Application No. D2016/73695
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Page 3 Agenda Item 4 PLANNING COMMITTEE - Date:18 May 2016 Report of the Interim Executive Head for Economic Development, Planning and Sustainability. Ref: D2016/73695/3FR WARD: D17 / BEDDINGTON NTH Time Taken: 13 weeks, 0 days Site: 23-50 Richmond Green, Beddington, CR0 4SA Proposal: Demolition of existing bungalows and erection of twelve 2-bedroomed 2 storey houses and nine 3-bedroomed 3 storey houses (100% affordable) with refuse and cycle storage, 33 car parking spaces and new vehicular accesses. Applicant: Ms Gill Daw Agent: Mr Tom Morgan Recommendation: GRANT PLANNING PERMISSION Reason for Report to Committee: The application relates to a major application recommended for approval and has received over ten letters of objection. Summary of why application proposals are acceptable: ● The proposal represents a high quality redevelopment scheme which would make a positive contribution towards this part of Beddington Conservation Area and provides 100% affordable housing. ● It is considered that this is a well designed scheme which has a modern approach to design. The proposed dwellings are considered to be of an excellent architectural and urban design quality that will offer a significant improvement to the streetscene and townscape. ● The proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of outlook, privacy or light and no significant harm would be caused through noise or disturbance. In addition, it is considered that the proposal would result in an acceptable standard of amenity for the future occupiers of the development in accordance with development plan policy. ● The site is located within a low level of public transport accessibility. As such, car parking at a level above the maximum standard can be accepted and the Council’s Highways Engineer raises no objection to the level of parking. The proposed traffic generation is unlikely to cause any significant impact on the performance of the local road network. The access provided is acceptable and would not cause harm to highway and pedestrian safety. ● The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, the London Plan 2015 and the Councils Local Development Framework. For the reasons outlined in the report, it is recommended that planning permission be granted. 1. Matters Relating to Deferral Reasons: 1.1 Members will recall that this application was presented to the Planning Committee on 20 April 2016 with a recommendation for approval, subject to conditions. The report presented to that Committee is attached as Appendix 1 to this document and the addendum to it is included as Appendix 2. Agenda Item 4 Page 4 1.2 This application was reported to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 20 April 2016. The application was deferred in order that further information could be brought to Committee prior to a decision being taken. Planning Committee members wanted more time for Ward Councillors to engage with residents to explain the difference between the process followed by the Housing Economy and Business Committee under Housing Law and the process followed by the Planning Committee under Planning Law; and for Officers to provide further information with regard to the impact on the Conservation Area, access for emergency vehicles and flooding. An objector sought clarification of the distance between residential buildings and although this was explained at Committee there was a degree of confusion as to how this applied to single storey extensions and further detailed information about the Council’s guidance is included in this report. 1.3 One letter of objection has been received following the Planning Committee on 20 April from 6 Hereford Mews, Bridle Path, Beddington which raised concerns in relation to car parking, access and lack of sun/daylight through the erection of taller buildings in the area. Appendix 1 covers the officers responses to the objections raised previously during consultation on material planning grounds and also addresses the concerns raised by the owner of 6 Hereford Mews, Bridle Path. 1.4 To respond to comments made at the previous meeting in terms of the process, the Council, in exercising its different statutory functions, maintains independence and clear separation between these functions. In the case of this application, it is immaterial to the consideration of the planning merits of this application, that a decision was made by the council in 2013, through its Housing function, to agree in principle the replacement of the existing bungalows. The redevelopment of the site requires planning permission through the separate function of the Council as Local Planning Authority. 1.5 Therefore, representations at the Planning Committee meeting of 20 April by some local residents objecting to the decision made in 2013 by the Housing, Economy and Business Committee to replace the existing bungalows with new affordable housing are not material to the consideration of this planning application. 1.6 Whether this scheme is approved or refused by this Committee is solely based on its planning merits, having regard to the Development Plan and taking into account material considerations of relevance under planning law. 1.7 This addendum report explains some issues in more detail including matters raised at the Planning Committee meeting of 20 April concerning the information used to support the Flood Mitigation Report and claims that a report that was material to the consideration of the planning application had not been made public. 1.8 There was no missing report concerning flood risk when the application was heard previously, and that remains the case. The reference made previously to another report that Councillors had not seen and was not on the web site was based on a misunderstanding of activity currently being undertaken on site. 1.9 Trial bore holes are being taken across the site in preparation for designing foundations and this was explained by the architect at Committee. This is not relevant to the consideration of the planning application. 1.10 The original officer’s report (Appendix 1) includes a detailed section on pages 61 to 63 paragraphs 5.22 through to 5.39 that sets out the sequential test that is necessary to satisfy Flood Risk Assessment requirements and includes information about the how the development is designed to mitigate against flood risk. Page 5 Agenda Item 4 1.11 A detailed study by the applicant’s consultants, Hilson Moran, was submitted to the Council on the 15 February 2016 and this demonstrates that a thorough and detailed investigation has been undertaken of the flood risks applicable to the application site, using the latest modelling data. The report recommends actions to be taken including raising the floor level by 100mm and designing in flood resilience measures in the construction of the houses. There have been lengthy discussions with the Environment Agency (EA) which led to the recommendation to approve this application, subject to the conditions as set out on the draft decision notice. The conditions allow for further discussions to ensure that the measures to control surface water flowing from the site meet the EA requirements. 1.12 One of the other issues raised at the Planning Committee meeting of 20 April was the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the Beddington Village Conservation Area (Designated 1993). The description of the Conservation Area’s special characteristics is in the Site Development DPD Appendix March 2012 (page 47 Item 2). 1.13 It should be noted that the architectural and historic quality is principally defined by the area of terraced cottages concentrated on the western side of Richmond Road which date back to the 1800s. 1.14 There are no views of these cottages from the application site. The development immediately adjacent to the application site comprises modern housing including terraced, semi-detached and flat development. 1.15 The bungalows on the application site have no historic or architectural merit in themselves but they do front an area of grass and mature trees that follow the route of the River Wandle. The resultant landscape is of high value. 1.16 The proposed development does not require the removal of any of the trees outside the site boundary and fronting the river. There will be replacement trees for the poor quality ones coming out within the site boundary, mainly self seeded shrubs in the rear gardens. There is a condition covering the provision of hard and soft landscaping, replacement of trees and the provision of play equipment. 1.17 The proposed development will appear to be more intensive than the 28 existing bungalows, even though the number of new units is only 21, due to the differences in height, mass and form. The development still represents low density development of family housing. There are higher density flat developments within the Conservation Area boundary closer to the historic core. 1.18 The scheme has been designed to follow the curved nature of the site frontage rather than having housing in linear blocks like the bungalows. Although nine of the units are described as being 3 storey, the additional room is formed within the roof. The frontage is visually divided with single storey elements between buildings rather than having a continuous 2 storey roof line and adds interest as well as allowing for views between the buildings. It is considered that the development will compliment the Conservation Area rather than detracting from it and will demonstrate what a high quality design approach can achieve on its own merits. 1.19 Given the distance from the historic heart of the Conservation Area, the retention of the green space and trees beside the River Wandle, and the design features of the new houses, the scheme is justified in design terms and will compliment the Conservation Area rather than detract from its qualities.