Issue - meetings

Description of application – Demolition of numbers 18-44 Homefield Rise and the construction of 103 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:-

The minimal changes made to the latest submitted plans still resulted in:-

overdevelopment of the site;

overlooking;

an inadequate level of parking and green space.

The Travel Plan had not been updated and the car ownership data was out-of-date and obsolete.

The proposed development did not adhere to Secure by Design standards.  The applicants had shown no sympathy towards residents living in the surrounding area.

Mr Padgham requested that Members refrain from making a decision until consultation results were available.

Oral representations in support of the application were received from the applicant’s agent, Mr John Escott, who reported the following:-

This site was designated in the Local Plan for development to provide approximately 100 residential units.

Blocks A and D had been rescaled as previously requested by Members.  Block A was 32m away from the nearest local residents and Block D was over 65m away.  Viability was an issue here; any further reduction would threaten the proposed development.  Density of the site was at the lower end of the range advised by the London Plan.

Development of the site would result in a significant improvement to the area whilst providing much needed accommodation.

In response to Member questions, Mr Escott confirmed that viability figures had been submitted to the planning authority however, the Planning Officer reported that whilst the 35% affordable housing requirement would be met, a full viability assessment had not been received.  Mr Escott reported that outline information had been submitted by Affinity Sutton.

Mr Escott disagreed with Councillor Fawthrop’s suggestion that the proposed development contravened the London Plan in terms of density.

Councillor Michael referred to page 18 of the report which stated parking was provided at a ratio of 0.78 per unit however, on page 27 of the report, it was stated as being 0.72 spaces per unit.  Mr Escott explained that whilst parking provision remained the same, the ratio had risen due to the decrease in the number of units.

The Planning Officer circulated a report update to Members informing them that additional representations had been received which made the following points in objection, in addition to those already summarised in the report:-

·  Amended plans merely tinkered around the edges and none of the reasons for deferment had been realistically addressed;

·  Massing remained as big as before;

·  Overlooking was still a concern;

·  Town houses were suggested;

·  Visuals reinforced how large and imposing the new development would be;

·  The development was too large and adjacent properties would be overlooked;

·  Concerns regarding car parking;

·  Need to consider overflowing bins;

·  Reduction in number of units not sufficient to improve  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5