Agenda item

Description of application – Construction of 13 units to be used for Use Classes B1(c), B2 and B8 together with access from Edgington Way, Sidcup  and creation of access from the Fitzroy Business Park, car parking and associated works.

Oral representations from a neighbouring business owner in objection to the application included the following points

·  Chancery Gate had perfectly good access and planning onto Edgington Way and there was no ned to have access through the Fitzroy Estate.

·  There were already issues with security and crime on the estate.  A security gate, controlled by a key pad, secured the site when businesses were closed.  The security gate would have to be removed and this would only result in higher levels of crime.

·  There was insufficient parking and the proposed scheme removed three parking spaces.

·  Sandy Lane, an already busy road, was unlikely to be able to cope with increased traffic flow.

Oral representations from the applicant’s agent in support of the application included the following points

·  Chancery Gate benefit from the same right of access for phase 2 of the development than the current occupiers of phase 1.

·  Following deferral at the last meeting the applicant sought to provide as much clarification as possible regarding the concerns that had been raised.

·  The proposed development would not cause a significant impact on the operation of the Fitzroy Business Park access onto Sandy Lane.

·  Electric Vehicle charging points would be provided in excess of current requirements.

·   Access arrangements had taken place with the owner of Fitzroy Business Park prior to the application being submitted.

·  Application itself represents an opportunity to bring forward a site which had long be allocated for development.

In response to a question from Councillor Bear concerning security, the applicant’s agent confirmed that an arrangement would be made with the owner of Fitzroy Business Park to provide secure access.  The gate would remain in place and would close at 9pm with occupiers of the estate being given a code of the gate.

In response to a question from Councillor Huntington-Thresher regarding parking, the applicant’s agent explained that they had been in discussion with TfL from the pre-application stage.  When the Fitzroy Business Park was approved in 2005/06 there was no provision for parking as it was the logical way of accessing the site.

The Assistant Director of Planning summarised the report in a brief presentation to the Committee which included the following

·  A similar application had recently been permitted where the primary difference was a single point of access.

·  The primary matter for the Committee to consider following the previous deferral was the access arrangements.

·  The highway authority had confirmed that it continued to raise no objection to the application.

·  The issue of access rights was a private matter.

·  Electric vehicle charging points were to be provided.

·  Proposal was for a policy complaint use in a strategic industrial location.

In opening the discussion local ward member, Councillor Yvonne Bear, thanked officers for the additional work that had been completed prior to the previous deferral.  Councillor Bear reported that residents and ward councillors remained concerned about the effects of the proposals on Sandy Lane and its ability to cope with the additional traffic. 

Councillor Terry queried whether a condition could be added requesting that the gates open and close at certain times.  In response the Assistant Director for Planning confirmed that the location of the gates, and the Fitzroy Business Park were not within the application site and consequently it would not be possible to impose a condition requiring them to be retained.

Councillor Bennett moved that planning permission be granted in line with officer recommendations.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Dean, put to the vote and CARRIED. (Councillor Bear abstained from the vote)

Having considered the report, objections and representations, Members RESOLVED that PERMISSION BE GRANTED as recommended and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report of the Assistant Director (Planning).