Agenda item

6 Landsdowne Hill (Knight's Hill) 19/02840/FUL

1.      Resolve to grant conditional planning permission subject to the completion of an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) securing the planning obligations listed in this report.

 

2.      Agree to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to:

 

a.    Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and

 

b.    Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

3.      In the event that the committee resolves to refuse planning permission and there is a subsequent appeal, delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development, having regard to the heads of terms set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes, to negotiate and complete a document containing obligations pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in order to meet the requirement of the Planning Inspector.

 

4.      In the event that the section 106 agreement is not completed within three months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in this report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

 

Minutes:

Case No. 19/02840/FUL (agenda item four, page 171 of the agenda pack 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 the existing buildings and the erection of three buildings of up to seven storeys, with the provision of residential and office space, including waste storage, cycle storage, car parking, landscaping and new pedestrian links.  Members were shown images of the site, its context, the areas covered by Policy PN7 and Site 18.  Members were advised that this was a new application following the refusal of a previous application on this site in March 2019.  Changes in this application compared to the previous application included the materials used for Blocks A and B which would now be red brick, and the introduction of ceramic glazed panels in place of a blank façade to Block C, which would provide visual interest while enabling future neighbouring development.

 

Following the officer’s presentation, the objector raised the following concerns:

·         Four community groups had objected to the application on the grounds that it did not meet Local Plan Policy PN7 (West Norwood).  It was a failed opportunity for development.

·         The previous application had been refused by the Committee and a number of the reasons for refusal had not been addressed.

·         Policy PN7 should take precedence over Policy EN2.

·         Windows, rather than glazed ceramic, should be used throughout the office element.

·         The footpath access to the York Hill Estate was not accessible and was not wanted by the community.

 

The applicant, agent and architect then provided the following information in support of the application:

·         This application sought to overcome the reasons for refusal of the previous application.

·         The introduction of red bricks for Blocks A and B made visual reference to the York Hill Estate, while Block C would remain in buff brick, referencing the commercial buildings on Norwood High Street.  The use of both red and buff bricks were common in West Norwood.

·         The base of all blocks would use the same materials to demonstrate continuity between them.

·         The ceramic glazing would give the appearance of glazing while allowing future development to abut Block C.  The glazed ceramic could be replaced with glass in the event that neighbouring development did not materialise.

·         The application was successful as both a standalone development and within the wider aims of Site 18.

·         Step-free access to the York Hill Estate had been explored, but could not be achieved at this site without mechanisation.

·         The application would provide in excess of 36% affordable housing (by habitable room) and office space, and would enable future development on neighbouring sites.

 

Councillor Jane Pickard then spoke as Ward Councillor for Knight’s Hill, stating the following:

·         The height of the proposed buildings was too tall and inappropriate given the suburban context.  There should be a stepped approach from the York Hill Estate.

·         The footpath was not necessary, as there was already pedestrian access to the town centre.

·         Policy PN7 required that plans for the western side of Site 18 should be sympathetic to the York Hill Estate.

·         The piecemeal nature of the development of Site 18 raised the prospect of all of the site being used for flats and offices, going against the aspirations of the site-specific policy.

 

Members then viewed the proposed materials with the Head of Conservation and Design.

 

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

·         The officer’s report included the decision letter for the previous application at page 183, which included the Committee’s reasons for refusal.  Officers considered that this application addressed Members’ previous grounds for refusal.

·         This was a new application and should be considered on its own merits.  However, due weight should be given to material considerations, including the recent planning history of the site, particularly given the similarities between the previous application and this application.

·         The site-specific policy for Site 18 established the aspiration of the creation of pedestrian links between the York Hill Estate and the High Street.  All areas within the site would be fully accessible, but a step-free link to the York Hill Estate was not possible due to the four metre difference in ground height between the site and the York Hill Estate.  Step-free footpaths to the York Hill Estate could be provided elsewhere on Site 18 if future applications were made.

 

At 22:00 the Committee elected to proceed with the meeting for a maximum of a further 45 minutes in order to conclude the remaining matters of business.

 

·         Older buildings in West Norwood were made of yellow stock brick, whereas the bricks of the newer Iceland building were a chalkier shade.  Buff bricks would darken with age and wear.  The final selection of bricks was delegated to officers via condition, but Members could add an informative if they had a view on the preferred shade of bricks.

·         The Design Out Crime Officer had been consulted on both the previous and this application, and had confirmed that the application could meet the Secure by Design certification. Condition 20 required a Security Management Plan.

·         Members could add an informative requesting consultation with Ward Councillors on the Secure by Design process.

 

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

·         The application would not prejudice future development elsewhere on Site 18.

·         The changes, such as the introduction of red brick and glazed ceramic, were a good compromise and an improvement on the previous application.

·         Members expressed disappointment at the lack of an accessible footpath to the York Hill Estate, while appreciating the difficulties of the topography of the area.

·         Some Members raised concerns regarding the failure to meet Policy H5 on dual aspect properties, stating that this was not an ‘exceptional circumstance’.

·         An informative should be added requesting consultation with Ward Councillors in the discharge of the footpath, particularly regarding the design of the steps.

 

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

 

RESOLVED, by five votes for to one against

 

1.    To GRANT planning permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement and the conditions as outlined in the officer’s report and published addenda and the following:

                 i.   An informative requesting that regard be taken to the local context when selecting the shade of buff brick.

                ii.   An amendment to condition 20 with an attached informative requesting consultation with Ward Councillors during final discharge of Secure by Design conditions and the design of the footpath, with final wording to be delegated to Planning Officers in consultation with the Chair.

 

2.    Agree to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to:

a.    Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and

b.    Negotiate, agree and finalise the planning obligations as set out in the report, addendums and/or PAC minutes pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

3.    In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed within six months of committee, delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director of Planning, Transport and Development to refuse planning permission for failure to enter into a section 106 agreement for the mitigating contributions identified in the report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

 

Supporting documents: