Agenda item

Lansdowne Wood Close (Knights Hill) 18/03492/FUL

Officers’ recommendations:

 

  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) containing the planning obligations listed in this report.

 

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

 

  1. Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in this report, addendums and/or PAC minutes; and
  2. 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).

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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 this report, addendums and/or the PAC minutes.

 

Minutes:

Case No. 18/03492/FUL (agenda item two, page one of the agenda pack).

 

The Planning Officer gave a presentation which included a summary of the report. Members were advised of the key material planning issues for consideration. The Officer advised that the inspector’s grounds for the dismissal of the appeal for a previous application in September 2017 (17/02012/FUL) had been considered and overcome in this application. The site comprised of a car park, which had 13 spaces for existing residents. The officer noted that Lambeth Highways were unable to enforce any parking restrictions on this road as it was privately owned, therefore a private company would be the only parking enforcement option. This would be necessary to ensure no unauthorised parked vehicles would obstruct refuse and servicing vehicles from entering the location. The two-bedroom units would consist of two storeys when built and would meet Nationally Described Space Standards. The two external staircases to provide access to the lower ground floor units would be reconstructed in accordance with details secured through a condition to be attached to the permission. Two methods of access were presented during the construction period; either a temporary staircase or maintain access to one staircase while the other would be rebuilt. Members were advised that no trees would be felled, and only minor pruning would be necessary. Due to the scheme size, there would be a contribution of £93,468 for the provision of affordable housing offsite. Should a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) come forward in the future, the development would be permit free and car club memberships provided.

 

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

·         The original leases and freeholds included rights in respect of the pavement and four parking spaces and the application should therefore be postponed to allow time for lawyers to contest on a civil level.

·         Despite maintenance costs being paid, the grounds were in a poor condition.

·         A maintenance and management plan for the whole estate was required.

·         The development proposal would affect public right of way.

 

The agent and consultantthen provided the following information in support of the application:

·         The scheme comprised of five new homes and was carefully designed to meet Council policies.

·         Surveys conducted showed sufficient availability of parking spaces within walking distance of the site.

·         Cycle parking would be provided to encourage sustainable travel and there were no traffic or transport reasons for the application not to proceed.

·         Any civil matters should not affect consideration of the application.

 

Councillor Jackie Meldrum then spoke as Ward Councillor for Knights Hill, stating the following:

·         She accepted the need for a new development but was concerned about the access to the lower-level housing.

·         One of the access staircases had collapsed and was in need of repair.

·         The scheme was meant to be accessible but did not include a disabled parking space and the closest parking space was up a nearby hill.

 

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

·         The location did not contain a disabled parking place and there was no policy requirement to provide one. The proposed application would be a car free scheme.

·         The closest Car Club space was on Royal Circus.

·         Due to the scale of the development no contribution to future CPZs was required and the Inspector stated in her appeal decision that there would not be an increase in vehicles substantial enough to result in harm to highway safety.

·         The scheme would ensure a safe route at all times for residents during the construction phase and lighting and signage would be secured by a condition. Residents would be kept up to date with access issues during the construction phase.

·         Issues surrounding public and private rights of way would not fall within the remit of this decision as it was a private road, which would mean limited enforcement options for the Council. The issues that were raised by the objectors in relation to rights of way would be a civil matter and not for consideration by the Committee.

 

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

·         The scheme was positive as it would provide refuse collection, the preservation of trees, a Car Club space and a better layout than the previous scheme.

·         An informative should be added to the decision notice to encourage dialogue between the existing residents of adjoining properties and applicant regarding the staircase.

 

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

 

RESOLVED, unanimously

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

                      i.        An informative relating to Condition 3(f) requesting consultation and dialogue between residents and the applicant about the external staircases.

 

2.    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: