Agenda item

The application proposed the demolition of eleven of the existing garage blocks, retaining four along the flank of 25 Harebell Way and the construction of a pair of semi-detached 3-bedroom dwellings. The proposed dwellings would be two-storey with a hipped roof and of a traditional design and external appearance. 

It was reported that provision would be made within the site for four parking spaces, which were proposed to be allocated for use by the occupiers of the new dwellings, plus four retained and refurbished garages.

It was noted that 6 letters of representation had been received along with comments from a local Ward Councillor. Comments from two consultees had also been received and were outlined in the report.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector, with a response provided by the applicant.

The objector was primarily concerned with the loss of parking. The applicant responded pointing out that the parking surveys followed a methodology approved by the Local Highway Authority and that parking could be re-provided within the blue line area. In addition some members considered that there was support among local residents for the proposals and that the existing garages were not fit for purpose, being too small to accommodate most modern cars.

With its agreement, Councillors Keith Darvill, Lesley Kelly and Denis O’Flynn addressed the Committee.

Councillor Darvill stated that he had received numerous complaints from local residents concerning the proposals, particularly around parking displacement should the garages be demolished. He emphasised that a parking strategy needed to be implemented for the Estate, however he stressed that the strategy should have been included as part of the proposals with consultation with existing residents a key part of that strategy. He added that the original design for the Estate incorporated a number of small green open spaces to provide amenity for those residents who occupied flats or properties without any garden space. The proposals would create a terraced-like effect and result in overlooking into neighbouring properties.

Councillor Lesley Kelly remarked that the proposals were supported by many residents who lived on the Briar Road Estate. She recognised that there would be a loss of parking as a result of the proposals, but that would be off-set by the availability of improved living accommodation for which residents of the Estate would get priority when bids were submitted. She added that the parking congestion was caused by the excessively high number of car owners living on the Estate and that the Estate was built at a time when there were so many cars on the road.

Councillor O’Flynn remarked that the proposals were not in keeping with the promises made to residents of the Estate who were told that there would be a series of environmental improvements; these had not materialised in the proposals. He added that occupiers who had bought their properties a number of years ago did so because of the green and open spaces dotted around the Estate; these would now disappear with the proposals.

A Member of the Committee expressed concern that that the loss of parking spaces incurred through the demolition of the garages would result in parking overspill into the neighbouring streets. He suggested that a parking strategy should have been included as part of the application to address this. He added that there was insufficient disabled parking as part of the proposals and no CCTV provision.

An opposing view was put forward by other members of the Committee who commented that the proposals conformed to Council planning and parking policies.

Officers informed members that additional condition was proposed to be added to each of the 15 Briar Road applications requiring submission to and approval of details of levels prior to commencement.

It was RESOLVED that:

1.    The development proposed would liable for the Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in accordance with London Plan Policy 8.3 and that the applicable charge would be £1280.00. This was based on the creation of 64m² of new gross internal floor space.

2.    The proposal was unacceptable as it stood but would be acceptable subject to the applicant entering into a Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure the following:

•           A financial contribution of £12,000 to be used towards infrastructure costs in accordance with the draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

•           All contribution sums shall include interest to the due date of expenditure and all contribution sums to be subject to indexation from the date of completion of the Section 106 agreement to the date of receipt by the Council.

•           The Developer/Owner to pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs associated with the Legal Agreement prior to the completion of the agreement irrespective of whether the agreement is completed.

•           Payment of the appropriate planning obligations monitoring fee prior to the completion of the agreement.

3.    Staff were authorised to enter into a legal agreement to secure the above and upon completion of that agreement, grant planning permission subject to the conditions as set out in the report, with the addition of a condition requiring the submission and approval of details of site levels prior to commencement.

The vote for the resolution was passed by 7 votes to 3. Councillors Eagling, McGeary and Ower voted against the resolution to grant planning permission.