Agenda item

Councillor Paul Burton left the meeting room, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this item.

The committee received and considered an application for the erection of 16 dwellings at land adjoining 31 and 34 Simpson’s Way, Kennington.

The committee was reminded that it had resolved to refuse a previous scheme for the site as did not contain the requisite provision of affordable housing.  The committee was asked to consider a revised application.

It was reported that that there had been 58 letters of objection received in respect of the application and a petition against the application with 198 signatures had been received by the Council. It was reported that the position of number 29 Simpsons Way had been incorrectly positioned on the block plan, it was actually 5 metres from the boundary. Officers advised that the affordable housing provision was found to be adequate and recommended that the decision to grant planning permission be delegated to the head of planning subject to conditions.

Reverend Ben Whitaker made a statement to the committee objecting to the application. He raised concerns regarding the relationship between 29 Simpsons Way and the proposed plot 2, in that plot 2 would be dominated and overlooked by 29 Simpsons way. He raised concerns regarding the provision of parking, the size of the proposed garages and lack of storage for bicycles, leading to overspill parking into Simpsons Way.  He commented that the amended plans were not available until 10 days prior to the meeting and therefore there had not been proper consultation. He referred to the strength of local feeling against this application and urged the committee to refuse the application.

Nick Lysba made a statement on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the concerns of committee regarding affordable housing had been addressed.

Councillor Gareth Jennings made a statement to the committee objecting to the application. He raised concerns regarding parking, the impact on the open space in Kennington and the impact of the high fence which he considered would dominate and attract graffiti.

One member commented that he was concerned with the relationship between 29 Simpsons Way and the proposed plot 2, he expressed his view that the garden of plot 2 should be protected as if it were an existing property. He commented that he found the other elements of the application acceptable.

Other members agreed with this view. One member commented that although there was some impact on plot 2, the potential purchaser of this plot would be able to view this impact on purchase and so did not consider it reason enough for refusal. He added that the County Engineer’s view was clear and argued that the committee had to take his advice. He commented that he would like to see the boundaries of plots 6 and 8 treated with close boarded fences, and that the walls adjoining plots 4 through to 7 should be brick or stone and similarly plots 15 and 16.  He also suggested that the applicant be asked to stake out the plots so that the slab levels and the size of the plots could be visually ascertained.  He suggested that plots 1 and 2 should have top hung obscure glazed windows on the landing to prevent overlooking at number 34.  Finally he suggested that construction should not take place on plots 9 to 16 until the slab levels had been inspected by a planning officer.

One member commented that the committee should still be concerned with the impact on plot 2 regardless of the fact that it had yet to be built.

The Chairman moved the officer’s recommendation together with the additional conditions suggested above.

RESOLVED (by 10 votes in favour, 3 votes against and 1 abstention)

That authority to permit application KEN/20928/1 be delegated to the head of planning, in consultation with the committee’s chair and/or vice-chair, subject to:

(i)                 completion of section 106 obligations to control the affordable housing and secure financial considerations to social infrastructure; and

(ii)               conditions as follows:

1.                  TL1 (time limit – full permission)

2.                  MC2 (materials – samples)

3.                  RE17 (slab levels dwellings)

4.                  RE6 (boundary details)

5.                  RE11 (garage accommodation)

6.                  HY2 (access in accordance with specified plan)

7.                  HY7 (car parking)

8.                  HY12 (estate roads)

9.                  HY13 (estate roads prior to occupation)

10.             MC32 (construction method statement)

11.             LS1 (landscaping scheme submission)

12.             Landscaping scheme implementation

13.             Submission of biodiversity measures

14.             MC24 (drainage details – surface water and foul water)

(iii)             the boundaries of plots 6 and 8 shall be treated with close boarded fences;

(iv)             the walls adjoining plots 4 to 7 and plots 15 and 16 shall be brick or stone;

(v)               the applicant shall stake out the plots so that the slab levels and the size of the plots can be visually ascertained;

(vi)             plots 1 and 2 shall have top-hung, obscure-glazed windows on the landing to prevent overlooking to number 34; and

(vii)           construction shall not take place on plots 9 to 16 until the slab levels have been inspected by a planning officer.