Agenda and minutes

Members are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) and other registrable and non-registrable interests they may have in relation to any item(s) of business on today’s agenda.

Councillor Fraser declared a pevious working relationship with Martin Scholar, who spoke for the 32-44 Keeley Road development. They worked together at Lambeth Council over a decade ago and were both involved in work on the Vauxhall Nine Elms and Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework.

To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.

There was none.

RESOLVED, to:

·       Appoint Councillor Fish to replace Councillor Lee on the Committee; and,

·       Councillor Brew would become a reserve member. 

To receive the following presentations on a proposed development:

There are none.

There were none.

To consider the accompanying reports by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport:

Demolition of end of terrace dwelling and existing structures on site. Erection of seven dwellings with associated external works including access, parking, amenity space, landscaping, refuse and cycle storage.

Ward: Woodside

Recommendation: Grant permission

Ward: Woodside

To demolish the existing end of terrace dwelling and other structures on site. To be replaced with seven 3-bed family housing with associated external works including access, parking, amenity space, landscaping, refuse and cycle storage.

Barry Valentine gave the presentation and to address questions and issues raised by Members.

The main issues raised at this meeting were as follows:

Design Layout

•                 Insufficient spacing between the proposed houses making the development closely condensed.

•                 Concerns were raised about the narrow access arc road and the impact this would have on accessibility to the site when considering highway safety.

•                 The Committee felt that the development disrupted the symmetry of existing houses and would impact the street’s scene causing undue disturbance.

Daylight and Sunlight

•                 Concerns were raised about the layout of the buildings and the impact this may have on daylight and sunlight compliance.

•                 Some Councillors noted that BREEAM compliance may not be met due to the landscaping of the development and narrowness of buildings.

•                 Small windows were proposed for the first floor which would result in a lack of internal light to the dwellings.

•                 The previous application had failed due to a lack of natural light, but this was not addressed adequately in the updated plans. The councillors requested to see more data and testing of trees shown in the CGI images, asked for an improved design, and a better scheme overall.

Potential impacts on neighbouring residential amenities in terms of outlook and privacy

•                 Footprint of the scheme dominated the site. It appeared to represent an overdevelopment in the area and was out of keeping and harsh.

•                 Development was likely to be intrusive on neighbouring residences as the properties were oriented to overlook gardens and there was no landscaping or screening to protect neighbours.

Biodiversity and drainage

•                 The site had little biodiversity and tree value.

•                 Flooding was a medium risk and a long-standing serious issue in the area. Regular flooding was cited as a recurring issue near a development located on Pottery Close. Upon reviewing the provided images, concerns were raised about this site experiencing similar issues.

Other issues

•                 The houses would serve a purpose for meeting housing need, which was needed in the borough, but this required demolition of a family home that was more in keeping with the neighbourhood.

•                 No proposal was provided for disabled units, although the Scheme included adaptive cycle spaces suitable for storage of mobility equipment.

Tim Cropper spoke in favour of the application advising that the proposed scheme would provide efficient and effective family homes. The houses would meet all relevant standards, demonstrate a good design solution, have no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours, and would provide a resident benefit, which is access to South Norwood Country Park.

Councillor Mike Bonello spoke in opposition to the application noting that numerous residents in Woodside opposed the development. The construction would result in the demolition of an older home which was in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6/23

Partial demolition of integrated garages and extensions at 15 Wattendon Road to facilitate access for the erection of 8 new homes (4 pairs of semi-detached houses) in rear garden land of 15 & 17 Wattendon Road with access, parking & landscaping.

Ward: Kenley

Recommendation: Grant permission

This item was removed from the agenda due to conflicting information between the submission documents received, which was identified during the week leading up to committee.

Comprehensive redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of the existing buildings and structures; site preparation works; and the phased development of two new buildings containing residential uses, basement, private and communal amenity space, associated car parking, cycle parking, refuse storage, plant and other associated works.

Ward: Fairfield

Recommendation: Grant permission

Ward: Fairfield

To demolish existing buildings and structures to develop two new building blocks containing residential uses, basement, private and communal amenity space, associated car parking, cycle parking, refuse storage, plant, and other associated works. The development is to create 144 new homes.

Ross Gentry gave the presentation and addressed the questions and issues raised by Members.

The main issues raised through questions and debate at this meeting were as follows:

Impact on neighbouring property

·       Discussion and debate around daylight and sunlight impacts to Keely House and Frith Road; officers summarised the impacts with some minor, moderate and major adverse impacts.

·       Have to balance the harm against the benefits of the scheme.

·       Discussion around the existing Citiscape building line and the proposed, in terms of impact to Frith Road.

Future occupier amenity

·       Limited separation between Blocks A and B, impacting on the occupier’s amenity and daylight and sunlight. Less than the 18-21m separation yardstick, at 10m gap, which is an important consideration.

·       Discussion around play space on the site and routes to nearby parks. Play space contribution of £4,000 secured; possibility of use of part of the sustainable transport contribution to improve access for local children to nearby parks could be explored.

·       Some members felt amount of green space was good.

·       Some members felt the standard of accommodation worked well.

·       Discussion around number of blue badge spaces.

Design issues

·       Appropriate location for a tall building in the CMC and edge of OAPF.

·       Stepped design appropriate and some members commented on positive aspects of the design and evolution since PRP.

·       Concern from some members on tightness of the development, site layout and daylight and sunlight impacts.

·       The building is three to four storeys too tall, and it should be built within the envelope of the existing buildings height.

·       Discussion around public realm and what is secured as part of the scheme.

·       Some members supported the design and Frith Road frontage.

·       Discussion around the ground floor uses and active frontages

·       Need for commercial and office space in town centre.

Affordable housing

·       There is a lack of affordable housing being proposed, considering the number of units offered. Does not meet the 50% requirement for affordable housing.

·       Mayor of London has mentioned that there should be social renting products in schemes going forward. This scheme proposes shared ownership and London Affordable housing Rent rather than social rent.

·       Discussion around viability matters.

·       Although there are 144 homes, only 44 homes are two-bed accommodations whereas in the existing building, there are 73 two-bed apartments. Some concern over lack of family accommodation.

·       The Croydon Council policy is that 5% of homes on the site should be dedicated family homes, 6% is proposed, therefore, the scheme is compliant with family accommodation requirements.

·       Some members welcomed the number of homes and affordable housing offer.

·       The development should include Keeley House site as the overall number of homes to be developed would be significantly higher. A joint venture could incorporate mansion block-type properties thus reducing the height of the buildings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8/23

To consider any item(s) referred by a previous meeting of the Planning Sub-Committee to this Committee for consideration and determination:

There are none.

There were none.

To consider the accompanying report by the Director of Planning & Strategic Transport:

There are none.

There were none.

Attached is the list of Delegated and Planning Committee/SubCommittee decisions taken between 22 May 2023 and 9 June 2023.

The report was received for information.