Agenda item

The planning application before members was a resubmission, following a recent refusal and related to the demolition of an existing office building and the erection of a block of 42 flats on 4/5-storeys with parking and amenity space.

Members were advised of the changes to the proposal including the removal of the proposed sixth storey which meant the proposal did not fall within the tall buildings policy.

Members noted that the revised proposal included the same number of units but that some of the units proposed were now smaller than in the previous application.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements, the Committee was addressed by an objector with a response by the applicant. The objector raised issues which included the aesthetics of the proposed building, loss of amenity space, levels, adverse impact on privacy, adverse impact on capacity of sewers, adverse impact on traffic locally and overdevelopment of the site. The applicant’s response confirmed that all 42 units were to be made available as affordable housing, the area is a mix of old and new buildings, aesthetics have been addressed in the design, the boundary treatment retained mature boundary trees, the revised scheme addressed the previous concerns of residents and that the new submission blended in with the adjacent development on the site.

With its agreement Councillor Andrew Curtin addressed the Committee, Councillor Curtin confirmed that he supported the officer’s recommendation for refusal on the basis that the proposed development did not fit in with the Victorian character of surrounding properties in Manor Road and failed to make an appropriate and acceptable link between the old and new building forms. Councillor Curtin also commented that the scale and bulk of the proposal was unacceptable and also did not sit suitably with properties in Marwell Close.

During the debate members clarified the distances between the proposed development and the existing properties in Marwell Close and Manor Road.

Members also discussed the possible increase in traffic levels that could have been created by the proposal but it was agreed that there had been significant traffic movements when the site had been used for industrial purposes.

Members also discussed the relationship between the proposed block and the recently completed block adjacent to the site, in particular overlooking from windows in both blocks. Officers clarified that window opposite were in psrt serving kitchens.

Members also clarified the “provision of affordable housing” with the Legal Representative.

Following a motion to grant planning permission which was lost by 5 votes to 6, it was RESOLVED that planning permission be refused in line with officer recommendation.

The vote for the resolution to refuse planning permission was carried by 6 votes to 5 for the following reasons:-

1.            The proposed development would, by reason of its height, scale, obtrusive bulk and mass, appear as an unacceptably dominant and visually intrusive feature in the streetscene harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD.

2.            The proposal would, by reason of its scale, massing, bulk and layout result in an obtrusive and oppressive development adversely impact on the rear garden scheme and adversely impacting on outlook from neighbouring properties to the detriment of residential amenity, contrary to Policy DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD.

3.            The proposal would, by reason of an unacceptably excessive increase in traffic activity, result in harm to the living conditions of existing nearby residents through noise and congestion contrary to Policy DC61 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD.

4.            The proposal would, by reason of its design, including its form, external appearance and layout, not be of a sufficiently high quality of design and layout as to justify the excessively high density proposed, contrary to Policies DC2, DC3 and DC61 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document.

5.            In the absence of a mechanism to secure a planning obligation towards the infrastructure costs of new development the proposal is contrary to Policy DC72 of the LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies DPD and the provisions of the Havering Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

Councillors Oddy, Hawthorn, Ower, McGeary, Osborne and Durant voted for the resolution to refuse planning permission.

Councillors Bennett, Brace, Kelly, Misir and Tebbutt voted against the resolution to refuse planning permission.