Minutes:
Please see the Addendum attached to the minutes for further details.
The meeting was adjourned at the request of the Chair, between 19.35 and 19.45, to allow time to switch projectors due to some technical difficulties.
The Committee heard representations in support of the application from the Project Director from Genesis Housing on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the scheme benefited the area with their regeneration aspirations and provided a significant infrastructure contribution. He added that it would provide homes and jobs and would also help to achieve housing targets as well as providing a good mix of affordable homes. He concluded by stating that it was a long term investment in the area and that they had worked hard with partners and officers to provide a great quality design which would bring a derelict site back into use.
Councillor Cartwright commented that he was appalled by the proposal. He felt the proposal was being pushed through with indecent haste, therefore, it should be deferred until after the Mayoral elections.. He also felt that it should go back to the OPDC’s Design Review Panel as they had only commented on the design at an early point in its development.
Councillor Nsumbu commented that the issue was not the massing or the height but the design process itself. She also felt the building was unattractive and disappointing. She also stated that she felt the affordable housing mix was just right. Councillor Ivimy commented that the design was appalling and had not been well thought out. She was also concerned about how the proposal sat in the wider context of the Master Plan for the area and that it would be damaging to the setting of the Grand Union Canal. Councillor Cassidy commented that it felt very rushed and that the design aside residents would consider it to have been railroaded through.
Councillor Karmel commented that it maybe appropriate to add a Grampian condition where current access to the site did not take into account future density for the area and was not within the applicant’s control. He also stated that there was so much information missing from the proposal and gave the examples of traffic surveys and travel assessments. He also expressed concerns around the proposed nursery provision. He went on to state that it would also be a good idea for the proposal to go before the Hammersmith and Fulham Design and Review Panel. He proposed taking out the 2nd bullet point in 3.1.4 of the report.
Officers advised that a Grampian condition maybe difficult to include in the recommendations.
3.1.4 - 2nd Bullet in the report
Nursery (if provided) - 50% nursery related jobs to be offered to unemployed residents of LBHF with commitment of industry specific training being offered on the back of guaranteed interviews of LBHF residents.
The proposal was put to the vote and members agreed to leave it in.
Vote
For 1
Against 7
Not Voting 1
Councillor Karmel went on to express further concerns regarding the bicycle racks and the arrangements for the disabled parking spaces. He reiterated the need for an assessment of the capacity of local bus routes and new bus routes for the neighbourhood.
Councillor Chumnery added that the 220 bus needed looking at as well. She also welcomed the additional housing but was mindful of the construction and the access to the site. She requested that more information be provided on the impact to residents. Councillor Aherne stated that the lack of time should be included in the response. He also expressed concern at the level of affordable housing. He also stated that the affordable housing was still too expensive for most local residents.
The Chair asked what would happen after five years to the private rented sector properties. It was confirmed by officers that the details were still to be worked out. The Chair in response to members concerns asked officers to circulate to the Committee a copy of the final comments to the OPDC and to keep members updated on the progress of the section 106 agreement.
Discussing the application members looked at how best to frame their recommendations to the OPDC. The Legal officer advised that they set out their recommendations by breaking them down and that they provide reasons for each of the different options available to them. They should vote on each limb of their recommendations separately.
The Committee voted on planning application 2016/00539/OBS and the results were as follows:
1st Limb
Councillor Cassidy proposed that the Committee recommend that the OPDC defer their decision (scheduled for 28 April 2016 OPDC Planning Committee) due to insufficient information having been provided so that it is not possible for a full and proper assessment of the proposal to have been carried out, so that officers have an opportunity to report any further submitted application details back to members of this committee. This was seconded by Councillor Ivimy. Particular areas of concern include:
I. Design quality. There are concerns about the quality of the design of the scheme in terms of its scale and massing and architectural approach and harmful impact on the character, appearance and setting of the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area. It is considered that the scheme should be reviewed again by the PLACE Review Panel, particularly as the only review was at an early stage.
II. Viability and affordable housing. The scheme fails to provide the policy target of 40% affordable housing. Further assessment of scheme viability and negotiation of affordable housing is required.
III. Lack of provision of local Infrastructure including education, healthcare and public transport provision, including improvements to bus services 266, 228 and 220, to mitigate the impacts of the proposal.
IV. Lack of information to support how the proposal is complementary to the wider OPDC masterplan.
V. Air quality assessment is not adequate.
Vote
For 9
Against 0
Not Voting 0
2nd Limb
Councillor Cartwright proposed that the Committee recommend that, in the event that the OPDC decision is not deferred, the OPDC Planning Committee refuse planning permission at its meeting on 28 April 2016, this was seconded by Councillor Ivimy, for the following reasons:
I. Lack of information to enable a full and proper assessment of the proposal against relevant development plan policies and guidance.
