable housing. They expressed their disappointment that there was a lack of engagement from the developer.

3.15.   The objector was asked about their opinion of the Highways Officer’s report on the scheme.  She responded that the report did not detail the full scope of the issue. She stated that there has been an occurring issue that because of pavement parking, lorries have been unable to reverse in or out of the area safely. The enforcement of safe parking is scant and pedestrians continue to lose out.

3.16.   The Officer clarified that the refuse management plan deemed acceptable, servicing condition 13, condition 31 and condition 39.

3.17.   Members acknowledged the objectors points and asked officers if there was a condition for management of roof terrace. They stated that use of the space needed to be regulated. The Presiding Officer stated that Members could add a condition to the recommendation. 8am to 10pm was agreed by Members.

3.18.   It was MOVED, SECONDED and RESOLVED to approve the application subject to updated conditions.