Issue - meetings

Description of application – Demolition of numbers 18-44 Homefield Rise and the construction of 105 residential apartments in four separate three and four storey blocks to be served by two accesses together with associated car parking, cycle parking, refuse storage and private communal amenity space.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr David Padgham on behalf of Lancing Residents’ Association.

Mr Padgham  reported the following:-

Lancing Residents’ Association was not opposed to redevelopment of the site per se.  They were opposed to the currents plans that were under consideration.  The residents’ felt that the current proposals amounted to overcrowding of the site. 

Mr Padgham had been advised by a designing out crime expert that one of the proposed entrances to the development posed a danger.

Although the developers claimed that the site was in an urban area, the reality was that the location was suburban and it was felt that the proposals under consideration would result in urban sprawl.

Lancing Residents’ Association were asking for the current application to be refused with any future submission more in line with the character of the area.

In response to Member questions, Mr Padgham reported that the building referred to in point 3 of his submission was a garage and workshop.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from Ms Jo Tasker (agent).

Ms Tasker reported the following:-

The Agent’s had submitted a letter to the Committee which provided further details of the proposals.  The current proposals had been in development for two years during this time there had been a number of consultations and the applicants had been involved in two pre-application processes.

The applicants considered that the site was in a sustainable location and that the proposals supported ongoing regeneration of Orpington Town Centre.  The scheme wold deliver a substantial number of new homes and the proposals around the number of affordable homes were well in excess of policy requirements.

In response to Member questions, Ms Tasker stated that the proposed car parking offer met policy requirements and was more than that required by both Transport for London and the Council’s Highways department.

In terms of affordable housing, Affinity Sutton were required to meet certain strict standards in respect of rental accommodation.

Concerning the issue that had been raised by the speaker in objection to the proposal surrounding the proximity of the proposed development to a building belonging to 21 Lancing Road, Ms Tasker reported that the building was a workshop.  A garage building could be closer to the development than a residential building.

Additional representations had been received from the applicant in support of the application and the speaker who had attended the meeting to speak in objection to the application, and from residents re-iterating comments already summarised in the report.  In addition to this a representation had been received from Mr Richard Gibbons concerning the provision of cycle parking.  The recommendation within the report would be subject to a section 106 agreement and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41