II. Unacceptable quality of design in terms of its excessive scale and massing and architectural approach and harmful impact on the character, appearance and setting of the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area. Contrary to London Plan (March 2015) policies 7.4, 7.7 and 7.8.
III. The scheme fails to provide the policy target of 40% affordable housing and the affordable rent units are proposed at rent levels that are not affordable to local residents. There is insufficient justification including on scheme viability for the proposed affordable housing. Contrary to London Plan (March 2015) policies 3.11 and 3.12 and London Plan Housing SPG
IV. Lack of public transport measures to mitigate the likely impact of the development particularly given its PTAL of 3, there is also likely to be insufficient capacity on bus routes 266, 228 and 220. Contrary to London Plan (March 2015) policies 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.7 and 6.11
V. The proposed new access road through the site does not connect to a highway network to the north and the proposal is therefore not providing adequate highway provision and is likely to have an unacceptable impact on the free flow of traffic in the area. Contrary to London Plan (March 2015) policies 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.11 and 6.12.
VI. Lack of community infrastructure including education, healthcare, recreational and retail provision to serve the development and mitigate the potential adverse impact of the development on existing community infrastructure in the area. Contrary to London Plan (March 2015) policies 3.16, 3.17, 3.18 and 3.19.
VII. The potential for an unacceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding residents including overshadowing and potential undue loss of daylight. Contrary to London Plan (March 2015) policy 7.7.
Vote
For 7
Against 2
Not Voting 0
3rd Limb
Councillor Karmel proposed that authority be delegated to officers to submit further comments to the OPDC and to supplement this Council’s comments following the submission of any further information about the proposal, and to seek any further appropriate mitigation whether by condition or planning obligation.This was seconded by Councillor Nsumbu.
Vote
For 9
Against 0
Not Voting 0
4th Limb
Councillor Aherne proposed that officers be authorised to seek the planning conditions and planning obligations (including that LBHF be signatory to the s106 agreement) noted in the report should the application be granted by the OPDC on 28 April 2016 or at a later date. This was seconded by Councillor Karmel.
Vote
For 9
Against 0
Not Voting 0
RESOLVED THAT:
Officers be authorised to submit comments and details of the Committee’s decisions to OPDC.
The Committee made the following decisions and recommendations to the OPDC regarding planning application 2016/00539/OBS.
1. That OPDC defer their decision (scheduled for 28 April 2016 OPDC Planning Committee) due to insufficient information having been provided so that it is not possible for a full and proper assessment of the proposal to have been carried out, so that officers have an opportunity to report any further submitted application details back to members of this committee.
The following reasons were given to support their recommendation;
2. In the event that the OPDC decision is not deferred, the OPDC Planning Committee refuse planning permission at its meeting on 28 April 2016.
The following reasons were given to support their recommendation;
I. Lack of information to enable a full and proper assessment of the proposal against relevant development plan policies and guidance.
II. Unacceptable quality of design in terms of its excessive scale and massing and architectural approach and harmful impact on the character, appearance and setting of the Grand Union Canal Conservation Area. Contrary to London Plan (March 2015) policies 7.4, 7.7 and 7.8.
III. The scheme fails to provide the policy target of 40% affordable housing and the affordable rent units are proposed at rent levels that are not affordable to local residents. There is insufficient justification including on scheme viability for the proposed affordable housing. Contrary to London Plan (March 2015) policies 3.11 and 3.12 and London Plan Housing SPG
IV. Lack of public transport measures to mitigate the likely impact of the development particularly given its PTAL of 3, there is also likely to be insufficient capacity on bus routes 266, 228 and 220. Contrary to London Plan (March 2015) policies 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.7 and 6.11
V. The proposed new access road through the site does not connect to a highway network to the north and the proposal is therefore not providing adequate highway provision and is likely to have an unacceptable impact on the free flow of traffic in the area. Contrary to London Plan (March 2015) policies 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.11 and 6.12.
VI. Lack of community infrastructure including education, healthcare, recreational and retail provision to serve the development and mitigate the potential adverse impact of the development on existing community infrastructure in the area. Contrary to London Plan (March 2015) policies 3.16, 3.17, 3.18 and 3.19.
VII. The potential for an unacceptable impact on the amenity of surrounding residents including overshadowing and potential undue loss of daylight. Contrary to London Plan (March 2015) policy 7.7.
3. That authority be delegated to officers to supplement LBHF’s comments following PADCC and any further information submitted with respect to the proposals and that officers be authorised to seek further obligations and or conditions as appropriate (in addition to those noted in the report).
4. That officers be authorised to seek the planning conditions and planning obligations (including that LBHF be signatory to the s106 agreement) noted in the report should the application be granted by the OPDC on 28 April 2016 or at a later date.