Agenda item

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 officers would seek 35% affordable housing in addition to the s.106 elements outlined in the report. 

Opening the debate, Councillor William Huntington-Thresher noted that during the course of the application process the approach of the developers had shifted from one of working in partnership with local residents to one of simply trying to push the proposals through.  In line with this change of approach, during the course of the application process the proposals had changed a number of times.  Councillor Huntington-Thresher stated that in his view 100 units represented the maximum for the site as it was in a suburban setting.  The current proposals amounted to overdevelopment due to the arrangement of the units.  Furthermore, the impact on amenity, specifically gardens, had been disregarded by the developers.  The proposals were contrary to Policy BE1 in an area that was in deficit of public space.  Councillor Huntington-Thresher proposed that consideration of the application be deferred as the application represented overdevelopment and the proposals were out of character with the surrounding area.  A deferral would also enable issues such as bicycle parking and car ownership to be further addressed.

Councillor Pauline Tunnicliffe seconded the motion to defer consideration of the application and endorsed the comments made by her ward colleague, Councillor Huntington-Thresher.

Councillor Fawthrop reported that in his opinion the application should be refused due to the bulk and size of the development, insufficient parking provision, and the impact on residential amenity.

Councillor Reddin stated that he would lean towards deferral.  The site was surrounded by suburban low rise residential properties and a number of the proposed blocks overlooked open land.  Councillor Reddin sympathised with Councillor Fawthrop’s views on parking and indicated that in addition to revised parking he would like to see a reduction in height of the blocks.

Having considered the report, objections and representations, Members RESOLVED that consideration of the application be DEFERRED to address the following:-

• Overlooking (particularly from Blocks A and D)
• Development (bulk and size) too large causing harm to the character of the area and resulting in overdevelopment
• Excessive number of units
• Arrangement of blocks A and D out of character
• Reduction in scale and height
• Concerns regarding level of parking and greenspace