Transcript
Welcome to this meeting of the planning committee. I'm councillor James Husband, chairman of the committee. To my right I'm joined by fellow councillors and we will be making the decision on the case in front of us this evening. We're also joined principally to my left by officers who will be presenting the reports in front of us, offering us advice and this evening
the officer team is led by Amanda Reid, who's the director of planning, a lady sitting on my immediate left. So I think we can make a start. So Holly, any apologies for absence?
Good evening chairman. We have apologies this evening from councillor Will Lane. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. Colleagues, are there any declarations of interest? No, there are none. Very good. In that case now I believe there are no minutes that we have to sign this evening.
So we can move straight into the business in front of us, which is just one case, which is Eldon House at the top of Sloan Avenue and I think Fiona Ray and Julia Dravitzky, that you, Fiona and Julia, you're going to present this, aren't you?
So please, when you're ready, do go ahead. Thank you chairman. First of all, I would like to bring members' attention to the addendum report.
There are some additional information within section 7.2, which relates to a legal agreement.
This application is seeking planning permission for demolition of existing building and erection of a six-story building to create retail space on the ground and the basement level and 24 residential homes across the upper floors.
I'll just run some slides for members. So this is the site location plan showing the site outline in red.
The site occupies a prominent wedge-shaped corner plot bound by Sloan Avenue, Brompton Road, and Dracott Avenue.
This is the area view. Again, the red circle showing the existing building.
There are some side photographs showing the existing building. The one on the left shows from Pelham Street, the one on the right from Brompton Road.
Again, the one on the left, along Sloan Avenue, and the one on the right, along Brompton Road, again.
This is the proposed section showing the proposed uses within the building.
So the basement and the ground floor would be retail with some ancillary residential use, including bicycle storage, refused storage on the plant,
and the residential uses on the upper floors.
Here we've got some proposed elevations. The first one is along Sloan Avenue, and we've got the Dracott Avenue, Brompton Road,
and the proposed elevations shown from the properties along Sloan Avenue and Dracott Avenue.
The section on the right-hand side shows the line where the elevation has been taken from.
Here are the existing proposed massing, the existing on the left-hand side, and the proposed on the right-hand side.
Just another view of the massing, again, existing on the left and proposed on the right.
There are some visuals of the proposed building.
So this one is taken from Brompton Road, this one from Dracott Avenue, Sloan Avenue, Walton Street, Pelham Street, Pelham Crescent,
and Fulham Road, showing the Michelin House, which is a great tool listed building.
And the last slide shows the planning balance proposed, the land use, which will be retail and residential,
provision of new homes, design and heritage implications, living conditions, transport and highways,
environmental and sustainability implications.
The Office's recommendations are set out within the report to grant planning permission subject to completion of Section 106.
And that concludes my presentation. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Now, colleagues, no objectives have registered to speak, so we move straight into our chance to ask officers questions.
We'd like to go first.
Toby.
Thank you, Chair.
Yes, I'm just trying to get my head around.
So, in part of the – well, what I'm reading from is actually the responses to objections,
because I couldn't find the right bit quickly enough.
But it's a proposal – the FAA has demonstrated that proposals could not accommodate affordable housing off-site
and could not secure a payment in lieu.
So, could you just speak to me a little bit about why that is and what that means in terms of the S106?
Yes, absolutely.
You are correct.
There's no proposed payment in lieu and there will be no affordable housing contribution on-site.
That has been safely scrutinised by our assessor, the independent assessor that works for the council as well as for the applicants.
I would like to bring your attention to paragraphs 2.24 of the Office's report to 2.27.
Basically, the result will be that there will be a deficit and there is no affordable housing contribution on-site.
However, I would like to bring members' attention to the addendum report.
As part of this legal agreement, we are – we were recommending to securing early and late stage review mechanism.
And if there is any additional contribution, any money coming from the site, that would be towards the affordable housing in the borough.
Okay, thank you.
Yeah.
Can I just pursue Councillor Benton's line of thought there?
As I understand it, viability is – there's a set methodology which, you know, we all really have to – well, we just have to accept it and everyone uses it.
But, obviously, the assumptions you put into a model clearly can have a big impact on the results.
And what we're saying in the report here is that, you know, the applicant obviously puts forward a set of assumptions.
We employ people to challenge that.
And, surprise, surprise, they come up with slightly different figures.
But the point seems to be that our technical advisors still are saying we see this as a – well, talk about 1.7 million as a modest amount of money.
But as a small deficit.
And we feel that that is something that we need to accept.
Because, I mean, I had thought sort of just intuitively when I first heard about this application without any great knowledge that the scope for some sort of payment in lieu of affordable housing, there might be something.
I could see that actually having affordable housing on site, given the rather odd triangular nature of the site, would probably be impossible.
But I just wanted to check that that is indeed how things have panned out as we've gone through the process of examining this issue of viability, which, of course, links down to affordable housing.
Yes, absolutely.
Yes, absolutely.
And what you've said is absolutely correct.
The applicant's assessor came up with the numbers and their calculation, which was scrutinized by our assessor.
As you can see, yes, they came to different numbers at the end.
However, our assessor also concluded there will be no viable for payment in lieu.
However, as you said, the numbers can change.
So the early and the late review mechanism would help us if, for example, later along the line there would be, again, changes in numbers.
We can secure it by that mechanism.
And that's part of the Section 106 agreement, the reviews.
That's correct, yes.
So, okay.
So the addendum, that's going to be written into the Section 106 agreement.
Good.
Thank you.
Councillor Sarran.
Thank you, Chair.
So, without wanting to really labour this point about the affordable housing and the review mechanism, I wanted to get a bit more detail about how that exactly works.
It's not a condition.
It's part of a legal agreement, I think, from what is in the addendum.
And how – I mean, look, I think, you know, I welcome the development.
Obviously, residents seem to support it.
The ward councillors support it.
I know this building well.
I've seen it for many years.
I think it's going to be an improvement.
Obviously, it improves the housing.
There's extra units.
So there's a lot to be, you know, positive about.
But it was the first thing I noticed about the affordable housing.
And it does worry me because I don't really believe that somebody would go ahead and do a development like this if they really thought they were going to lose £9 million.
And I think, as the Chair says, you know, whatever you put into the model, you'll get different answers out.
So, which is all fine.
I mean, we welcome development and we want our housing to be improved.
But can you just tell us a bit about how that review will actually work?
Like, at what point will we look at it?
When do we, when are we going to assess it?
Is it after there are people living in the block?
You know, just to be sure that these things are going to happen in a timely way and that we can rely that if there is profit, that all our residents will benefit from it.
Yes.
I might take that question if that's okay.
So, review mechanisms allow for us to revisit the viability and subsequently increase the contributions if profit increases over time.
So, it is, viability changes all the time dependent on, you know, economic circumstances.
And what we want to do is capture it based on the real sales values.
So, we'll have triggers within the Section 106 drafting.
The reason we have an early one and a late stage one is to make sure, you know, even if the development took 10 years to build and they went between different developers, you know, things have happened like that when economic circumstances change.
We will not lose out as a council based on those real sales values.
So, there will be an early stage one, early on in the process when the development first starts.
And then the late stage review is when it captures the real sales values of what's been on site.
And we'll get that confirmed to us through our solicitors.
And we can rerun the viability at that point.
Another question, if I could.
It's on a different subject.
I just wanted to raise the question of the public art.
And, obviously, that is included also in the addendum.
And, I mean, I think we will know that we've had several discussions about public art over the years.
And I just wanted to ask what our position on it is today and with developments like this.
I see that it says culture plan and, you know, I totally welcome that because I think we've been a little bit narrow about our definition of how these developments can contribute.
But can you tell us a bit more about how that will be thought about, who's in charge of deciding it, who makes the proposals?
Thank you, yeah, so within the addendum report, we are increasing, we widening the definition of the public art to include the culture plan within as well.
Within the council, we do have a culture team and they're dealing with public art and any exhibitions or working with the communities.
So, as part of this application, given the constraints of the site, it would not really be possible to do any public art on site,
which would mean that we would secure some financial contribution towards public art or different cultural activities within the borough.
And that will be scrutinized by our cultural team alongside with the community.
And as part of the cultural plan, the applicant will have to kind of go through those steps.
But it will be most likely a financial contribution, given the constraint of the site.
Thank you, Chair.
Just on the permit-free development, I understand there's an uplift of four residential units, which is a welcoming news for the borough,
considering our housing shortage.
Do the council ever say on which units would have a permit-free, or is it the developer who has, who would be very clear when they do the sales,
you know, I wouldn't say pitching, but, you know, the broachers and everything.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Yeah, it's a very good question.
So, as part of the, again, legal agreement, we will be including a site, like, flow plan, usually with the negotiation with the applicant,
which units they would like to be permit-free, and which one would be including the permit parking.
That would be clear on the, on the broach and all the materials, which units, because some units,
the permit-free units, obviously, would be disadvantageous in their own right.
I'm not sure whether I've understood the question, but maybe just kind of step back to the existing 20 units on site.
All those units are eligible for parking, and we are not taking those right away from the residents,
from those units, from the numbers of units.
The additional four would be permit-free, and as part of the legal agreement negotiation,
we will be discussing with the applicant which units will be parking-free or not.
So, just to follow on from what Arjen was saying, so we're going up from 20 to 24 units.
I mean, my understanding, and I think, you know, in a common sense way, that, I mean, in a location such as this,
it may well be that there are people who would be interested in purchasing one of these new homes
that actually wouldn't be bothered about whether they had a parking permit or not.
And essentially, what we're really saying is there are now 24 homes, but there can only ever be 20 permits.
Is that, that's really what we're saying, isn't it?
Yeah, different question.
I understand there's a reduction in the commercial space, 15 square meters,
which is significantly low when you compare the size of the development,
but that's not against our local plan with the, obviously, you know, the business side of it.
You know, it's also important for the borough.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Yeah, so as part of the assessment, we have considered whether the union will still be viable as a commercial,
given the loss of the commercial space, but it is a very insignificant number in terms of taking into consideration
the overall floor space, which will be 745 square meters, which is significant.
Okay, thank you very much indeed.
Well, I think we can probably move to make a decision about this.
Well, we've seen the photographs.
I think it's one of those buildings that it's probably a good thing that most people never look up at buildings, actually, personally.
But, and it does provide for new homes.
We haven't discussed the existing homes.
I think a lot of them are rather small and not really very good.
So, the uplift, in addition to creating better homes, is significant.
I think one thing that we haven't mentioned is that there are, I think, a small number of windows for people who are neighbors nearby.
And they are impacted to some extent, but bearing in mind the quality of the new building, the new homes, and the other sort of improvements that are planned.
I think in terms of the planning balance, I would say this needs to be considered as acceptable overall.
Is there anybody who would like to put a contrary view to that?
Or can I just move to a vote?
Toby, do you want to add anything?
More just a quick addition than a contradiction.
Yeah, I just wanted to double check.
The actual loss of light is considered acceptable according to the standards we adopt.
Am I right in thinking that there's plenty of, well, say plenty sounds like I'm disappointed.
It's dismissive, but you know what I mean.
There's other light coming in.
It's not above the threshold or anything like that.
Thank you.
I'm happy to answer.
I'm just going to refer you back.
The two properties will be affected by the proposal above the BRA guidance.
And the officer has assessed it carefully alongside the daylight and sidelight assessment that's been submitted with the application.
However, the conclusion has been made, given that there are other windows for that property and the existing kind of context of the site will be acceptable, not to warrant the refusal from our site.
But I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 6.80 to 6.89, which talks about the two properties in detail, 128 and 130, Traycott Avenue.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Also, the word habitable was in there somewhere.
And I just stood to be quite mitigating.
And if I were to just make one – the only thing I'd like to just sort of be noted is the question of the methodology and the triggers for this early and late review mechanism is I just would like to emphasize the importance of it and digging into that moving on.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Okay.
Well, I think – yeah, I think that's a good point, actually.
So, the recommendation, which is in section 1.8 of the report, is to grant, with the various – obviously
the various conditions, and noting the addendum report, which in particular sets out,
and the review mechanisms for affordable housing, and obviously the need for the section 106 agreement to be completed in due course.
And we're saying actually the end of October.
I don't know.
Hazel, is that – we're happy with that?
We're content with that?
Yeah.
I think that's reasonable.
So, there's always a discretion to agree an extension to that if things are progressing, but it hasn't been quite agreed.
But I think, given the number of hazard terms, I think that's a reasonable time scale.
Thank you.
Well, in that case, I'd like to put the recommendation to the vote.
Can I see those in favour of the recommendations, please?
So, the recommendations are agreed.
Thank you very much indeed.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Thank you.