Planning Report – October 2019

Applications

Planning Committee Meeting (6th November 2019)
New
Decided
Planning Conditions
Awaiting Decision

Planning Complaints

Additional Matters

Applications

Planning Committee Meeting (6th November 2019)

17 Orchard Avenue – Ref: 19/00131/FUL
Demolition of existing detached house, erection of 2- storey building with further floor of accommodation in roof-space comprising 1 x 1 bedroom flat, 3 x 2-bedroom flats and 1 x 3 bedroom flat, formation of vehicular access and provision of 4 associated parking spaces and refuse storage.

We objected on the grounds that the proposal does not meet London Plan Policy 3.5 minimum space standards for new dwellings and is non-compliant to Policy DM10.4 Private Amenity Space.

SPD2 Para 2.29 requires Height of projection of neighbouring properties should be no greater than 45° as measured from the Centre of the closest habitable room on the rear of the neighbouring property. The projected 45° line is not clear of the proposed structure and thus fails the Policy SPD2 45° Rule.

We also objected to this proposal on the grounds that it does NOT meet the requirements of Policy DM13 or Council Guidance on Refuse & Recycling for New Developments.

The proposal is non-compliant to Policy: Shirley Place Homes para 11.200 & Character, Heritage and Design para 11.202, and the policy Shirley Place Transport para 11.205 has NOT been fulfilled.

On 31st July amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

Revised planning application involving demolition of existing detached house, erection of 3-storey building with further floor of accommodation in roofspace comprising 3 x 1 bedroom flat, 4 x 2-bedroom flats and 1 x 3 bedroom flat, formation of vehicular access and provision of 4 associated parking spaces and refuse storage.

The new plans have increased the height of the development by an additional storey.

MORA Objection sent: 3rd Apr 2019
MORA Objection (Amended Drawings) sent: 5th Aug 2019
Consultation closed: 10th Apr 2019 extended to 23rd Aug 2019
Target Decision: 5th May 2019
• Total Consulted: 42
• Objections: 16
• Supporting: 1
Councillor referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (16th Apr 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 6th Nov 2019

Further developments are in the November 2019 Planning Report.

New

16-18 Ash Tree Close – Ref: 19/04705/FUL
Demolition of the existing dwellings. Erection of 8 x 3-bed semi-detached dwellings with associated access, parking, refuse and cycle stores.

Flyer for download and distribution.

Suggested Reasons for refusal:

  • Over Development Residential Density at close on 300hr/ha for Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) at 1a (should be between 150 to 200hr/ha at PTAL 1a);
  • Over Development Housing Density at close on 60 units/ha at PTAL 1a (should be ≈48 units/ha at PTAL 1a);
  • Densities would require a PTAL of >5 for Residential Density and approaching 3 for Housing Density when the locality has PTAL of 1a (numerically = 0.66);
  • Bed Spaces for 40 new occupants and only 8 car parking spaces;
  • Inappropriate Refuse and Recycling Storage for each dwelling;
  • Access limited width and parking difficult to negotiate ingress and egress.
  • The access would limit the available turning head for existing residents at Ash Tree Close Cul-De-Sac.

MORA Objection Sent: 20th Oct 2019
Consultation Closes: 30th Oct 2019
Target Decision: 27th Nov 2019
• Total Consulted: 8
• Objections: 50
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Sue Bennett (31st Oct 2019)

Further developments are in the November 2019 Planning Report.

151 Wickham Road – Ref: 19/04149/FUL
Erection of a two storey stepped, side and rear extension with alterations to the roof and additional rear dormer, retention of the existing commercial unit and construction of four additional self-contained apartments.

This site has a previous approved application for a bungalow with basement which we objected to but was granted permission at Committee on 23rd Feb 2018.

This application replaces that previous application.

The Policies Map shows that this proposed development is within the (Urban) Shirley Primary Shopping Area DM45.1 but is NOT within an area designated for “Focussed Intensification”.

The proposal has no car parking provision and as the applicant has NOT supplied any justification for NOT meeting the Policy 3.4 or any replacement policy.

This application should be refused as over-development for the location at this PTAL of 3 for a more appropriate Residential and Housing Density proposal. The Residential Density requires a PTAL of 5.26 and Housing Density requires a PTAL of 5.722 at a location with a TfL current and forecast PTAL at 2031 of just 3, without any justification as required of the London Plan Supplementary Housing Guide para 1.3.8.

This proposed development does NOT fully meet the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.5 for quality and design of housing developments for future occupants and is non-compliant to the London Plan Policy 3.6 Play Space for the future children of the families of this proposed development.

At an Urban Setting, PTAL 3 Recommended Residential Density of 450 hr/ha and Housing Density of 170 u/ha the parking provision in accordance with London Plan Policy 6.13 Table 6.2 requires up to One space per unit. There are none!

The proposed development NOT incorporate ANY high quality communal outdoor amenity space and is NON- COMPLIANT to Policy DM10.5 and therefore this proposal be refused.

Unit 2 Private Balcony is configured as ≈1.5m wide which means the depth is ≈3.33m which is an awkward configuration considering it is unlikely to ever get direct sunlight and therefore non-compliant to Policy DM10.6 d).

