Agenda item

OCCC Estate, Cornwall Road, Wootton Street and Windmill Walk (Bishops) 16/06172/FUL

RECOMMENDATION

 

1.    That the Planning Applications Committee resolves that, had it been empowered to determine the application, it would have resolved to refuse planning permission on the basis the appellant is not prepared to enter into a planning obligation that would secure two review mechanisms in relation to the Protected Tenancy Units and Build to Rent Units required by officers to make the application acceptable.

 

2.    That the Planning Applications Committee instructs officers to defend the appeal in accordance with recommendation and delegates to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development (that officer having regard to this report, addendums and PAC minutes) the negotiation of a list of conditions and the negotiation and completion a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector should he/she allow the appeal.

Minutes:

Case No. 16/06172/FUL (agenda item 04, page 45 of the agenda pack and page 5 of the second addendum).

 

The Planning Officer gave a presentation which included a summary of the report and subsequent addendum that had been published on the day of the meeting. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration which included the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a 7 to 12 storey building comprising of 215 dwellings, including 40 at discounted market rent and 34 replacement protected tenancy units, with a theatre rehearsal space and small offices.  Members were shown images of the site, its context, neighbouring heritage assets, proposed materials, existing and proposed views.

 

The application was deferred from the Planning Applications Committee in September 2017 due to issues around the status of the protected tenancy units.  An appeal had been lodged on the grounds of non-determination, and officers were recommending that the Committee agree to instruct officers to defend the appeal as set out in the recommendations.  A third recommendation was added in the second addendum, delegating to the Assistant Director for Planning, Transport and Development to amend or withdraw any reasons for refusal, in consultation with the Chair.

 

Officers and the appellant then provided the following information in response to questions from Members:

 

           Certain family members living in the property were eligible to succeed the protected tenancies.

           Officers and the appellant had discussed making the protected tenancy units affordable housing in perpetuity, but there was no policy justification for this and they were advised that this would impact the viability of the scheme.  Officers had also requested a 10 year review on the status of protected tenancy units.

           Officers had advised that the discount market rent units be set at Local Housing Allowance (LHA), not the proposed London Living Rent.

           The requirement for rent levels at LHA levels were considered by officers to a marginal impact on the viability position.

           Only two bedrooms did not meet BRE targets for daylight, which officers considered acceptable.

           The unit mix and the loss of 3 bed units overall met the criteria in policy.  All of the protected tenancy units would be provided on a like-for-like basis.  Build-to-rent units tended to be smaller, resulting in the larger number of studio and one-bedroom units.

           As this application was now subject to an appeal, it would not have to be referred to the Mayor of London.

           The viability assessment had shown that this was the maximum level of affordable housing that could be provided.  The high existing use value and constrained nature of the site made it more difficult to provide greater amounts of affordable housing.

           As the existing protected tenancies were not currently provided in perpetuity, it was not possible to require that they be reprovided in perpetuity.

 

 

 

The Committee considered points raised by speakers and information provided by officers in conjunction with the report before making the following observations:

           Members were satisfied with the massing and design of the scheme. 

           Members were supportive of the additional viability reviews that officers had pursued and the proposed use of LHA levels for the DMR given the low levels of affordable housing being secured.

           The Chair appreciated the further information now before PAC on rent levels and accessibility.

 

 

It was MOVED by Councillor Wilcox, SECONDED by Councillor Atkins, and

 

RESOLVED, unanimously

 

 

1. To agree that that, had it been empowered to determine the application, it would have resolved to refuse planning permission on the basis the appellant is not prepared to enter into a planning obligation that would secure two review mechanisms in relation to the Protected Tenancy Units and Build to Rent Units required by officers to make the application acceptable.

 

2. To instruct officers to defend the appeal in accordance with recommendation and delegates to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development (that officer having regard to this report, addendums and PAC minutes) the negotiation of a list of conditions and the negotiation and completion a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Inspector should he/she allow the appeal.

 

3. To delegate to the Assistant Director for Planning, Transport and Development authority to amend or withdraw the grounds in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee.

 

Supporting documents: