Council services by letter

Agenda item

||

1-01:16 Kirkfield House, Station Road - P-4444/16

Minutes:

PROPOSAL:

 

Redevelopment to provide a part three and part four storey building for a thirty two bedroom House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO), Landscaping and Bin/Cycle Storage.

 

Following questions from Members, officers advised that:

 

·                     the current proposal would result in the loss of 16 parking spaces, bringing the total number of parking spaces at the application site to 17.  The development was located in a parking restricted zone and residents at the development would not be eligible to apply for parking permits.  Two traffic surveys had been undertaken, which had indicated that there was unused on-street parking capacity in surrounding streets;

 

·                     it was standard practice to carry out traffic surveys late in the evenings as it was easier to determine where local residents normally parked;

 

·                     officers considered that there would be sufficient space between the proposed development and St Jerome’s School and neighbouring dwelling, and the levels of overlooking would not be unreasonable.  As the school was not a habitation, and was located in an urban area the levels of overlooking were deemed acceptable.  However, It would be possible to insert an additional condition that required windows at the proposed development to be obscured;

 

·                     condition 4 required the submission of a Management Strategy for approval by the Local Planning Authority;

 

·                     crime and safety concerns would be addressed by condition 10, which required the developer to follow the design principles set out in the relevant Design Guides on the Secured by Design website. Safeguarding issues relating to children at the school fell outside the remit of the Planning Committee.

 

The Chair reminded Members that Kirkfield House had been converted from office to residential use under permitted development rights and had prior approval.

 

a Member proposed refusal on the following grounds:

 

‘The proposal is an overdevelopment, which will harm the amenities of neighbouring residents, businesses and the adjacent school, by reason of excessive height, scale, bulk and lack of parking, contrary to policies DM1 and DM42 of the Local Plan, CS1 of the Core Strategy and 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan.’

 

The motion was seconded, put to the vote and lost. The Chair used his casting vote.

 

A Member proposed a motion that:

 

1.            obscured glazing be implemented in any windows that would overlook the school and adjacent properties;

 

2.            the Management Strategy be circulated to Members of the Planning Committee for comment prior to agreement.  If any Member of the Committee deemed it to be unsuitable, then the Management Strategy would be submitted at a future Planning Committee meeting for approval.

 

The Committee received representations from two objectors, Mr Hillman and Mr Morsley, and from Mr Stern, a representative of the applicant.

 

 

DECISION:  GRANTED

 

RECOMMENDATION A

 

2)            planning permission subject to authority being delegated to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning in consultation with the Director of Legal and Governance Services for the completion of the Section 106 legal agreement and other enabling legislation and issue of the planning permission and subject to minor amendments to the conditions (set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report) or the legal agreement and as amended by the Addendum;

 

3)            obscured glazing be implemented in any windows that would overlook the school and adjacent properties;

 

4)            the Management Strategy be circulated to Members of the Planning Committee for comment prior to agreement. In the event that any Member of the Committee deemed it to be unsuitable, then the Management Strategy be submitted at a future Planning Committee meeting for approval.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION B

 

That if the Section 106 Agreement is nt completed by 17th May 2017, or as such extended period as may be agreed by the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Committee, then

it is recommended to delegate the decision to REFUSE planning permission to the Divisional Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Planning.

 

The Committee wished it to be recorded that the decision to grant the application was by a majority of votes.

 

Councillors Simon Brown, Keith Ferry and Anne Whitehead voted for the application. The Chair used his casting vote.

 

Councillors June Baxter, Stephen Greek and Pritesh Patel voted against the application.

 

Councillor Barry Kendler abstained from voting.

Supporting documents: