Agenda item

Granted planning permission as recommended with changes to the S106 in relation to highway works as set out in the Supplementary report in addition to further amendments  to require the developer to undertake to resurface the footpath and the highway adjoining the development or affected by damage due to the development and, to record the condition and the highway prior to commencing construction work and to amendments to conditions 1 (to require a revised building layout adjoining Willow Court) and 7 (to delete the requirement for a complete resubmission on any amendment) , and amended or  additional conditions to cover the control of noise and future maintenance of the vehicle lift and the retention where possible of existing boundary walls and to the addition of an informative relating to the Party Wall Act.

PROPOSAL:

Hybrid planning application for full permission for demolition of all buildings and the development of 74 residential units (Use Class C3) comprising of 33 x 1 beds, 23 x 2 beds and 18 x 3 beds in a part three / part four / part five storey building fronting The Avenue with related basement car park comprising 57 parking spaces; and a 3 storey plus basement building fronting Christchurch Avenue, new vehicular access; footways; landscaping and associated works ("Phase 1"); and Outline permission for a school (Use Class D1), with new vehicular and pedestrian access from Brondesbury Park, with details of "appearance", "scale", “layout” and “landscaping” being reserved ("Phase 2").

RECOMMENDATION:

Grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the draft decision notice attached to this report and completion of a satisfactory Section 106 or other legal agreement and delegate authority to the Head of Planning or other duly authorised person to agree the exact terms thereof on advice from the Head of Legal Services.

Stephen Weeks (Head of Planning) with reference to the supplementary report responded to the issues raised by members and a local resident during the site visit.  Members were advised that the replacement of the trees due to be removed as a consequent of the development would be addressed in the proposed conditionrequiringthefurther detailsofhard and soft landscapingto besubmitted,approved andimplemented.  He added that it was not possible to incorporate works relating  to  the proposed cycle ways into site’s highway works as details of this had not been agreed but, the highway works requirement under the Section 106 legal agreement could ensure that future cycle route works were not compromised. The Head of Planning informed members that issues around loss of educational site and affordable housing, which was now supported with an acceptable review mechanism, had been resolved. In reiterating the recommendation for approval, the Head of Planning drew members’ attention to amendments to conditions 1 and 7 .

Robert Sanger (Chair of Tarranbrae Residents’ Association) objected to the proposed development on grounds of inadequate parking facilities and construction access issues.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Shaw stated that she had spoken with the applicant and the residents about the application.  Councillor Shaw welcomed the scheme in particular as the land had been vacant for over two years but expressed a preference for the scheme to incorporate a community facility.  She noted that funding had been secured from the Education Funding Agency (EFA) for a special educational needs (SEN) school on the site.  She however requested that additional conditions be added to require the applicant to repair the footway in Christchurch Avenue, control of vehicle lift noise and the retention of existing walls.

Jim Paul (applicant’s agent) confirmed that funding had been secured for an SEN school on site in addition to affordable housing backed by a review mechanism for the scheme. He continued that as a car free development, car parking and vehicular movements would be minimised.  The agent added that hours of construction and potential noise generation would be controlled via a Construction Management Plan and that the applicant would accept an amendment to the Section 106 legal agreement requiring the repair of the footway and highway around the site. Jim Paul then responded to members’ questions about the party wall, restoration of the footway around the site, parking and congestion.

In response to a suggestion for the applicant to capture by video recording or photographing the footway prior to the start of construction, Stephen Weeks advised that the Council’s public realm officers would normally undertake a record particularly for lager development schemes. With that in mind he recommended amendments to conditions 1 (for a revised building layout adjoining Willow Court) and 7 (to delete the requirement for a complete resubmission on any amendment).

Members endorsed the suggested amendments and added additional conditions to cover the control of noise and future maintenance of the vehicle lift and the retention where possible of existing boundary walls.  They also added an informative relating to the Party Wall Act.

DECISION: Granted planning permission as recommended with changes to the S106 in relation to highway works as set out in the Supplementary report in addition to further amendments  to require the developer to undertake to resurface the footpath and the highway adjoining the development or affected by damage due to the development and, to record the condition and the highway prior to commencing construction work and to amendments to conditions 1 (to require a revised building layout adjoining Willow Court) and 7 (to delete the requirement for a complete resubmission on any amendment) and additional conditions to cover the control of noise and future maintenance of the vehicle lift and the retention where possible of existing boundary walls and to the addition of an informative relating to the Party Wall Act.