Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed in the Committee report; and the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report; and supplementary report. In addition, it was agreed that greater clarity would be provided in the conditions in relation to the allocation of disabled parking spaces and the expansion of E-bike charging points.

PROPOSAL

Redevelopment of site including the erection of 3no. buildings up to 32 storeys in height, comprising 515 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), flexible commercial floor space (Use Class E), indoor sports facility (Use Class E) and associated parking, landscaping and enabling works.  Application subject to an Environmental Statement.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:

(1)      The application’s referral to the Mayor of London (stage 2 referral) and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations laid out in the Committee report and any other planning obligations considered necessary by the Head of Planning.

(2)      The Head of Planning being delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement detailed in the Committee report.

(3)      The Head of Planning being delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives as detailed in the report.

(4)      The Head of Planning being 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.

(5)      That, if by the “expiry date” of this application (subject to any amendments/extensions to the expiry date agreed by both parties) the legal agreement has not been completed, the Head of Planning is delegated authority to refuse planning permission.

(6)      That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Victoria McDonagh, Team Leader, North Area Planning Team, introduced the report and set out the key issues. In introducing the report members were advised that the application sought the re-development of the existing site to provide 3 new buildings varying in height and mass to deliver 515 residential homes, comprising a mix of 1,2 and 3 bedroom homes and commercial floorspace, which would include designated leisure space; intended for use by the Stonebridge Boxing Club. Significant landscaping was proposed throughout the site, which would be publicly accessible. The landscaped areas had been designed to form a part of the surface water strategy, given that the site was located in a flood risk zone. The proposal would be "car free" with the exception of blue badge parking bays for both the existing flats within nearby Wem Tower and the proposed flats. Cycle parking had been proposed to meet London Plan standards.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the supplementary report that provided information in relation to some minor updates to the report and an additional objection received in relation to the impacts of tall buildings on television signals, traffic and pressure on local amenities. It was concluded that the concerns raised had been previously addressed within the main body of the previously published Committee report.

The Chair thanked Victoria McDonagh for introducing the report, as there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair invited the first speaker Karen Jones (agent) to address the Committee (in person) in relation to the application, supported by the scheme architects Harry Halpin and Ignacio Tirado (in person).

The following key points were highlighted:

·                The site would deliver 515 new homes, with over 50% of the site provided as public open space, this represented 5000 sqm of highly landscaped public realm planting and play space.

·                New pedestrian and cycle routes provided through the site would allow the local community to walk through the site on a safer route to Stonebridge Park station.

·                The mixed use of the site included commercial units at ground floor level that could accommodate a range of Class E uses, with Block B providing dedicated space for community sports use, with space intended for the use of the Stonebridge Boxing Club.

·                The site emphasised the creation of green links, this included the integration of the River Brent into the landscape where previously it has been hidden at the rear of the site. Extensive landscaping along the river Brent and a selection of native species would now provide soft landscaping along the Brook. As a result, the biodiversity net gain on site was over 100% (105%).

·                Suitable play provision for ages 0-4 and 5-11 would be delivered on site, achieved through approximately 1,500sq.m of play space provided at ground floor level and within the private podium deck of Building C.

·                Extensive collaborative work with the Council’s Urban Design Team had been undertaken to achieve the desired quality of architecture.

·                In closing her comments Ms Jones re-iterated the benefits the scheme would provide to both existing and future communities, and on that basis urged the Committee to approve the application.

The Chair thanked Ms Jones for addressing the Committee and invited Committee Members to raise any questions or points of clarity they required in relation to the information shared. The Committee raised queries regarding flood risk, cycle parking, affordable housing, disabled car parking and whether the scheme was tenure blind, with the following responses provided:

·                Following a Committee query in relation to flood risk, the Committee was advised that following extensive hydraulic modelling undertaken, a range of mitigations had been designed to respond to any risks identified. These included an evacuation plan, the minimised footprint of the buildings and areas of void that would allow excess water to flow to the brook, as such it was felt that the proposed application would not exacerbate any flood risk and would provide a betterment to the existing site. Additionally, a Construction Management Plan would be actioned to ensure that appropriate controls were in place during the construction phase to manage the associated risks of blockages to water courses as a result of construction work.

·                Following a Committee query in relation to charging provision for E-bikes, the applicant confirmed that they were happy to include this as a condition.

·                The Committee raised concerns that the number of affordable units fell short of both the London and Local Plan policies that required 50% affordable housing. Given the large scale of the scheme, it was queried if there was scope to improve on the stated 24% affordable housing. In response the Committee was advised that it was regrettable that the scheme could not viably deliver more affordable units at this stage in the process, however the scheme achieved the policy target for the provision of affordable family sized homes and would be subject to the early and late stage mechanisms to capture any uplift in affordable housing provision as part of the Section 106 agreement.

·                It was confirmed that there would be allocated parking pays for blue badge holders, with the allocation of these agreed via a parking management plan.

·                It was confirmed that the scheme would be tenure blind.

As there were no further questions for the agent, the Chair asked the Committee if they had any questions or points of clarity that officers could respond to in relation to the information heard. Members raised further queries in relation to scheme viability and affordable housing, consultation with statutory consultees in relation to parking pressures, flood risk, daylight/sunlight compliance, air quality assessments and waste management. The following responses were provided:

·                Following Committee concerns in relation to the reduction in affordable housing (when measured by hospitable room) since the initial application, the Committee was advised that when the scheme was first submitted with a 35% affordable housing designation, it was submitted in line with London Plan Policy H5 Threshold Approach whereby the application was not required to be supported by a financial viability assessment. The Committee noted that following the submission of the application, a number of factors changed which affected development viability, including changes to the construction costs and finance rates together with the need to incorporate second staircases for buildings with floors 18 m in height (or greater). As such, the applicant re-examined the housing layout and mix within the scheme to ensure that it would meet new fire safety guidelines. As a result of this process, it emerged that there would need to be a reduction in affordable housing to ensure that the scheme remained viable.

·                The revised proposal would now deliver 24.8 % Affordable Housing by Habitable Room (22.5 % by unit) with 15.3 % of the homes with 3-bedrooms.

·                A financial viability assessment had been submitted to support the application which found that the scheme was in deficit, therefore officers considered that the amount of affordable housing proposed was the maximum amount that the scheme could viably deliver. Early and late stage review mechanisms were proposed in the Section 106 agreement to ensure that any uplift in viability was captured.

·                In response to a Committee query in relation to the pressure the proposed scheme could have on existing parking issues, particularly in the vicinity of Stonebridge Park station, the Committee was advised that no concerns had been raised following contact with Network Rail and TfL as statutory consultees.

·                It was confirmed that the proposed application would see a financial contribution of £546,700 towards station improvements at Stonebridge Park and £481,000 towards bus service enhancements.

·                Following a Committee query in relation to the proposed development’s impact on existing flood risk, the Committee was advised that the application had been accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which identified that the site was at high risk for fluvial flooding, medium risk from pluvial (surface water flooding) and low risk from groundwater, sewer and artificial flooding sources. Mitigations in place included permeable paving, green roofing, a below ground attenuation storage tank and raising the Finished Floor Levels (FFL’s) to ensure the building was resilient to flooding and the inclusion of a flood evacuation plan. Officers acknowledged that it was not possible to achieve Greenfield runoff rates on the site, however the mitigations would see a betterment to the site’s existing runoff rates.

·                In response to a Committee concern in relation to the number of single aspect units in the proposed development, officers recognised that there were a small number of three bedroom single aspect units, however this was mitigated by the units south facing position, their increased space that exceeded minimum space standards and the buildings use of a Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery (MVHR) system to provide passive ventilation.

·                Following a Committee query in relation to the shortfalls identified in the daylight/sunlight assessments undertaken, officers advised that given the scale of the proposed development and the number of windows impacted (in the context of the number assessed), it was considered that the daylight and sunlight impacts to neighbouring buildings and external areas were acceptable when observed in the context of the scheme's wider benefits.

·                In response to a Committee query in relation to the arrangements for waste management, it was clarified that bin stores were proposed at ground floor level of the two residential blocks, together with a replacement waste store for Wem Tower. Due to the size of the bin stores, it was proposed that residential waste was collected twice weekly.

·                It was clarified that the application had been accompanied by an Air Quality Neutral Assessment that had concluded that no mitigation measures were required.

As there were no further questions from members and having established that all members had followed the discussions, the Chair thanked officers for responding to the Committee questions and asked members to vote on the recommendations.

DECISION: Granted planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed in the Committee report; and the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and supplementary report. In addition, it was agreed that greater clarity would be provided in the conditions in relation to the allocation of disabled parking spaces and the inclusion of E - bike charging points.

(Voting on the recommendation was as follows: For 6 and Abstentions 1)