Agenda, decisions and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Johnson with Councillor Bajwa attending as a substitute.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Johnson with Councillor. Bajwa attending as a substitute member.  Apologies for lateness were received from Councillor Begum, who it was confirmed had arrived in time to permit her participation in consideration of the first application on the agenda (Item 3 below).

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, the nature and existence of any relevant disclosable pecuniary or prejudicial interests in the items on this agenda and to specify the item(s) to which they relate.

No declarations of interest were made during the meeting.

No declarations of interest were made during the meeting.

Granted planning permission subject to

·             referral of the application to the Mayor of London (Stage 2 referral) and prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the Committee report;

·             the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report including an amendment to Condition 15 (access to community amenity space) to ensure the development remained tenure blind and inclusion of an additional condition to secure the provision of a community use plan within the café space or an alternative space within the development.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide six mixed use blocks, comprising residential dwellings (Class C3); the provision of industrial floorspace, gym floorspace, retail floorspace and flexible commercial floorspace; associated vehicular access; car and cycle parking spaces; refuse storage; amenity space; substation and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION

(1)            That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(i)              the applications referral to the Mayor of London (Stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations detailed within the report.

(ii)             Payment of the Council's legal and other professional costs in (a) preparing and completing the agreement and (b) monitoring and enforcing its performance.

(iii)           The conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report.

(2)            The Head of Area Planning, or other duly authorised person, be authorised to refuse planning permission if the applicant has failed to demonstrate the ability to provide for the terms detailed within the report and meet the policies of the Local Plan and Section 106 Planning Obligations SPD by concluding an appropriate agreement.

(3)        That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the committee.

Neil Quinn (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report, detailing the proposal for the building of six new blocks varying in height and mass set within a significant amount of new public realm comprising hard and soft landscaping, play equipment and new walking routes. The site was bounded by the Sapcote Trading Centre to the north, Colin Road to the south, Dudden Hill Lane to the east and High Road to the west and was currently occupied by a number of industrial units including a heavy plant hire business, storage facilities for haulage equipment and scaffolding and a MOT station/Used car sales garage. The site was also located within a Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS) and Church End Growth Area with a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) rating of 5.  Members were advised that the application proposed to deliver a total of 301 residential homes (including 48 at London Affordable Rent), replacement light industrial floorspace and retail/ commercial floorspace.  In referring to the supplementary report published prior to the meeting the Committee was advised this included additional representations received from Transport for London with the recommendation remaining to grant planning permission subject to the the conditions and heads of terms set out in the original report.

The Chair thanked Neil Quinn for introducing the report and then invited Tom Rusby & Laura Jenkinson (who had registered to speak as the applicants representative) to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Granted permission to enter into separate Deed(s) of Variation to vary:

·             the Principal s106 agreement associated with planning application reference 22/2225 (Phase 1) and related Second Deed of Variation to the Principal Deed of Agreement; and

·             the s106 agreement associated with planning application reference 23/2811 (Phase 2).

PROPOSAL

Deed of Variation to Phase 1 and 2 development to secure the following changes:

·                 Alteration of the Late Stage Review mechanisms to require the provision of additional payments in lieu (PiL) upfront towards affordable housing in the local area (instead of a late stage review) within 12 months of material start.

·                 The additional PiL proposed overall is £6m; which will equate to an additional £2.106m for Phase 1, and £3.911m for Phase 2 (n.b. This is in addition to the PiL already secured for the relevant Phase 1(£2.224m) and Phase 2 (£5.34m) developments).

·                 As per the previous Deed(s) of Agreement, the additional PiL proposed to be utilised to fund the provision of additional low-cost rent affordable housing, being affordable housing that is provided that goes beyond the minimum secured through the relevant planning consents for the site(s).

·                 If at any time between a Material Start and Practical Completion of the Development works cease and subsequently no works of construction are carried out on the Land in respect of the Development for a continuous period of at least two (2) years, the agreed Late Stage Review mechanisms are retriggered.

RECOMMENDATION

(1)            That the Planning Committee resolves to enter into separate Deed(s) of Variation under Section 106A of the Planning Act to vary:

              (i)                the Principal Section 106 agreement associated with planning application reference 22/2225 (‘Phase 1’) and related Second Deed of Variation dated 25th April 2024 to the Principal Deed of Agreement dated 3rd May 2023.

             (ii)                the Section 106 agreement associated with planning application reference 23/2811 (‘Phase 2’) and.

(2)      To delegate authority to the Head of Planning and Development to agree the wording of the respective Deed(s) of Variation.

(3)      The separate Deed(s) of Variation sought for Phase 1 and Phase 2 would secure changes to the obligations secured already through legal agreements, to amend the Late Stage Review mechanisms, and to require the provision of additional PiL payment of £6m upfront; equating to £2.106m for Phase 1 and £3.911m for Phase 2 (indexed from date of committee resolution) towards the provision of additional low-cost rented affordable housing (within Use Class C3) within the local area.

Gary Murphy (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report, stating that the application was seeking approval to vary the existing permission in relation to the development to provide an upfront fixed contribution of £2.1m (Phase 1) and £3.9m (Phase 2) in lieu of the late-stage review mechanism included within the original planning permission.  This would be in addition to the financial contributions already secured with the amendment being sought designed to enable the applicant to secure beneficial lending terms providing construction was to commence within 24 months.  In response to clarification requested by the Committee, officers confirmed that the proposed payments had been subject to a viability assessment with planning permission already granted for the overall development which had included a late-stage review mechanism designed to secure additional contributions towards affordable housing should scheme viability improve, which remained uncertain.

The Chair thanked Gary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.

PROPOSAL

Proposed change of use from house in multiple occupation (HMO) to supported housing for 5 residents.

RECOMMENDATION

(1)            That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.

(2)            That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the committee.

Jasmin Tailor (Planning Officer) introduced the report which the Committee was advised was seeking a change of use of the existing property, recently used as a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) to a C3(b) use for supported housing for up to five residents where care is provided with no external alternations proposed.

The Chair thanked officers for introducing the report, and then invited Bimla Thakur (who had registered to speak in objection to the application) to address the Committee.  The following key points were highlighted:

·                 Concerns were raised in relation to what local residents felt would be the intended use of the property as a supported care facility given the significant impact on the surrounding area and neighbouring properties.

·                 Further concerns were also raised in relation to security and safety risks relating to the proposed use and management of the property and the impact on the wellbeing of local residents.

·                 Whilst sympathetic to the efforts being made to care for the more vulnerable in the community, the need for this type of provision in the area was queried given the existing availability of purpose built supported housing in the locality and what was felt to be the unsuitability of the property given its current construction, layout and boundary walls.

·                 Concerns were also raised in relation to adherence to previous planning consent along with the impact in relation to parking, traffic and nuisance on neighbouring residents and on the overall character of the area with the Committee therefore urged to refuse the application.

The Chair thanked Bimla Thakur for addressing the Committee and then invited questions and comments from members in relation to the information heard.  Whilst no specific questions were raised, confirmation was provided that Bimla Thakur was speaking as a neighbouring resident to the application site.

The Chair then welcomed Smita Patel (who had also registered to speak in objection to the application) and invited her to address the Committee. The following key points were highlighted:

·                 In addressing the Committee, Smita Patel outlined what she felt to be the flawed nature of the application given the amendment in proposed use from a change of use from Class C3a to C3b to a change of use from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Notice of items to be raised under this heading must be given in writing to the Deputy Director Democratic Services or their representative before the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 60.

None.

None.