Agenda item

Demolition of existing building and erection of a six storey building (plus basement) to provide 152 residential units (46 units to comprise extra care accommodation and 25 x 1 bed, 50 x 2 bed, 19 x 3 bed and 12 x 4 bed) with ancillary car parking and landscaping.

POST REVISION SUMMARY:  

Ground floor stair adjustments to main entrance areas.

Room widths to number single bedrooms amended to accord with SPG1 standards.

Bridge to some maisonettes amended to provide access to side of living areas.

15.1  The Planning Officer informed the Sub-Committee that this application had been reported to Members at the meeting held on 4 February 2009, where Members did not vote in favour of the officer’s recommendation, for the reasons listed within the report. 

15.2  She explained that officer’s had been given legal advice that this application was not determined and that it had to be brought back to Members for their determination with the same recommendation.  However, in light of previous concerns raised, a number of additional points were listed within the report, for clarification.

15.3  Reference was made to the addendum which detailed additional comments from the Sustainability, Design and Conservation Manager; which dealt primarily with the external design and internal layout.  In addition, Members were advised that two drawings had been submitted by the applicant to illustrate layouts as would be covered by SCM11a (5943-D3100B and D3199B), and that two additional drawings were attached to the addendum displaying corridor length and accessibility and internal layouts of typical units.

15.4  Mrs Meisels and Mr Hoddes spoke in objection to the scheme, their concerns are summarised as follows:-

§  Mrs Meisels had also objected at the previous meeting.

§  None of the neighbouring residents had received notification of the application coming to committee.

§  There was an issue of constant crime surrounding in the area.

§  The scheme was too dense and out of character with the surrounding area.

§  Loss of green amenity space.

§  The development should be no larger than 3/4 storeys in height.

15.5  Mary Power (Savills), John Moore (Formation Architects) and Robert Barton (Countryside, Applicant) spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:-

§  The existing building is currently derelict and located within a prominent, attractive area.  Need to improve the area and building will not take place on the London Square.

§  Referred to the 2007 planning appeal where the regeneration of the area was supported.

§  Hand delivered letters to neighbouring residents.

§  They had submitted further drawings of proposals for the internal layout of the building, at the request of the Planning Officer.

§  Previously won design awards.

§  There was a maximum of 9m from the front door to the lift/stairs, which met with the guidance.

§  1/3 of the units are dual aspect.

15.6  Discussion took place on the issue of density and reference was made to the Inspector’s report from the previous appeal, as detailed within the addendum.  It was explained that the number of units currently proposed was less than the previous application.

15.7  The Sustainability, Design and Conservation Manager referred to his comments in the addendum and explained that the Design Team’s primary issue had been the external design of the property, affected by the internal layout.  Numerous discussions had taken place between the applicants and Planning Officers to discuss the possibility of breaking down the façade of the building and also the issue of lack of dual aspect flats.  He stated that the building had since been split into separate blocks and that the number of dual aspect flats had been increased.  As a result, the Design Team were happier with the external design of the building, subject to approval of materials, which will be coming back to the Sub-Committee.

15.8  The Sustainability Design and Conservation Manager explained that their second issue was with the internal design of the development, which he feels could be better.  The main issues of concern surrounded the long internal corridors, in particular the circulation spaces, and single aspect flats.  He added that many of these elements had been resolved in the Planning Officer’s report, taking account of the wider current planning and policy context.

15.9  The Chair wished to clarify the parking issue and whether cars would be able to park in front of the building.  The applicant stated that there would be parking for approximately 12 cars to the front of the property, which would also be used as an emergency vehicle access route and drop off point.  It would form part of the ‘Home Zone’ and provide level access across the square.  A bollard system operated by keys would be used.

15.10  Councillor Desmond stated again that he believed the scheme to be 20% too dense and that it would have a severe impact on the Clapton Common.

15.11  Councillor Desmond proposed that the application be REFUSED, on the grounds of poor internal layout and the scheme being too dense.  This was seconded by Councillor Buitekant.  It was therefore:

RESOLVED that:-

1.  The proposed development, by reason of its internal layout, would provide a poor standard of residential accommodation.  Consequently it is contrary to Council Policy EQ1 and H03 of the Unitary Development Plan 1995 and SPG1: New Residential Standards.

2.  The proposed development, by reason of the proposed density, would constitute overdevelopment.  Consequently, it is contrary to Council Policy EQ1 and H03 and London Plan 2008 (consolidated with alterations since 2004) policies 3A.3, 4B.11 and  4B.12.