Agenda item

Description of application - Demolition of existing building and erection of 12/13 storey mixed use building to comprise commercial 881.5 sqm (GIA/retail floorspace at ground and part first floor level (Class A1/A2/A3/B1) and 69 residential units at upper floors (27 one bed, 31 two bed and 11 three bed), 46 car parking, 132 cycle parking, refuse stores and landscaping and other associated works.

The Planning Development Control Officer reported that Members should have received an e-mail from the applicants containing a letter and legal advice note which made reference to a cross-section comparing the previous and current proposals which were not included so a copy of the submitted cross-section had been placed in front of Members.  It was confirmed that consideration of the contents of the submission, did not result in any alteration to the officer recommendation except for a very minor alteration to the initial sentence of the first recommended ground for refusal which was amended to read:- “The site is not a suitable location for the proposed tall building.”.  The submission suggested that the report did not provide an analysis of the planning balance of the advantages and disadvantages of the scheme.  Whilst it was considered that the report provided detailed analysis of the relevant issues, to avoid any ambiguity in light of the applicant’s submissions, the on balance recommendation set out in the report was based on the weighing up of the potential contributions of the development to housing provision including affordable housing, the town centre environment, Business Improvement Area and employment floorspace versus the harm that would be caused by the size and design of the building and its impact on the surrounding area including residential amenity. 

A number of late objections had been received in relation to the revised details submitted in November, the majority of which confirmed that the amendment had not altered residents’ views; in particular, several residents pointed out that overlooking would still be possible from recessed balconies.

The following inaccuracy on page 26 of the Committee report was noted:-  The increase between the appeal scheme and the current submission (the latest version with new façade) was related to habitable rooms NOT the number of windows.  The application scheme (both the original submission and the amended drawings) had 46 habitable rooms overlooking the Palace Estate, the Appeal scheme had 44.  This was an increase despite the lower height.

The reference made to 7 affordable units on page 30 of the report was now out of date as the applicants were proposing 10 in accordance with the Council’s independent viability assessment.

Further comments had been provided by Transport for London who were disappointed that the car parking provision had not been reduced from 46 spaces; they therefore requested a Car Parking Management Plan be implemented to monitor usage of the spaces.  They were also disappointed with the Electric Vehicle Charging Point provision and requested this be increased to meet London Plan standards.  A planning condition concerning the demountable car stacker was also requested.  TfL were satisfied that the cycle parking provision of 132 spaces was in line with London Plan Standards.

The following oral representations were received from Mr Will Edmonds, agent in support of the application:-

•  Members had been provided with a copy of a letter from the Managing Director of Taylor Wimpey together with the legal opinion of Leading Counsel.

•  It was critical for Members to have full regard to the previous appeal decision with the only relevant question being whether the reduction in height and scale of the development was sufficient.

•  Redevelopment of the site would bring substantial capital investment to the town centre and New Homes Bonus to the Borough.  It would also provide significant improvements to the surrounding public realm.

•  The three reasons for refusal as set out in the report of the Chief Planner were wholly unjustified and not supported by analysis.  The development would not give rise to impact on the residents of Palace Estate.  The architectural design of the building was excellent with a high quality of materials being used.  The applicant had gone to considerable lengths, by way of discussions with Ward Members and officers, to address the issues of height and scale.

The Chairman referred to the Planning Inspector’s Appeal Decision which stated the previous proposal's excessive height would result in an unduly overbearing new building that would damage, unacceptably, the living conditions of nearby residents.  This contradicted Mr Edmonds' view that no impact would arise on residents of the Palace Estate.  Mr Edmonds disagreed with this statement.

The following oral representations in objection to the application were received from local resident, Mr Steven White:-

•  Of the 134 responses to the application, only one resident was in favour of the scheme.

•  The height, scale and mass of the development would result in an overbearing dominance of the surrounding area and would tower above neighbouring Rafford Way and Palace View. 

•  There were numerous technical reasons why the application did not apply to planning standards.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Ward Member Councillor Will Harmer.  Councillor Harmer acknowledged that Mr Edmonds had been forthcoming in meeting with Ward Members and officers.  He also congratulated the planning officer's excellent report which addressed all relevant points individually.  In relation to the current application, even with the reduction in height to 12 storeys, this would still be an inappropriate building for this particular site and whilst redevelopment was needed, the proposals did not outweigh the three reasons for refusal.  There was a lack of  architectural merit to the proposed building which consisted of a small square block giving the appearance of being squat and slab-like.  The strongest objection and the most important reason for rejection, related to the resulting impact on the residential amenity of the surrounding area.  As required by the Area Action Plan, this application would be out of balance with its surroundings.

Councillor Dykes fully endorsed the three recommended reasons for refusing the application.  The site was inappropriate for a tall building and the revised proposals had failed to address the Planning Inspector’s concerns raised in his comments that the proposals would have an unacceptably damaging impact on local residential amenity.  The Inspector also stated that the perception of  ‘eyes in the sky’ would add to the damage caused to residential amenity; this would still be the case even with the current reduction in height.  The architectural design of the building was unattractive and would not sit well in an area surrounded by residential houses.  The correspondence received from Taylor Wimpey appeared to contain only selective text.  For the reasons mentioned above, Councillor Dykes moved that the application be refused.

In seconding the motion for refusal, Councillor Michael commented that whilst there was a time and a place for tall buildings, this site was not one of them.  The design and style of the building was of poor quality and unattractive and its drabness would only contribute to what was already a dark and gloomy street.

It was suggested that should the application be refused and a second appeal submitted and lost, then the Council should formally seek costs from the applicant.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE REFUSED as recommended, for the reasons set out in the report of the Chief Planner with the first sentence of condition 1 being amended to read “The site is not a suitable location for the proposed tall building.”.