Meeting Details

  • Documents
  • Attendance
  • Declarations of Interests
  • Visitors

Documents

Agenda

Standard Items
VIRTUAL MEETING - LINK TO VIEW

This meeting will be a virtual meeting and therefore will not take place in a physical location following guidelines set in Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020. This meeting can be viewed by following this link:

Please click here to view the meeting

MEMBERSHIP:

Councillors Shital Manro (Chair), Shahbaz Ahmed, Jon Ball, Paul Conlan, Joanna Dabrowska, Dee Martin, David Millican, Aysha Raza, Miriam Rice, Chris Summers, Lauren Wall, Ray Wall, Simon Woodroofe

 

1 Apologies for Absence and Substitutions
To note any apologies for absence and substitutions.
MIN1
There were none.
2 Urgent Matters
To consider any urgent matters that the Chair has agreed should be considered at the meeting.
MIN2
There were none.
3 Declarations of Interest
To note any declarations of interest made by members.
MIN3
There were none.
4 Matters to be Considered in Private
To determine whether items contain information that is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
MIN4
There were none.
5 Minutes
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 18 March 2020.
MIN5

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting held on 18 March 2020.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting were agreed as a true and accurate record of proceedings.

6 Site Visit Attendance
To share site visit details and note site visit attendance.
MIN6
The Chairman confirmed that no site visits had been made but that it was not a mandatory requirement to hold a site visit before an application is considered by the Planning Committee and referred to the introduction briefing note that had been published on the Council’s website prior to the meeting, which included details of the Council’s protocol on virtual meetings and site visits.
Public Items
Construction of a part 16-storey, part 15-storey and part 10-storey residential building to accommodate 278 residential units with additional ancillary communal multi-use space, basement vehicle parking, refuse and cycles stores, landscaping and associated works including alterations to existing car park and access (following demolition of petrol filling station) and installation of sub-station
MIN7
The Chairman confirmed that agenda items 7 and 8 would be considered at the same time, due to the fact that they were associated planning applications. Agenda item 8 was an application to reconfigure the parking arrangement on the larger Tesco site at grade and basement levels.

Katie Crosbie, Planning Officer, introduced the report, explaining that the proposal was for a build-to-rent scheme on land to the rear of the Tesco Superstore in the Hoover Building, Perivale. The scheme would involve the construction of a building that would have a lower element of 10 storeys, and a taller element of 15 to 16 storeys. The proposal would provide 278 build-to-rent flats with communal multi-use spaces for residents such as a gym, work and study space, and residents’ lounges.

It was explained that, out of the 278 flats, 68 of those flats would be affordable housing and would equate to 35% by habitable room and 24% by units of the overall flats. It was further explained that, of the affordable housing units, the tenure split by habitable room would be 30:70 London Living Rent (LLR) to Discount Market Rent (DMR) and that this would be 16 LLR units and 52 DMR units.

It was highlighted to the Committee that, this provision was eligible for the Mayor’s fast track route, however, a financial viability appraisal had been submitted in support of the application. An independent review had confirmed that no additional affordable housing could be provided beyond this offer. The affordable housing offer was therefore acceptable, subject to an early stage review mechanism to incentivise timely delivery.

It was explained that, this application was a revised scheme of an earlier proposal that was refused at Planning Committee in September 2019 (ref. 192275FUL). The reason for refusal was that the excessive height of the tower element, would represent an incongruous and visually intrusive form of development and would, in particular, be harmful to the setting of the adjacent Grade II Hoover Building. The Committee was informed that the resubmitted application had reduced the height of the building from 22 storeys to 15 to 16 storeys and the number of flats from 305 to 278. In light of the scale of reductions the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the Hoover Building and associated heritage assets. The Committee was further informed that in accordance with paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the less than substantial harm would be outweighed by the public benefits secured as policy compliant affordable housing. Historic England and the GLA had not raised any objections to the proposals.

A briefing note in respect of the application had been produced by Planning Officers and circulated to the Committee and published on the Council’s website prior to the meeting. It had provided details of any amendments to the recommendation, any further written representations received and any notes or additional clarifications as necessary.

Officers recommended that the committee grant consent subject to a Stage II referral to the Mayor of London, successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent and the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Cormac Gilmore, an objector to the development, made a representation to the Committee which included the following key points: 

  • That the development was non-compliant with the Ealing Plan nor the London Plan.
  •  That not much had changed with respect to the previous application in overall terms and that the height of the building was still a concern.

A video which had been provided by the Applicant was broadcast to the Committee and included the following key points:

  • That a very comprehensive redesign had been carried out and they had managed to revise the scheme whilst maintaining the 35% affordable housing provision.
  • That the revised proposals had responded in full to the concerns of the Committee with a significant reduction in the overall height of the building.

The Committee debated the proposal and in response to questions raised, Officers confirmed:

  • That the views of the tower from the A40 would be significantly reduced due to the reduction in height of the tower.
  • That there would be 68 affordable housing units, 70% of them would be discounted but the discount of the value of the rent would be 80%.
  • That although the sunlight amenity would be 50% there would be communal areas within the building that could be used by all.
  • That a consultation period had been initiated in February 2020, however, some responses had not been received.
  • That due to the fact that the scheme was quite similar in terms of the main aspects and the residential component, a pro-rata calculation was applied in terms of contributions.
  • That in terms of private space, 216 units would have their own balconies.

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the Application.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for the application REF 200534FUL be GRANTED subject to:

  1. Stage II referral to the Mayor of London.
  2. Satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement.
  3. Successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent and Informatives.
  4. An additional Condition with the requirement for a third party suitably qualified assessor to produce a Fire Safety Statement prior to commencement of the superstructure works.
Reconfiguration of existing car parking at ground and basement levels
MIN8
Katie Crosbie, Planning Officer, introduced the report, explaining that the proposal was for the reconfiguration of the parking layout and parking allocations for four separate businesses at the existing car park for the Hoover Building. It was proposed to reconfigure the layout of the car park within the existing site area that was used by Royal Nawaab Restaurant, IDM Hoover Limited and Busy Bees Nursery.

It was explained that, the reduction in parking spaces would be entirely for the Tesco use. Due to changes in retail trade Tesco had assessed that they no longer required a car park of the size and scale. The IDM Hoover Limited development would retain 31 spaces and Busy Bees Nursery would retain 10 spaces. The Royal Nawaab Restaurant would gain 50 spaces to address local residents’ concerns over where visitors and guests of the restaurant could park.

A briefing note in respect of the application had been produced by Planning Officers and circulated to the Committee and published on the Council’s website prior to the meeting. It had provided details of any amendments to the recommendation, any further written representations received and any notes or additional clarifications as necessary.

Officers recommended that the committee grant consent subject to successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent.

Following discussion, the Committee then proceeded to vote on the Application.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for the application REF 192281FUL be GRANTED subject to:

  1. Successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent and Informatives.
Construction of 42 residential units (part 3, part 4 storeys) accessed from Warple Way along with the provision of 135 parking spaces (103 of which are retained as part of the Old Factory Quarter section 106 agreement) at ground level and at basement level. Provision of open space, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works
MIN9
Smruti Patel, Planning Officer, introduced the report, explaining that the proposal was for a residential-led redevelopment of an underutilised brownfield site to provide 42 residential units.

It was explained that, the development would be comprised of four part three, part four storey buildings (A-D) and two three-storey townhouses. The development would provide a unit mix of 5 one-bed, two persons units; 20 two-bed, three persons units; and 17 two-bed, four persons units and 35% affordable housing units. It was proposed to provide associated landscaping, refuse storage and car and cycle parking arrangements, provision of open space, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works.

A briefing note in respect of the application had been produced by Planning Officers and circulated to the Committee and published on the Council’s website prior to the meeting. It had provided details of any amendments to the recommendation, any further written representations received and any notes or additional clarifications as necessary.

Officers recommended that the committee grant consent subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent and a Community Infrastructure Levy payment to the Greater London Authority (GLA).

Nadia Nosrati, an objector to the development, made a representation to the Committee which included the following key points: 

  • That residents would face a severe long-term impact from the development due to the site being overdeveloped and new residents would be living on an ex-railway line, on top of someone else’s car park very near to Acton Sewage tanks.
  •  That the development would be out of keeping with the area, it would be unsuitable for disabled people and children and the privacy and intrusion aspects on residents would be severe.

Mathew Mainwaring spoke in favour of the application. The representation made the following key points: 

  • That the site was an underused resource which was capable of providing high quality housing of which 35% would be affordable housing.
  • That the proposed development had been reduced in scale from over 60 residential units to 42.

Councillor Steed, a local Ward Councillor, made a representation to the Committee which included the following key points: 

  • That there were a number of material issues which included the lack of affordable housing, the lack of amenity space, issues about the character of the build and how it would sit in the immediate surrounding area and privacy issues that would be experienced by residents.
  •  That the lack of 50% affordable housing was disappointing as it was a fundamental part of the Ealing Plan and a positive aspiration to have.

Jackie Adams, Head of Legal (Commercial), provided clarification with regard to some points raised during public speaking.

The Committee debated the proposal and in response to questions raised, Officers confirmed:

  • That a full odour assessment had been carried out and had highlighted the odour as low. Mitigation measures had been introduced which included the use of fragrant flowers and a ventilation system to be put in place. The details would be secured by a condition.
  • That there would be a children’s play space at one end of the development and there would be pockets of amenity space throughout the scheme.
  •  That car parking and amenity space had been carefully balanced in terms of their placement in order to minimise impact

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the Application.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for the application REF 193680FUL be GRANTED subject to:

  1. Satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement.
  2. Successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent and Informatives as set out in the committee report and amended by the briefing note.
  3. A Community Infrastructure Levy payment to the Greater London Authority (GLA).
Construction of a part nine and part four storey building with excavation of basement area to provide 38 self-contained residential units and community space with associated cycle parking, refuse storage, hard and soft landscaping for amenity space and children's play space (Following demolition of existing building and change of use)
MIN10
Harini Boteju, Planning Officer, introduced the report, explaining that the proposal was for a redevelopment of a brownfield industrial site which contained a use class B8 warehouse. It was explained that the redevelopment would provide 38 residential flats that would be use class C3 and 82sqm of community space that would be use class D1/D2. The site was adjacent to the Old Oak Lane Conservation Area and had been de-designated as Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) by the OPDC. The proposed scheme would comprise a single building with a height range of four and nine storeys. The development site benefited from very good public transport access and as such would be a car-free development.

The Committee was informed that the 38 flats would comprise one, two and three bed units, all with private amenity space ranging from 5sqm to 8sqm and the ground floor three bed units would have larger private terrace areas. All flats would be dual aspect with further access to shared communal outdoor space of 194sqm; and a separate dedicated younger children’s play area of 76sqm.  Access to all flats would be from a common front door adjacent to the community space on the frontage of the building.

It was highlighted that the affordable housing provision would be provided as 35% of habitable rooms; which equated to 11 flats, out of 38 flats in total. The affordable mix would comprise 5 flats for shared ownership and 6 flats for London Affordable Rent. A financial viability appraisal had been submitted in support of the application. The affordable offer was considered acceptable, subject to the standard early stage review mechanism to incentivise timely delivery.

A briefing note in respect of the application had been produced by Planning Officers and circulated to the Committee and published on the Council’s website prior to the meeting. It had provided details of any amendments to the recommendation, any further written representations received and any notes or additional clarifications as necessary.

Officers recommended that the committee grant consent subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent.

Richard Harwood QC, representing objectors to the development, made a representation to the Committee which included the following key points: 

  • That the application was contrary to both the Development Plan and Emerging Development Plan Employment Policies.
  • That the proposed tower was too large, would dominate the sensitive area and it would also harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

Patrick Grincell spoke in favour of the application. The representation made the following key points: 

  • That the scheme was the culmination of 15 months of extensive consultation and engagement with Council Officers, the OPDC and the local community. The design had been amended over this time, responding to comments made, and delivered a high quality and balanced approach to making the best use of the brownfield site within an opportunity area.
  • That the scheme was the culmination of a lengthy and collaborative design process, which delivered significant community benefits­ including new affordable housing, community space and an improved environment.

Jackie Adams, Head of Legal (Commercial), provided clarification with regard to some points raised during public speaking.

The Committee debated the proposal and in response to questions raised, Officers confirmed:

  • That there was currently not much employment on the site as it was mainly used for warehouse storage.
  •  That a Community Strategy would be requested through the Section 106 agreement and that would be submitted by the applicant prior to completion of the development.
  • That the community space would be for use by residents and the wider community and that through the Section 106 agreement there would be a clause requiring the submission of a community space strategy.

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the Application.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for the application REF 195346OPDFUL be GRANTED subject to:

  1. Satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement.
  2. Successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent and Informatives as set out in the committee report and amended by the briefing note.
Redevelopment of the site to provide 125 residential units accommodated within two residential buildings ranging in height from four to twelve storeys with shared first floor podium, associated landscaping and amenity spaces and the provision of public parking for 72 car spaces (following demolition of buildings and structures) 
MIN11
Katie Crosbie, Planning Officer, introduced the report, explaining that the proposal was to redevelop land to the rear of 80-92 High Street and the Odeon building in Southall. The scheme would involve the construction of two residential buildings set on a podium and accessed from two ground floor cores. The existing public car park which accommodated 78 parking spaces would be re-provided with 72 parking spaces on the ground floor. In addition, four blue badge parking spaces would be provided for residents of this car free scheme. The total height of the buildings would range from four to twelve storeys. 

It was highlighted that, as part of the Future Ealing Project, Cabinet had approved a strategic plan to bring the site forward for affordable housing in 2018, supported by the allocation of funding from the Greater London Authority (GLA) Building Council Homes for Londoners programme. To ensure best value and the highest delivery of affordable housing the Council had invited affordable housing proposals from interested parties.  Mackenzie Homes were successful in securing the option to deliver affordable housing on the site. Broadway Living (Ealing Council’s wholly owned subsidiary for housing development) would be the registered provider for the scheme.  

It was explained that, therefore, the scheme had been developed in association with the Council’s Housing Development department and would provide 125 flats. 65 of the flats would be affordable housing which would equate to 56 percent by habitable room. The tenure split by habitable room would be 90:10 London Affordable Rent (LAR) to Shared Ownership. This would be 59 LAR units and 6 Shared Ownership units. The affordable housing offer exceeded minimum policy requirements in both quantum and tenure split and was therefore strongly supported.

A briefing note in respect of the application had been produced by Planning Officers and circulated to the Committee and published on the Council’s website prior to the meeting. It had provided details of any amendments to the recommendation, any further written representations received and any notes or additional clarifications as necessary.

Officers recommended that the committee grant consent subject to a Stage II referral to the Mayor of London, successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent and the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Rina Bimbh, an objector to the development, made a representation to the Committee which included the following key points: 

  • That the development would be an unproportionate high density and an overdevelopment of the site.
  • That the twelve storey building proposed would be out of keeping with surrounding area and would have a negative visual impact on Southall’s scenery. Ultimately, the proposed development was over-bearing, out-of-scale and out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing developments in its vicinity.

Christopher Tennant spoke in favour of the application. The representation made the following key points: 

  • That 56% of the proposed 125 apartments would be affordable homes based on habitable rooms and of this 56% affordable provision, the tenure of 90% of those affordable homes would be London Affordable Rent. London Affordable Rent were exactly the type of new homes the Borough really needed to support families.
  • That each of the apartments would have their own private amenity space and would help to deliver much needed new homes in the borough. The design of the proposed apartments had been carefully considered and the scheme was in accordance with Ealing and GLA Planning Policies.
  • That the market would be re-provided in the public square in front of the adjacent Lidl store, fronting onto Southall High Street.

Councillor Chohan, a local Ward Councillor, made a representation to the Committee which focused on the following key points: 

  • That she had concerns in regards to how the area would accommodate so many new individuals as the social infrastructure had already found itself overstretched.
  • That she had concerns in regards to carbon emissions from the site and the issue of air pollution and noise from the construction site was of particular importance, as the site neighboured a high school and was across the road from a primary school.

The Committee debated the proposal and in response to questions raised, Officers confirmed:

  • That the construction impact would be covered under the Construction Management Plan.
  • That the Council’s Economic Regeneration Team were looking at the potential options and exploring the relocation of the market.
  • That secured by design was covered under Building Control in order to cover the physical requirements in regards to making a building secure.

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the Application.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for the application REF 200471FUL be GRANTED subject to:

  1. Stage II referral to the Mayor of London.
  2. Satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement.
  3. Successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent and Informatives as set out in the committee report and amended by the briefing note.
Application for planning permission for construction of a rail served concrete batching plant (CBP), rail served cement storage facility (4 cement / PFA storage silos), workshop, modular office/welfare facilities, aggregate storage bays, substation and other ancillary structures and parking areas to enable use of site for concrete batching, cement storage and distribution, and associated administrative activities (proposals to enable permanent relocation of existing CBP operation, workshop and administrative activities from Quattro site at Park Royal).
MIN12
John Robertson, Planning Officer, introduced the report, explaining that the proposal was for  construction of a rail served, concrete batching plant (CBP), a rail served cement storage facility comprising four cement / PFA storage silos, a workshop, modular office/welfare facilities, aggregate storage bays, an electricity substation and other ancillary structures and parking areas to enable use of the site for concrete batching, cement storage and distribution, and associated administrative activities. 

It was explained that, the proposal would enable the permanent relocation of the existing CBP operation, workshop and administrative activities from the Quattro site at Park Royal. Relocation was required because the existing site was subject to a compulsory purchase order as the land was required to construct the HS2 rail line. 

It was highlighted that, a number of mitigation measures were included in the development to prevent significant emissions to air of dust or particulate matter. These included cement dust being transferred into the batching plant by way of a sealed pipe; plant, loading area and conveyors being fully enclosed, all storage bays being enclosed with water sprays and a wheel wash facility and all plant machinery to be electric, avoiding the need for any combustion plant.

It was explained that, in addition, the concrete batching plant would be required to obtain an Environmental Permit from the Local Authority, which would require mitigation measures to ensure no significant releases to the air and that the mitigation measures were maintained.

The Committee was informed that, having considered these factors, Regulatory Services did not object to the proposals on air quality grounds subject to various conditions. Given that the development would also be regulated by pollution controls, expert advice from the Council’s Regulatory Service Officers was that, subject to appropriate planning conditions and careful monitoring, it could be operated without unacceptable environmental or health impacts.

The Committee was further informed that, various mitigation measures were proposed as part of the design and operation of the development to reduce noise impacts including a 3.5m high acoustic barrier to the northern boundary, a fully enclosed batching area, cement unloading pumps in acoustic enclosures and a range of others.

A briefing note in respect of the application had been produced by Planning Officers and circulated to the Committee and published on the Council’s website prior to the meeting. It had provided details of any amendments to the recommendation, any further written representations received and any notes or additional clarifications as necessary.

Officers recommended that the committee grant consent subject to the the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent.

Vlod Barchuk, an objector to the development, made a representation to the Committee which included the following key points: 

  • That the London Mayor's Plan required that development proposals should be at least air quality neutral and not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality. This proposal was not consistent with that objective.
  •  That the local residents had accepted that the area would be used for light industrial activities, however, the scale of what was proposed was far in excess of what was acceptable for a site surrounded so closely by residential areas.

Vilna Walsh spoke in favour of the application. The representation made the following key points: 

  • That the proposal was highly sustainable with the majority of raw materials delivered by rail. The final onward delivery of concrete and cement by road could not be avoided and indeed was necessary to support local construction and economic development in the Borough.
  • That the application offered a key opportunity to secure controls on how the site was operated. These included physical control measures such as provision of enclosed operations, aggregate storage bays, boundary treatment; and operational controls secured by conditions such as operating hours, HGV movement limits, noise limits and dust control measures.

Councillor D Crawford, a local Ward Councillor, made a representation to the Committee which focused on the following key points: 

  • That significant strain would be put on an already congested section of the public highway due to the increase of use that this site would bring.
  • That the Council had instituted an Air Management Plan which had started to take effect as air pollution levels had reduced over the past few years but approving this application would be a step back in terms of that objective.

