Agenda item


Application ref: 08/04609/FUL/JWO/24206


Recommendation: Grant conditional permission subject to Section 106 Agreement



In introducing the report, officers drew attention to comments in the tabled addendum sheet.


Local residents addressed the meeting objecting to the development on the grounds that the bulk, height and massing in the revised application was still unacceptable.  Residents felt that as the alterations to the previous application were so minor, officers should be recommending that the application is refused.  Furthermore, the impact on the future development of the vacant Streatham Megabowl site should be taken into account.  The proposed scheme was an overdevelopment of the site and would increase parking stress which was particularly bad when the local bingo hall was in use and when children were being dropped off or picked up from a nearby nursery.


Objectors felt that the height of buildings on Barrhill Road should not be used as a precedent for the height of the proposed scheme and properties in Streatham Hill would be overlooked.  Notification of the meeting had been sent during the Easter break and the parking provision of 18 spaces for 71 units was inadequate. The proposed location of the access points was unsatisfactory and there was no designated parking for commercial units.


The scheme would put added pressure on the local infrastructure including schools, public transport etc and the Section 106 Agreement would not result in additional train services from Streatham Hill Station.  Furthermore, refurbishment works at the Station were already in progress.  Residents were not in favour on controlled parking


Councillors Ashley Lumsden and June Fewtrell addressed the meeting in their capacity as Ward Members.  The opportunity to attend a briefing was welcomed but suggestions from residents were not reflected in the proposed scheme.  The site visit was helpful and it was felt that the site should be retained for employment use.  Under the proposed development, the outlook for properties in Blairderry Road would be altered to the detriment of residents and would also impact on residents in Streatham Hill.  The adjacent former garage site on Ardwell Road had not been included in the development and would prejudice the development of the rest of the site.  It was also suggested that the development should be considered in the context of the development of the Megabowl site.


The proposed scheme was not in keeping with surrounding buildings, the proposed amenity space provision was poor and there was no play provision for older children.  Although the Section 106 contribution was welcomed, the parks and open spaces that would benefit were some distance away.  Parking stress was particularly bad during the evening and at weekends so retaining the existing entry point would avoid the need to access Blairderry Road.  In addition, the proposed loading bay would reduce parking provision


The applicant addressed the meeting and stated that the site being developed was not protected for employment use within the UDP and the employment space on the site had been under used.  The re-provision of employment space was higher quality and would create 50 new jobs.  40% of the housing units would be affordable and the proposed scheme would act as a catalyst for the regeneration of the town centre.


Members of the committee were concerned that the report did not provide justification for the loss of the employment and no marketing evidence had been provided to support this.  The scheme was overbearing, was an overdevelopment of the site and would neither enhance nor preserve the conservation area.  The transport report was inconsistent and there would be increased parking stress.


In response officers stated that although the concerns regarding parking stress were recognised, in the event of an appeal, emphasis would be placed on the proximity of public transport links.  A Section 106 Agreement would assist in alleviating future parking stress together with the proposed car club and travel plan.  The proposed Section 106 Agreement was in accordance with the UDP and the scheme met requirements in terms of housing mix, amenity space and the proposed employment space was a vast improvement on existing provision.  The site was not a protected employment space and had not been designated as an MDO.


Members of the Committee reiterated their previous concerns regarding


  • The reduction in employment space
  • Affordable housing provision
  • Parking provision
  • Unacceptable massing
  • Inadequate dwelling mix


MOVED by Councillor Smith, SECONDED by Councillor Palmer and



RESOLVED: That the application be refused on the following grounds:


  • overdevelopment
  • parking stress
  • employment provision
  • housing mix


Supporting documents: