Issue - meetings

Description of application – Refurbishment and upwards extension of Cranbrook Court to provide 33 units of temporary accommodation for the homeless (Sui Generis) and 12 units of residential accommodation (Use Class C3).

Oral representations from the applicant’s agent in support of the application included the following points:-

·  The proposal site was a former care home, converted to temporary accommodation for the homeless in 2012.  Since then, it had been operated by Orchard and Shipman in line with a legal agreement that afforded the Council first refusal for renting out units via a registered provider.

·  The site had the appearance of being ripe for redevelopment or at the very least, in need of investment. It was originally part of the same plot of land that was redeveloped for Sutherland Court by Hanover Housing and was notably smaller in height and mass than its neighbour, as well as clearly being of older stock. Furthermore, it was a corner plot and conveniently located, being equidistant from Penge East and Kent House railway stations.  It was also a short walk from Penge High Street in one direction and Cator Park in the other.

·  It was suggested at consultation stage that the site would be better developed for accommodation for the elderly. In this regard it should be noted that the existing use was essential to meeting the Council’s statutory duty to house vulnerable people and that the use was policy protected. A comprehensive redevelopment of the site had therefore always been a difficult prospect. As such, development options had always focussed on refurbishment and expansion of the existing building, with the use continuing throughout construction.

·  The end result of this proposal would be the improvement of the quality and quantity of temporary accommodation available to the Council, cross-subsidised by opening up part of the site to private housing. It would not be lost on Members that the provision of housing, particularly at the starter home end of the market, also met a critical need.

·  Initial enquiries about the site’s development potential began in early 2017 and a series of positive and proactive pre-application discussions followed. While the principle of development was never disputed, there was an ongoing concern regarding the proposed height at 4 storeys. The applicant made a number of design amendments seeking to address these concerns but ultimately the original proposal was refused. Although other issues were discussed in detail as part of a subsequent appeal, the determining factor of the appeal dismissal was the scale of development at four storeys.

·  The detailed report of the Planning Inspector set the parameters for the current development proposal. The scheme reduced the number of private units from 19 to 12 and reduced the scale of development from four storeys with a flat roof, to three storeys with a pitched roof. This brought the scheme in line with the scale of surrounding development and was an entirely appropriate addition on what was a prominent corner site.

·  The proposal would secure the future of the temporary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33