The Committee debated the proposal and in response to questions raised, Officers confirmed:

  • That the Council’s Air Quality Officer had considered that with the measures and conditions and monitoring proposed that the site would not cause air quality issues.
  • That the car parking levels on site were not considered to be unreasonable.

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the Application.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for the application REF 191885FUL be GRANTED subject to:

  1. Satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement.
  2. Successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent and Informatives.
Construction of three x two storey buildings and one x three storey building to provide 40 residential units and a community and caretaker facility; reconfiguration of vehicle parking provision and associated refuse storage, cycle storage and vehicle parking; and hard and soft landscaping (following demolition of garages and community and caretaker facility) (Regulation 3 - Application by London Borough of Ealing)
MIN13

Natalie Hinds, Planning Officer, introduced the report, explaining that the proposal was for construction of three two-storey buildings and one three-storey building at a residential estate on Buckingham Avenue, Perivale, which would provide 40 residential units and a replacement community and caretaker facility. It was noted that this application followed a previous planning permission in 2017, for 40 residential units at this site; albeit the design and layout of this proposed scheme had changed from what had previously been approved.

It was explained that, the application site boundary had been configured into three areas; ‘Site A’ would accommodate the three two-storey buildings along with associated amenity areas and some parking provision, ‘Site B’ would accommodate the three storey building and would also involve the demolition of garages to reconfigure the parking layout to optimise the parking efficiency, and ‘Site C’ would provide soft landscaping enhancements.  With regards to the proposed caretaker and community facility, this would replace the existing facility within the estate and would provide a break area for caretakers on site, and a meeting space for Resident’s Association and the community that may be needed from a management perspective, commensurate with the use of the existing facility.

It was highlighted that, the level of affordable housing would equate to 100% of the proposed units.  The tenure split would be 60/40 split between Affordable Rented, 24 units and Shared Ownership, 16 units, with a mixture of one, two and three bed units. The principle of an additional 40 units within this residential estate was consistent with strategic policies to increase housing stock within the Borough, including the A40 corridor and the proposed density was generally consistent with the range recommended in the London Plan.

A briefing note in respect of the application had been produced by Planning Officers and circulated to the Committee and published on the Council’s website prior to the meeting. It had provided details of any amendments to the recommendation, any further written representations received and any notes or additional clarifications as necessary.

Officers recommended that the committee grant consent subject to the internal transfer of financial contributions, and securing of other planning obligations, and successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent.

Tony O’Farrell, an objector to the development, made a representation to the Committee which included the following key points:

  • That as a hole, local residents were not against any redevelopment of the estate, however, there were concerns with a potential over development of the estate.
  • That the rights of privacy for the existing tenants would be affected as the layouts of blocks would mean that the balconies would be looking directly into the rear gardens and living rooms of the existing blocks.

Justin Bainton spoke in favour of the application. The representation made the following key points: 

  • That the proposal was considered to provide a very good standard of accommodation to serve the future occupiers of the site benefitting from their own balconies and meeting the Council’s internal spaces standards in full.
  • That the site was well located for access to local shops, supermarkets, jobs, and local amenities including health facilities and schools, and this approach would be supplemented by the operation of a Travel Plan.

The Committee debated the proposal and in response to questions raised, Officers confirmed:

  • That there would be 16 shared ownership units.
  • That landscaping had been conditioned between block A and the property to the west to ensure that there would be no overlooking and every other property would have a sufficient distance or there would be non-habitable obscured glazed windows and no direct overlooking from any other aspect.

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the Application.

Councillors Millington and Woodroofe both abstained from voting due to the fact that they had lost internet connection during part of the debate.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for the application REF 200486FUL be GRANTED subject to:

  1. The internal transfer of financial contributions and securing of other planning obligations.
  2. Successful resolution of Planning Conditions of consent and Informatives.
14 Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting will be held on 17 June 2020.
MIN14
It was noted that the next meeting would be held on 17 June 2020.

The meeting of the Committee concluded at 11:15pm.

Declarations of Interests

Member NameItem Ref.DetailsNature of DeclarationAction
No declarations of interest have been entered for this meeting.

Visitors

Visitor Information is not yet available for this meeting