Agenda item

Proposal

Outline application for the erection of up to 100 dwellings, including 17 affordable, together with associated amenity/play space; the erection of a building to provide a community use (Use Class D1) at ground floor level with office (Use Class B1) above following demolition of existing buildings except the ambulance station together with associated works (revision of WA/2016/0101) (as amended by email received 19/12/2016, plan received 18/01/2017 and Affordable Housing Viability Report received 18/01/2017)

Recommendation

RECOMMENDATION A - That subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure 17% affordable housing, infrastructure contributions towards off site highway improvements, primary education, provision of and public access to rear open space, management and maintenance of on-site SuDS within 3 months of the date of resolution to grant permission and conditions, permission be GRANTED.

RECOMMENDATION B - That, if requirements on Recommendation A are not met, permission be REFUSED.

Proposed development

Outline application for the erection of up to 100 dwellings, including 17 affordable, together with associated amenity/play space; the erection of a building to provide a community use (Use Class D1) at ground floor level with office (Use Class B1) above following demolition of existing buildings except the ambulance station together with associated works (revision of WA/2016/0101) (as amended by email received 19/12/2016, plan received 18/01/2017 and Affordable Housing Viability Report received 18/01/2017).

Officers update

With reference to the report circulated with the agenda, Officers presented a summary of the proposed development, including site plans and an indicative layout. Members were advised that the application was deferred at the Joint Planning Committee on 19 December 2016 for the following reasons:  

- An improved indicative layout and design.

- A greater proportion of proposed employment uses in the scheme.

- A reduction in number of residential dwellings.

- A fully worked out parking plan

Since that meeting, the applicants had sought to address these matters and had submitted a revised indicative layout plan, indicated an increase in underground parking provision (66 spaces), an Affordable Housing Viability Report, which resulted in a reduction of affordable housing provision to 17% and an increase in Class B1 office space from 287 sq m to 574sqm.

The Committee noted from the update sheet that advised that there were two additional letters of objection and four in support but they did not raise any new matters which had not already been considered. The update included a plan providing an indicative layout for the proposed underground and under-croft car parking. It also highlighted relevant space for lifts and stairs access to the residential units above. There was also an amendment to condition 3 to include the additional drawing numbers.

Committee deliberations

The Committee considered the officers report and presentation, and discussed the application.

The Committee was pleased to see the steps taken by the applicant to amend the scheme since it had last been considered. Members were concerned about the amount of affordable housing and requested to see the viability report but were assured that the applicant’s Affordable Housing Viability Assessment had been independently reviewed by the DVS Property Specialists, which concluded that 17% affordable housing provision was the amount of affordable housing that can be provided in order for the scheme to be viable, together with the associated remediation and construction costs.

The Committee also raised concern about the flood risk for the underground car park. Members were advised that Thames Water has raised no objection to the scheme. Surrey County Council also raised no objection and was satisfied that a viable method of dealing with surface water could be achieved, which would not increase flood risk. This was because of a 17% reduction in the impermeable area and hence a consequential reduction in using the existing system. They had though requested suggested conditions requiring submission of a Surface water drainage scheme.

There was still slight concern about the height of the properties. However, Officers consider that the benefits of the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the adverse impacts identified, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole or specific policies in the NPPF indicated that the proposal should be resisted.

Having discussed the application the Committee then moved to the vote on the revised Recommendation A and it was granted as below by a vote of 12 in favour and 2 against. There were no abstentions.

Decision

RESOLVED that subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure 17% affordable housing, infrastructure contributions towards off site highway improvements, primary education, provision of and public access to rear open space, management and maintenance of on-site SuDS, and amendment to condition 3, within 3 months of the date of resolution to grant permission and conditions, permission be GRANTED.

Recommendation B: RESOLVED that, if requirements on Recommendation A are not met, permission be REFUSED.

Public speaking

In accordance with the Council’s arrangements for public participation at meetings, the following made representations in respect of the application, which were duly considered:

Holly Boyle – Objector

Mr Trendle - Applicant/Agent