Agenda item

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 keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. The development was likely to create pressure on local services by increasing the density of the population and concerns had been raised by residents about their ability to be served properly with amenities and the knock-on effect of rubbish capacity and collection. The proposal had generated the greatest volume of communication in opposition.

After consideration of the officer’s report, Councillor Fitzsimons proposed and Councillor Kabir seconded the officer’s recommendation, and the Committee voted three in favour, six against, and one abstention, so the motion thereby fell.

A second motion for REFUSAL, on the grounds of the site layout and massing, quality of accommodation for the future occupiers, impacts on neighbouring amenity and was proposed by Councillor Denton. This was seconded by Councillor Fraser with six in favour, three against and one abstention, so planning permission was REFUSED for development at 198 Harrington Road SE25.