Agenda item

Announcement

The Chairman informed members and those present at the meeting of one aspect to Item 4a Berkeley Homes Development at London Road, Staines upon Thames.  The report identified that affordable rented housing was to be provided which would be subject to a legal agreement if the Committee was minded to approve the application in accordance with the recommendations.  The Council’s Housing Company, Knowle Green Estates Ltd was in discussions with the applicant to provide this affordable rented housing. 

He advised members that the identity of the housing provider was not a planning matter but an executive one and subject to the agreement of Cabinet if it should go forward. 

The recommendation of the officer takes into account the circumstances where the Council or a Registered Provider will become involved with this aspect of housing delivery. 

Description:

This application sought approval for the erection of six buildings to provide 474 residential homes (Class C3) and flexible commercial space at ground and first floors (Class A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 or D2) car parking, pedestrian and vehicular access, landscaping and associated works.

Additional Information:

The Planning Development Manager gave the following updates:

3 late letters of objection had been received raising the following concerns:

• Provision of applicant’s affordable housing viability report on the Council’s website,
• Representations made by the residents and leaseholders of Ash House have been ignored or not adequately addressed.

Executive Summary (Corrections)

In the first paragraph (page 10) the commercial floorspace should read 2,555m² (not 2513 m²). 

In the fifth paragraph the number of parking spaces should read 27 not 24.

Main Report (Corrections)

Para 3.16 (page 16) ‘The building would be 12 storeys and approximately 39 metres tall…’ (not 26.7m).

Para 7.68 (page 29) ‘In addition these assessments were undertaken against the current vacant site conditions.’

Para 7.95 (page 33) ‘It further examines the cumulative effects including nearby schemes as well as the national and local planning policy context.’ 

Condition Update

Condition 2 requires the relevant approved plan numbers to be inserted as follows:

17660 U078 B1 GA(10)001-01, B1 GA(10)001-02, B1 GA(10)002, B1 GA(10)003, B1 GA(10)017, B2 GA(10)001-01, B2 GA(10)001-02, B2 GA(10)002-01, B2 GA(10)002-02, B2 GA(10)011-01, B2 GA(10)011-02, B3 GA(10)001, B3 GA(10)002, B3 GA(10)012, B4 GA(10)001, B4 GA(10)002, B4 GA(10)011, B5 GA(10)001, B5 GA(10)002, B5 GA(10)003, B5 GA(10)009, B6 GA(10)013-01, B6 GA(10)013-01, B6 GA(10)003-02, B6 GA(10)003-01, B6 GA(10)002-02, B6 GA(10)002-01, B6 GA(10)001-02, B6 GA(10)001-01, B3 GA(11)004, B4 GA(11)001, B4 GA(11)002, B4 GA(11)003, B4 GA(11)004, B5 GA(11)001, B5 GA(11)002, B5 GA(11)003, B5 GA(11)004, B6 GA(11)001, B6 GA(11)002, B6 GA(11)003, B6 GA(11)004, B1 GA(12)001, B1 GA(12)002, B2 GA(12)001, B2 GA(12)002, B2 GA(12)002, B3 GA(12)002, B4 GA(12)001, B4 GA(12)002, B5 GA(12)001, B5 GA(12)002, B6 GA(12)001, B6 GA(12)002, Z AS(21)103, Z AS(21)102, Z AS(21)104, Z AS(21)101, B1 GA(11)001, Z TP(10)017, Z TP(11)103, Z TP(11)002, Z TP(11)101, Z TP(11)102, Z TP(11)001, Z TP(11)104, Z TP(12)001, Z TP(12)002, Z TP(12)003, Z TP(10)008, Z TP(10)009, Z TP(10)010, Z TP(10)011, Z TP(10)010, Z TP(10)012, Z TP(10)013, Z TP(10)014, Z TP(10)015, Z TP(10)016, Z TP(10)000, Z TP(00)00, Z TP(00)002, Z TP(10)001, Z TP(10)002, Z TP(10)003, Z TP(10)004, Z TP(10)005, Z TP(10)006, Z TP(10)007 and BKH-BGS_HTA-L_XX-00_DR_0900 Rev P dated 23 July 2018 and E1330 L(LE)001, L(LE)001 Rev A dated 20 Dec 2017.

Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Gavin Cooper spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

• Significantly bigger development than the approved scheme
• Closer to Ash House
• Contrary to revised NPPF
• Impact on SPA
• Loss of daylight
• Sheer size of development, height and proximity to Ash House
• Concern over viability report
• Lack of affordable housing

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Anne Damerell spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

• Inadequate affordable housing
• Loss of sunlight, daylight
• Loss of privacy
• Too many single person units
• Lack of parking spaces
• Proper pedestrian crossing to Fairfield Avenue required

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Tom Pocock spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

• Will transform a derelict eyesore site
• Will deliver more homes including on site affordable rented housing
• Have worked with officers, councillors and the community
• Provide high quality developments
• Will provide a mixed use development
• Will provide a bespoke community plan
• Provide local employment opportunities

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

• Site has been an eyesore for around 10 years
• Will have a greater impact on Ash House than approved scheme; overbearing on Ash House
• Confirmation on CIL payment required
• Inadequate affordable housing
• High standard of dwellings proposed
• Lack of parking / inadequate parking
• Electrical charge points are provided
• Site is within Town Centre
• Concerns over close proximity to Ash House
• Adverse impact on privacy of Ash House
• High density concerns
• Over dominant, overbearing
• Applicant hasn’t worked successfully with the community
• Site already has planning permission
• Will be an adequate distance from Ash House
• Will provide the highest building in Staines
• Massive overdevelopment
• Too many small units
• Less cars now for the young population
• Already provide nearly 590 dwellings
• Inadequate open space, Birch Green will become inadequate, contrary to policy CO3
• Driverless cars will increase resulting in more cars in the future
• Driverless cars will lead to less cars in the future
• There is no planning policy relating to driverless cars
• Good level of rented affordable housing
• The future need is for a large number of single occupancy units
• Government advice is to achieve greater densities to achieve the level of housing needed for residents
• If level of housing not achieved, there will be greater pressure to build in the green belt.

Decision:

The recommendation to approve was overturned and the application was refused planning permission for the following reasons:

1.)  The proposed development, by reason of the height, bulk and location does not make a positive contribution to and would have an overbearing impact on the street scene and would be out of character with the surrounding area, contrary to policy EN1 (a) of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, 2009.

2.)   The proposed development, by reason of its height, bulk and location, would have an overbearing impact on, and fail to achieve a satisfactory relationship to the adjoining properties, especially Ash House, resulting in a significant harmful impact in terms of loss of privacy and light, contrary to policy EN1 (b) of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, 2009.

3.)  The proposed development would provide insufficient affordable housing, contrary to policy HO3 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, 2009.

4.)  The proposed development would provide inadequate open space contrary to policy CO3 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, 2009.

5.)  The proposed development provides inadequate parking provision, resulting in on street parking in the surrounding roads with associated traffic congestion, contrary to policy CC3 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document, 2009.