Decision details

The Committee received an application for full planning permission. The application had been reported to the 6 January 2016 Planning Committee with an officer recommendation of approval. During the consideration of the application, Members of the Committee raised a number of concerns about the proposal. The Committee voted not to accept the officer recommendation of approval and a decision on whether to approve or refuse the application was subsequently deferred because the Adjourned Decision Protocol (ADP) was triggered.

 

The application sought approval for demolition of existing buildings and erection of a mixed used development comprising 84 dwellings, circa 152m2 A1-A3 commercial space, and associated access, car and cycle parking, and public realm enhancement.

 

The Committee received the additional information regarding viability as requested at the previous meeting. The additional documentation was noted.

 

Andrew Jones outlined the position regarding viability.

 

       i.          The Islington Case demonstrated that land values should reflect the tone of values in the area under discussion.

     ii.          There were questions around the extent to which planning obligations reflected land values.

   iii.          Guidance was not straight forward.

   iv.          Applicants must ensure that land values were not over bid as an argument for reducing social housing numbers.

    v.          The hierarchy of policies on affordability puts profits before affordable housing requirements.

 

 

The Committee discussion is summarised as follows:

 

       i.          Expressed satisfaction that the concerns regarding the finish to the block containing social housing had been addressed. The alternative finish proposed and corresponding planning conditions were considered acceptable.

     ii.          Accepted that the proposed balconies were generous and noted that there was no policy in place offering guidance on this matter.

   iii.          Accepted that the proposed road would improve connectivity for cyclists. However, it was regrettable that no funding was available to improve the junctions at either end. Officers confirmed that this was a County Council responsibility.

   iv.          Accepted that a challenge on viability grounds was unlikely to succeed.

    v.          Suggested that a refusal on height grounds of Block G could be supported.

   vi.          Discussed the concerns around the height of this block as it would be:

·       Out of keeping with the area;

·       Would not deliver the bookend buildings envisaged by the Eastern Gate SPD.

·       Would dominate the area in both mass and height.

·       Would not enhance an already dreary streetscape.

 vii.          Discussed the parking and highway issues as follows:

·       Sought clarification regarding the bollarded entrance points to a road that would be adopted as public highway.

·       Suggested that parking would be difficult to control.

·       Accepted that this was not grounds for refusal of the application.

viii.          Discussed the possibility of using emerging policy regarding amenity and usable space.

 

The Committee considered recommendation 2

 

2: To REFUSE the application for any or all of the issues as set out above and highlighted in the table below. In considering refusal reasons, members should be mindful of the officer advice and the potential for a costs award against the Council should the decision be subject to a planning appeal. If minded to pursue issues 1, 2, 4, 5 or 6 as refusal reasons, members should be clear exactly which policies the proposed development would be contrary to and the harm that would arise.

 

On a show of hands (3 votes to 3 – and on the Chair’s casting vote) this recommendation was lost.

 

The Committee:

 

Resolved (3 votes to 3 – and on the Chair’s casting vote to approve the application in light of the further advice and the additional/amended conditions recommended plus those set out in the original officer report and amendment sheet, together with a S106 agreement (including a claw-back clause) as below:

 

Those conditions as recommended as part of the 6 January 2016 Planning Committee Report.

·       revised conditions 32 and 34 as set out on the amendment sheet to the 6 January 2016 Planning Committee.

·       an additional condition (18) as set out at paragraph 0.8 of the 3 February 2016 Committee report regarding the treatment of Block H.

·       revised condition 14 as set out at paragraph 0.51 of the 3 February 2016 Committee report regarding renewable energy technologies.

·       An S106 agreement, including a claw-back clause, for terms as set out in the 6 January 2016 Planning Committee Report.