Agenda item

Description of application – Change of use of existing Grade I listed mansion from hotel to 22 residential dwellings, with associated internal/external alterations and partial demolition works, rear extensions, rear car park, cycle parking and refuse/recycling provision, hard and soft landscaping (including removal of some trees), woodland management and associated infrastructure.

Oral representations in objection to the application were received from Mr Robert McQuillan on behalf of residents of Stable Villas.  Mr McQuillan made the following comments:-

The residents of Stable Villas (which are Grade II Listed Buildings), considered themselves to be temporary custodians of this significant heritage site and were keen to protect it as such.  Members were urged to consider whether permission should be granted when the current proposal was compared with the previous permitted 2011 application.  The external banked area to the rear of the building and the canopy of trees, were elements of the site’s historic landscape and the removal of trees and land from the glade area was disappointing to note.  Compared with the permitted scheme in 2011, the current application resulted in a 20% increase in the site’s footprint.  Careful consideration should be given to the removal of car parking from the front of the site. 

Mr McQuillan ended by requesting deferral of the application (in the event that it was not refused) to enable Members to visit the site.  If refused, the historic landscape and the rationale behind it would be lost.

Oral representations from Ms Emma Ouseby (agent for the applicant) were submitted as follows:-

The site was located within a Grade II Listed Park and the current high quality scheme would secure its long-term viable use.  Deferral of the application would bring no new information to light.  Consultations had taken place between the applicant, Council officers and residents and attempts had been made to resolve all concerns.  Woodland walks would be reallocated and the restoration of important heritage aspects preserved through sympathetic design.  The removal of trees was necessary to benefit the proposed car park to the rear.  A viability assessment had demonstrated that the scheme would not fall within an acceptable profit threshold if affordable housing, health and education contributions were sought.  Significant new planting was proposed and a good screening buffer established between the site and Stable Villas.  Compared with the hotel, there would be a decrease in traffic flow to and from the site.  The Pulhamite Grotto would be repaired and maintained.  The existing basement would be converted to residential use and the main staircase restored.

The Chief Planner reported that correspondence from the residents of Stable Villas had been received and circulated to Members.  Further objections, similar to those already contained in the report had also been received.  The applicant had made written comments about various conditions which could be considered further should the application be permitted.

Oral representations in objection to the application were also received from Ward Member Councillor Peter Morgan as follows:-

The new applicant was aware of the previous consent granted in 2011.  Since that time, house prices had massively increased which meant the previously permitted scheme would become more viable.  The idea that further units were required for the scheme to become viable was, therefore, ridiculous.

Willoughby Lane was a dangerous single track leading to a junction with Plaistow Lane; with Edward Road and Lodge Road nearby, all three roads were extremely busy.  There were also three schools located within the area.  Permitting the current application would exacerbate existing traffic problems within this area.  Willoughby Lane was owned and maintained by the nearby Golf Club and whilst passing bays were currently available, they could be withdrawn at any time.  Turning right into Willoughby Lane from Plaistow Lane would be difficult.

Councillor Morgan referred to the potential risks outlined on page 33 of the report in relation to access to and egress from the site’s car parking area.  The installation of traffic lights would not solve all the problems highlighted in the report.  On-site car parking should remain at the front of the property.

Whilst removal of some trees had previously been accepted, the current proposal to remove more trees was a step too far. 

For the reasons given above, Councillor Morgan requested that the current application be refused.

It was noted that the Ward of ‘Farnborough and Crofton’ (page 11 of the report) should be amended to read ‘Plaistow and Sundridge’.

Opening the debate, Committee Member and Ward Member Councillor Turner declared the current proposal to be ‘monstrous’ and considered the building would suffer unbelievable damage should the application be approved.  With three local primary schools in the vicinity, traffic problems in and around Plaistow Lane had reached a desperate level.  Compared with the existing hotel which was underused, the proposal would have a major impact on traffic flow.  On the basis of gross over development, traffic concerns, parking and loss of trees, Councillor Turner moved that the application be refused.

Councillor Buttinger agreed with the comments made by Councillor Turner and added that the proposed scheme was out of keeping with the valuable Listed Building.  Referring to pages 25-26 of report, she thanked the report author for including a table of percentage figures showing increased built floorspace but noted that if the garage extension was included, the increased volume of floorspace in the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) substantially increased to about 40%.  She requested that future tables also include figures relating to all floorspace in the main part of the tables.  Councillor Buttinger seconded the motion to refuse the application.

The Chairman highlighted the fact that permission had previously been granted to provide 14 properties at the site which, at that time, was deemed to be viable.  Since then, property prices had increased making the scheme even more viable so there was no need to increase the number of units.  The encroachment onto MOL was not supported.

Councillor Michael was surprised at the Planning Officer’s recommendation to permit the application.  The contents of the report did not show that very special circumstances had been proven to justify building on MOL which was almost the equivalent of Green Belt land.  For the reasons of over-development, traffic problems and the removal of trees, Councillor Michael agreed that the previous permitted scheme for the provision of 14 units remain but that the current application be refused.

Councillor Brooks negated the statement made on page 45 of the report (Summary and Conclusions), which claimed the ‘delivery of 22 new homes would contribute to the delivery of the Council’s housing targets’ for the reason that none of the units were affordable housing.

Members having considered the report, objections and representations, RESOLVED THAT PERMISSION BE REFUSED for the following reasons:-

1)  The proposed development of the site is considered to be inappropriate overdevelopment in Metropolitan Open Land due to the construction of new buildings which would have a greater impact on the openness of Metropolitan Open Land and the purpose of including land within it, than the existing development.  This inappropriate development is by definition harmful to Metropolitan Open Land.  This harm together with the loss of trees, is not clearly outweighed by the benefits of the development including the heritage benefits to Sundridge Mansion and its setting, the Woodland Management Plan and Housing provision.  Very special circumstances do not therefore exist.  As such the proposal is contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF (2012), Policy 7.17 of the London Plan (2015) and Policy G2 of the UDP (2006).

2)  The proposed development of the site will require road surfacing and markings, signage and traffic lights in the vicinity of Stable Villas and Sundridge Mansion for road safety purposes, that will be harmful to the setting of the Listed Buildings, contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF (2012) and to Policy 7.8 of the London Plan (2015) and BE8 of the UDP (2006).

3)  The long-term provision of passing bays along Willoughby Lane which are required for road safety purposes has not been ensured contrary to Policy T18 of the UDP (2006).