Agenda item

Ward: Eltham Town & Avery Hill

The Local Planning Committee is requested to grant full planning permission for the erection of three dwellings with associated access, landscaping and refuse on land to the rear of nos. 182 - 184 Avery Hill Road.

Reolved that full planning permission be granted for erection of three dwellings with associated access, landscaping and refuse on land to the rear of nos. 182 - 184 Avery Hill Road.

Consent subject to -

·      the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

·      Amendment to Condition 11 to include requirement for SUDS drainage system.

That the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) be authorised to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in Appendix 2 of the report, agreed amendment and the minutes of this Local Planning Committee meeting, where the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) considers it appropriate, before issuing the final decision notice. 

Councillor Pat Greenwell reclused herself in respect of this item, as one of the Members who called the item in for consideration.  Further, the chair noted that photographs taken at a pre-meeting site visit had been circulated to all members of the planning committee. 

Members accepted an illustrative presentation of the application, which recommended approval, from the Area Planning Manager (East) who advised that paragraph 6.4, consultation response required amending as the three on-site car parking spaces had been removed and it was considered could be accommodated in the surrounding streets as addressed in the report.

In response to inquiries from Members, the Area Planning Manager (East) clarified that the London Plan parking guideline was 1.5 spaces for three houses. However, due to concerns raised by the Highways expert regarding the long single vehicle access route with extremely limited visibility and safety issues at the site entrance for both vehicles and pedestrians, on-site parking had been removed. Bollards would be installed to prevent vehicle access to the site, except for emergency vehicles. The parking survey revealed sufficient capacity, with public parking spaces available near the site entrance, and there is no obligation to provide on-site disability parking.

He advised that the Construction Management plan and method statement would consideration the limited access and constrained nature of the site, highlighting that approval had been obtained for similarly sized developments without adverse impact to local residents Further, due to the size of the development there was no requirement to provide wheelchair adapted properties and this could not be conditioned, however, they would still need to comply with accessible and adaptable standards.

The Area Planning Manager (East) confirmed that all trees located on the site, including those along the boundaries, would be preserved. Condition 11 required submission of a landscaping strategy, including details regarding additional trees and soft landscaping. That wouldalso bein thecommunal areasto thefront withthe privategardens to the rear.

The Planning Committee accepted an address from Councillor Pat Greenwell, speaking as a Ward Councillor in objection to the proposal. She noted that previous applications for residential properties on this site had all been refused, noting that an application for two detached bungalows were also refused at appeal.  She felt the proposed two semi-detached buildings would be an overdevelopment and create overlooking with loss of light and privacy to existing residents.

She felt the lack of onsite parking would create pressure on the already congested Avery Hill Road which could not accommodate the additional parking.  Further, when the undergrowth was cut back that area was prone to flooding as there was nowhere for the water to be soaked up, noting that Holland Park Gardens had flooding issues since being developed.  Further, that the site was formally part of the rear gardens to 184 and 182 and felt consent would set an unacceptable precedent for similar proposals on residential gardens.

In response to Members questions, Councillor Greenwell insisted that Avery Hill Road would not easily or safely accommodate additional parking as it was a busy and dangerous road and re-iterated the concerns raised in her address.

The Planning Committee accepted an address from a resident who advised Holland Gardens backed onto the gardens of Avery Hill Road and was prone to significant flooding issues which were not identified or addressed by the application, though the Council was aware of the issue.  That there were no issues of flooding until the further development in the area noting that the Linden Homes Construction was postponed due to drainage concerns.  He continued that, during heavy rainfall it was common for his garden and others along the boundary to 184 to become flooded, submerging the patio and topping the back door flagstones. With the consent of the chair he showed Members photos, on his phone, of the flooding.

In response to Members questions, the speaker advised that all residents back gardens flooded since the new builds.

The Area Planning Manager (East) confirmed the area was identified as Flood Risk zone one and advised that, if Members were minded, they could condition the requirement for a Sustainable drainage system (SuDS).

The Planning Committee accepted a further address from a resident of Overmead who raised concerns at the loss of day and sunlight and overlooking into existing residents gardens from the new development, leading to a loss of privacy.  Further, due to the lack of parking In Avery Hill Road, Overmead was similarly congested with parking.

The planning Committee accepted an address from the applicant’s agent who set out the history of the proposal, which was in line the NPPF and London Plan.  The comments in respect of previously refused proposals had been taken into account as part of the design of the application.  It was considered the design was sensitive to the area; all the existing trees would be retained with additional trees and landscaping and the development would be car free.

In response to Members questions the applicant’s agent noted the site was located in a flood zone one area and confirmed that they would not oppose the requirement for a SuDS.  The boundary treatment, particularly adjacent to Overmead, could be addressed to improve biodiversity levels and improve privacy, noting that the proposed buildings were not as tall as those in Avery Hill Road.  She further confirmed that obscured glazing would be used in stair and bathroom windows and there would be no direct overlooking to other properties, either from or to the development.

The Area Planning Manager (East) advised that the separation distances to adjacent properties were similar to other properties on Avery Hill. 

Due to the 19 meters separation distance to the side elevation of properties in Overmead, and a window to window view line of less than a 25% angle there would be no overshadowing and  there was no requirement to undertake a sun and daylight assessment as there would be no breach of BREEAM standards. 

Members moved to deliberate and noting the speakers comments in respect of the possible impact on loss of day and sunlight and flooding they had to balance the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal in relation to policy.

It was considered the proposal was in keeping with the area and met housing need and it was felt there was sufficient space between the proposal and existing homes.  That the the landscaping should increase privacy, assist with flooding, and soften the look of the development, but more could be done it terms of landscaping.

Surprise was expressed that speakers considered the proposal for family housing as an overdevelopment and that considering refusal of houses due to causing traffic issues was nonsense.

It was felt that the hard standing should be kept to a minimum and, where possible, should be permeable.   They expressed concern at the constraints on the size of the site and, given the proximity to existing dwellings, construction should not be undertaken over weekends.

Accepting the Environment Agency website indicated the area was at low risk of flooding and surface water Members expressed concern at the points raised in respect of flooding.  Further, whilst the requirement for a SuDS condition was only mandatory for major applications given the concerns raised and the applicant’s willingness to accept such a condition it was felt that including a SuDS condition should be considered

The Chair summarised that the construction management plan would need to be robust and address the constraints of the site as required by Condition 4.  That Condition 11 would address the issues of landscaping, noting the applicant’s agent’s confirmation to look at boundary treatments.,

At the consent of the Chair the Area Planning Manager (East) confirmed the applicant would need to submit details construction management plans which would address noise and vibration levels and how these would be monitored to protect residential amenity.   They would also need to comply with the Councils small site construction details, which would also cover hours of operation.

The Chair put the proposal to Condition add the requirement for a SUDS in respect of flooding, which was agreed.

The Chair put the recommendation to grant consent with the additional condition requiring a SuDS to the vote with

5 Members in favour

0 Members against

0 Members abstaining

Resolved unanimously -

That full planning permission be granted for erection of three dwellings with associated access, landscaping and refuse on land to the rear of nos. 182 - 184 Avery Hill Road.

That consent was subject to -

·        the Conditions set out in Appendix 2 of the report.

·        Amendment to Condition 11 to include requirement for SUDS drainage system.

That the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) be authorised to make any minor changes to the detailed wording of the recommended conditions as set out in Appendix 2 of the report, agreed amendment and the minutes of this Local Planning Committee meeting, where the Assistant Director (Planning & Building Control) considers it appropriate, before issuing the final decision notice.