Agenda item

REFUSED

Description of application – Proposed replacement of consented 3 no. 4 bed houses and 3 no. 5 bed houses (plots 39-40 and 49-52) of application ref. 15/04941/FULL3 and the replacement with two three storey blocks of flats to provide 10 no. one bed units and 12 no. two bed units with 24 associated vehicle spaces and 36 cycle spaces.

Oral representations in objection to and in support of the application were received.  Oral representations from Ward Member, Councillor Charles Joel in objection to the application were received at the meeting.  Three photographs from the residents of Arden Grove in objection to the application had been received and circulated to Members.

Ward Member, Councillor Joel, read a statement in objection to the application annexed to these minutes (‘Annex A’).

The Chairman’s view was that a commercially viable application (15/04941/FULL3) had been permitted on 3 November 2017 and therefore he objected to the proposed development on the grounds of bulk, design, over development and the impact on neighbouring properties.

Councillor Simon Fawthrop agreed with the Chairman that the development mix in the permitted scheme should remain.

Councillor Nicky Dykes objected to the application as she had met with local estate agents and had gained the opinion there were many local flats available and it was important that the family homes should be retained.

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

1.  The proposal, by reason of its design, massing and scale, constitutes a cramped overdevelopment of the site, which would be detrimental to the character and spatial standards of the area, contrary to Policies BE1 and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan and Policies 3.5 and 7.4 of the London Plan, and Policy 4 (Housing Design) and Policy 37 (General Design of Development) of the Draft Local Plan.

2.  The proposal would be detrimental to the amenities that the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties might reasonably expect to be able to enjoy by reason of its dominance and visual impact, contrary to Policy BE1 of the Unitary Development Plan, and Policy 37 (General Design of Development) of the Draft Local Plan.

3.  The proposal would undermine the housing mix within this planned development, contrary to Policies BE1and and H7 of the Unitary Development Plan, and Policy 37 (General Design of Development) of the Draft Local Plan.