Agenda item

PLANNING APPLICATION (16/04563/OUT) - 18 HOMEFIELD RISE, ORPINGTON BR6 0RU

Minutes:

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The Travel Plan had not been updated and the car ownership data was out-of-date and obsolete.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

·  Impact of car parking by Health Centre visitors had not been tested;

·  Impact on/loss of trees; and

·  Concern that no amendments had been made to the Transport Assessment or Travel Plan in response to previous comments on sustainable travel including cycling.

 

Having regard to the above matters and the conclusion of the report, the Officer recommendation remained as set out in the main agenda.  The Planning Officer confirmed that in the event that planning permission was granted, a legal agreement would be required along with minor changes to the recommended conditions.

 

Committee Member and Ward Member Councillor Huntington-Thresher reported that following deferral of the application at a previous meeting, he had met with the developer who confirmed he was willing to reduce the scale of development.  Indeed, the scheme had been reduced by two units.  However, not all the reasons for deferral had been addressed.  A total of 103 units situated on this suburban site was in excess of the number designated in the London Plan density guidance.  The proposed buildings would project too far into the site leading to overlooking from the four storey element. 

 

Councillor Huntington-Thresher moved that the application be refused on the grounds of over-development and being out-of-character with the local area.

 

Councillor Fawthrop seconded the motion for refusal as the applicant had failed to resolve the previous concerns raised by Members.  He suggested the applicant reconsider the proposals and submit a more sensible application.

 

Councillor Buttinger supported refusal on the grounds that the proposed units would directly overlook residential properties. 

 

Councillor Joel stated this was a good development site for Orpington,  situated near a main road serving the Walnuts shopping centre.  The applicants had submitted a modified scheme as requested by Members, with the design being simple and not overpowering.  Councillor Joel advised Members to think about the future requirement for housing provision and moved that the application be granted.

 

Councillor Dean stated that any large development within a town centre would impact on the surrounding area to a certain degree.  In this case, the dimensions of the proposed scheme had been significantly reduced and the resulting impact would be minimal.  He welcomed the 35% affordable housing provision.

 

Councillor Brooks suggested a further deferral to see if issues with local residents could be resolved.

 

Councillor Michael acknowledged the considerable efforts made by the applicant to reduce the scale and height of the development and the changes made to the design of the buildings.  Given the pressure the Council was under to develop and provide affordable housing, she supported approval of this application. 

 

Councillors Auld and Reddin supported refusal on the grounds of over-dominance, overlooking of properties in Lancing Road and concerns with the general height of the development, in particular Block B.

 

With the development located 25ft away from the nearest property and given the desperate need for housing provision, Councillor Allen supported approval.

 

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

 

1.  The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of this suburban site that would fail to respect or complement the scale, form and layout of the surrounding area and would harm the amenities of neighbouring properties through overlooking, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policy 3.4 (including table 3.2) of the London Plan.

Supporting documents: