Agenda item

[NOTE: In accordance with the procedure for public speaking at Planning Committee, Mr David Sampson attended the meeting and spoke in objection to the application and Mr Steve Prockter spoke in support.]

The Committee considered an application for the erection of part five storey, part four storey building containing twenty eight apartments (Two studio, seventeen one-bedroom and nine two-bedroom) with car parking, cycle stores, landscaping and associated works. The proposal would utilise an existing vehicular access onto Hipley Street which would be slightly modified and the proposal would provide thirty three parking spaces.

Following a question from the Chairman, the Planning Officer clarified that Grosvenor Court, next door to the application site, had been converted under prior approval.

Councillor D Hughes, Ward Councillor, commented that Hipley Street was a small simple traditional street which already had some high density development and adding to this would put pressure on an already congested road. There were already blocks of dense accommodation with no green space, minimal landscaping and no outdoor facilities, leisure or seating areas. If this development was added, which was two to three storeys higher than existing buildings, this would put extreme pressure on the congestion and parking. Councillor D Hughes thought that this site would be more suited to a low rise, green and open development to mitigate what had already been built on this street and she considered the application to be inappropriate in the context of the existing properties around. Councillor D Hughes was also concerned by the lack of affordable housing provision and queried the viability assessment. Councillor D Hughes stated that this application was too much in this small congested space and would provide an overall poor living experience which would adversely impact those in the neighbouring properties; she hoped that the Committee would consider these points and refuse the application.

With regards to parking, the Planning Officer explained that the existing spaces at Grosvenor Court would not be affected and the application would provide an additional 33 parking spaces, which was above the number required. Surrey County Council Highways had been consulted and had raised no concern regarding the impact on the highway. The Council’s Consultants Kempton Carr Croft had assessed the viability of the development and concluded that in this instance it was not viable for any affordable housing contribution to be provided. Regarding the lack of amenity space the Planning Officer advised that all of the flats would have access to some form of space, be that a balcony, roof terrace or ground floor space, which would all be situated on the west elevation. There would be landscaping to the west of the building and the Planning Officer advised that condition 4 required a landscaping plan to be submitted. The Planning Officer agreed that the height of the proposed development would be taller than those surrounding it, but that this was mitigated by the separation distance to Hipley Street (25m) and from Priors Croft (44m). The building size was consistent with the larger buildings in the area such as Grosvenor Court, Westminster Court and the Harvey Water Softener site and it was considered that the size was acceptable for the proposed area.

Councillor L Morales, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the application. Councillor L Morales was concerned that the submitted flood reports did not mention the significant 2013 flooding where water had come right up to the gate of the property. Located in Flood Zone 2, Councillor L Morales did not think this site was right for sustainable development. The lack of affordable housing provision as part of the application was very disappointing.

Councillor L Morales was concerned by the height of the proposed development which was two to three storeys higher than those buildings around. The current design policy stated that buildings two storey’s higher than those surrounding should be considered ‘tall buildings’ and therefore should be of exceptional design quality and be considered by a design review panel; this was not the case with this application and Councillor Morales commented that the proposal was of an extremely poor design. There would be loss of light in surrounding properties and the bulk and mass of the huge block offered very little style and no soft landscaping. The private amenity space was insufficient and would not be suitable for a small family; Councillor Morales suggested that children would end up using the car park to play, which was dangerous. There was no appropriate close by amenity space.

Councillor L Morales commented that if the Committee allowed this to be approved then this would set a precedent that would allow poor applications that were totally out of character to the area to be approved. 

Councillor L Morales moved and Councillor S Hussain seconded that the application be refused on the grounds of bulk and mass, design, lack of affordable housing, privacy, daylight and lack of amenity space.

Following a suggestion from the Chairman, Councillor L Morales agreed that the proposed refusal reason regarding the lack of affordable housing could be removed from the motion. Although Councillor L Morales did think that some form of affordable housing should be provided on this site, she commented that in her view the development should not be there on this scale, so the affordable housing would be irrelevant in this case as the design aspect had not been dealt with. Many Members supported this amendment as they thought it would put forward an unreasonable reason for refusal.

Debate continued on the motion above.

A number of other Members echoed the concerns of the Ward Councillors covering flooding, lack of design review, daylight issues and amenity space.

Concerns were raised again regarding the lack of affordable housing provision and Councillor L Lyons commented that he was disappointed this reason for refusal had been removed from the motion. Councillor L Lyons commented that the Council’s viability consultant, Kempton Carr Croft, had concluded on every development that they had been consulted on that affordable housing was not viable and he thought this gave developers a get out. Douglas Spinks commented that the current policies had a specific provision to enable less than 40% affordable housing where the financial viability did not justify it. It was unfair to make those comments about a specific viability consultancy when a recent peer review had actually been carried out on one of their assessments due to concerns which produced the same conclusion as the initial viability assessment. The Committee was reminded to adhere to planning policies.

Following a query from Members the Planning Officer explained that the Flood and Drainage Team were satisfied with the proposal and the submitted flood risk assessment. They considered that the proposal had complied with Policy and had recommended five conditions, which would require the submission of some additional information either prior to commencement or occupation.

Following a query regarding the amenity space, The Planning Officer explained that it was considered that the standard of external amenity space was acceptable in this instance due to the constraints of the site and Officers felt that it was sufficient. The Chairman queried whether it complied with the minimum standards for amenity space and the Planning Officer advised that the SPD did detail a minimum requirement, but in this instance due to the constraints of the site it was considered acceptable.

Some Members did not support the daylight concern as a reason for refusal.

On the advice of Dan Freeland, Development Team Leader, Councillor L Morales agreed to amend her motion for refusal as it was considered a number reasons put forward would not be defendable on appeal as there was not sufficient evidence to support these.

Councillor L Morales proposed and it was duly seconded by Councillor S Hussain to refuse the application on the amended grounds of bulk and mass of building out of character with the area, design was not of exceptionally good quality and the lack of private amenity space for occupiers of the units.

In accordance with Standing Order 22.2, the Chairman deemed that a division should be taken on the motion above.  The votes for and against refusal of the application were recorded as follows.

In favour:                           Cllrs A J Boote, G Chrystie (Chairman), S Hussain, L Lyons, L Morales and C Rana.

                                 TOTAL:  6

Against:                              Cllrs S Ashall, T Aziz and G Elson.

                                 TOTAL:  3

Present but not voting:      None.

                                 TOTAL:  0

The application was therefore refused.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be REFUSED.