Agenda item

The report before members detailed an application seeking permission to convert the existing vacant Will Perrin Court which was formerly used for Sheltered Housing for the elderly, into a Hostel for homeless people.   The proposal would provide temporary supported accommodation for single people or families requiring accommodation in an emergency whilst permanent solutions were being sought.

 

The proposal involved general internal refurbishment works in order that all units had their own shower room, creating 2 fully accessible units and conversion of the existing warden’s flat into additional studios.  It was reported that overall there would be an increase in the number of units from 39 to 46, consisting of 12 one-bed flats, 32 studio flats, 2 wheelchair accessible flats, a staff room and training room area.  The footprint of the building would remain the same.

 

It was noted that the existing car park to the front of the site would be enlarged to allow additional parking and also to provide accessible spaces and an additional service / van parking space. 

 

Revised drawings had been received with the following changes:

 

1)   Addition of gates to the rear car parking area which would also have some fencing attached

2)   Additional notes about raising the height of the fencing to 2.0m, the majority of the rear of the site already having fencing this high.

3)   Changing the pram stores to be general stores

4)   Adding secure Bike parking

5)   Adding a children’s play area in the courtyard

6)   Providing fencing around the courtyard area

7)   Adding notes for the door types and windows types.

8) Providing an additional door to access the two rear most flats from the corridor to provide a more straight forward route.

 

It was noted that 138 letters of representation had been received.Amongst the objection letters was a letter from the Residents’ Committee with an attached petition signed by 1000 people, to which a further 215 signatures had been added subsequently (total 1215).  It was noted that the covering letter had stated that 1472 people had signed the petition.

 

A representation had been received by a Ward Councillor who objected to the proposals on the following grounds:

 

-          increase in traffic

-          additional noise

-          the use is inappropriate in this location

-          antisocial behaviour

-          disturbance

 

The Ward Councillor also submitted 222 pro-forma letters.

 

On behalf of the Police, the Borough Crime Prevention Design Advisor had raised concerns regarding the fear of crime, lack of parking provision which could result in on-street car crime and crime prevention concerns with the design of the building.

 

Staff commented that the main issues in this case were the principle of the development, the effect of the development upon the character of the street scene, the impact upon the amenities of existing adjoining residential occupiers, amenity space and car parking provision for the existing and proposed occupiers and highways considerations.

 

In accordance with the public participation arrangements, the Committee was addressed by two objectors, with a response by the applicant.

 

Members were advised that a letter had been received from Ward Councillor Rebecca Bennett, which highlighted residents’ concerns regarding the possibility of a hostel opening in their local neighbourhood.

 

With its agreement, Ward Councillor Denis Breading and Councillors Jeffrey Tucker and David Durant addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Breading remarked that local ward Councillors had not been consulted on the proposal before its consideration by Cabinet earlier in the year. In his view, the proposal was ill thought out and had not taken into account the views and concerns of local residents.  Councillor Breading also referred to the proposed rubbish store which was located to the front of the building and which would be an eyesore to neighbouring residents. He urged the Committee to refuse planning permission

 

Councillor Tucker commented that there was strong opposition to the scheme from local residents as evidenced by the number of letters he had received. Councillor Tucker requested that the Committee reject the scheme owing to the public opposition.

 

Councillor Durant’s remarks centred around his criticism of the Council’s policy of having one large hostel in the borough.  He suggested that it would be more appropriate for the Council to retain a number of small hostels throughout the borough rather than depend on one large one to which local residents were vehemently opposed.  Councillor Durant asked that the Committee reject the scheme owing to the number of residents who were opposed to the scheme.

 

During the ensuing debate:

 

·        in response to a question regarding the size of the individual rooms, officers confirmed that the rooms would be suitable for individuals and not families.

·        Officers also confirmed that the studio flats would have a separate kitchen area contained within them.

·        In reply to a question, officers confirmed that the Council’s Crime Prevention Officer had made no further comment regarding the scheme in addition to their response in consultation.

·        A member made reference to a comment in the report from the Highways Authority who objected to the scheme due to a lack of proposed parking provision. The member commented that in the Highway Authority’s view, this was a reason to refuse planning permission.

·        In reply to a question, officers confirmed that there was no link between the proposed hostel and the local medical centre.

·        In reply to a question regarding the size of the proposed hostel, officers confirmed that Diana Princess of Wales Hostel, in Harold Hill, was the nearest comparable hostel in the borough. However this only had twenty one rooms whereas the proposed hostel planned for forty six rooms.

 

A discussion took place regarding the low ranked public transport accessibility in the area. Some members felt that this, coupled with a lack of parking provision offered in the application, would lead to problems of dispersed parking in the area.

 

Mention was also made of the fact that the proposed scheme allowed for the inclusion of studio flats which was in breach of the Council’s planning condition DC4. Officers replied that planning condition DC4 was not aimed at specialist accommodation and in this instance, it was important for members to note that the proposal, although providing studio flats, was not residential accommodation in the usual sense of housing long-term occupiers.

 

A motion was proposed that planning permission be refused on the following grounds:

 

·        Overspill car parking causing congestion and conflict with other users

·        Perception of fear of crime and anti-social and nuisance behaviour causing adverse impact on amenity of the area

·        Inadequate infrastructure

 

The vote for the motion to refuse planning permission was defeated by 7 votes to 3. Councillors Ower, Hawthorn and McGeary voted for the motion. Councillor Deon Burton did not vote.

 

It was RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the report and to include the following conditions:

 

·               Amend Condition 4 to require full details of commercial waste storage and collection arrangements including control of morning collection hours which shall respect residential amenity.

·               A condition requiring means of enclosure within the site grounds so that pedestrian access for residents and the public to the premises is restricted to the area in front of the main reception entrance, with access prevented through and along the building flanks.

·               A condition restricting play area use to 8am to 8pm daily.

·               Add informative requesting applicant to review and address as necessary the adequacy of street lighting on the approaches to the site within Guysfield Drive.

 

The vote for the resolution to grant planning condition was carried by 7 votes to 3. Councillors Ower, Hawthorn and McGeary voted against the proposal. Councillor Deon Burton did not vote.

 

At this point in the meeting, there was a brief adjournment to enable Police to remove members of the public who voiced their displeasure at the decision to grant planning permission.