The Flat roof-forms for Unit 2 and Unit 3 do not positively contribute to the local character roof forms as all local roof forms are of pitched tiled roofs. Therefore, this proposal is non-compliant to DM10.7 para d) and should be refused.

The proposed development has virtually no landscaping area which could be considered attractive and therefore is non-compliant to Policy DM10.8 in its entirety.

The proposed development does not reflect the architecture of the existing and surrounding character or features of the existing structures and is therefore NOT compliant to Policy DM10.9 para a), b & d). and should be refused.

MORA Objection sent: 18th Sep 2019
Consultation Closes: 27th Sep 2019
Target Decision: 28th Oct 2019
• Total Consulted: 44
• Objections: 5
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referrals: Councillor Sue Bennett (24th Sep 2019)

Further developments are in the November 2019 Planning Report.

Orchard Park High School – Ref: 19/04183/FUL
Single storey rear extension, conversion to community gym including external alterations and access arrangements

Design & Access Statement
8.0 Conclusion

  • The opportunity to implement this scheme would utilise an existing building.
  • We believe the conversion to the existing facility will offer fitness to a wider customer base and prove an asset to the area.
  • The change of use for Use Class D2.
  • The proposal will create a range of full-time part time and self-employment opportunities within the local economy.
  • The proposed scheme will involve a large invest by the applicant and will provide a high-quality facility. The facility will offer fitness to a wider customer base and prove a long-term asset to the area.
  • Taking all the above into consideration, we believe the proposal brings into use a vacant building, in a suitable location and satisfies planning policy.

Consultation Closes: 16th Oct 2019
Target Decision: 8th Nov 2019
• Total Consulted: 44
• Objections: 0
• Supporting: 0

Further developments are in the November 2019 Planning Report.

Decided

56 Woodmere Avenue – Ref: 19/01352/FUL
Demolition of a single-family dwelling and erection of a 3- storey block containing 2 x 3-bedroom and 7 x 2-bedroom apartments with associated access, 9 parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse store (amended plans and description)

We objected on grounds of over-development and non-compliance to the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential due to excessive Residential Density and excessive Housing Density.

The proposed dwelling does not fully meet the required minimum space standards as required by the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.5, on grounds of inadequate parking provision and non-compliance to the London Plan Policy 6.13 and London Plan Policy 6.11.

We also objected on grounds of non-compliance to Croydon Plan Policy DM10.1 and Para 6.37, and that it does not meet the requirements of Policy DM13 or Council Guidance on Refuse & Recycling for New Developments as published by Croydon Council with regard to Refuse Storage Area Capacity. It is also non-compliant to Policy: Shirley Place Homes para 11.200 & Character, Heritage and Design para 11.202.

On 28th May amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

  • All Proposed Plans
  • Landscape Maintenance Plan Report
  • Planting Schedule Report
  • Tree Specifications Report
  • Soft Landscaping Plans
  • Hard Landscaping Plans

The main changes are the internal layouts to meet the London Plan Table 3.3 minimum space standards and the addition of two car parking spaces fronting Woodmere Ave.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.1 – Thursday 1st August.
Local Resident Richard Chambers spoke on behalf of affected residents.
Decision Deferred on the grounds of architectural design.

Councillor Paul Scott didn’t like the roof form – thought it was ugly so deferred to allow applicant to change to design of the roof and perhaps other aspects. Footprint likely to stay the same.

On 3rd Sep amended plans were uploaded to the online register.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.1 – Thursday 24th October 2019.
Local Resident Richard Chambers and Councillor Richard Chatterjee spoke on behalf of affected residents.
Voted 6:3 to Grant Permission.

MORA Objection sent: 8th Apr 2019
MORA Objection (Amended Drawings) sent: 2nd Jun 2019
MORA Objection (Second Amended Drawings) sent: 17th Sep 2019
MORA Objection Addendum (Second Amended Drawings) sent: 20th Sep 2019
Consultation Closes: 18th Apr 2019 – Extended to 20th Jun 2019 – Extended to 25th Sep (Amended Plans and Description)
Target Decision: 15th May 2019
• Total Consulted: 36
• Objections: 31
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (23rd Apr 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 1st Aug 2019
Decision Deferred: 1st Aug 2019
Deferred Planning Committee: 24th Oct 2019
Permission Granted: 24th Oct 2019

Further developments are in the November 2019 Planning Report.

14-16 Woodmere Close – Ref: 19/01484/FUL
Erection of 1 two storey dwelling located to rear of No’s 14 and 16 Woodmere Close New application in the rear gardens of 14 & 16 Woodmere Close adding to the new estate at the back gardens of Woodmere Close. This would be the last one in this series. It is likely to meet all planning policies as all previous applications for this site has met planning policies.

On 12th June amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

Consultation closes: 31st May 2019 extended to 2nd Aug 2019
Target Decision: 2nd Jul 2019
• Total Consulted: 31
• Objections: 7
• Supporting: 0
Permission Granted: 23rd Oct 2019

36 Lorne Avenue – Ref: 19/02839/FUL
Alterations/part demolition of host dwelling. Erection of two bedroom bungalow at rear with associated refuse/cycle storage and provision of associated off-street parking (AMENDED DESCRIPTION).

On 6th August amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

The Applicant’s Design & Access Statement states:

• New Dwellings Policy promotes the provision of new residential accommodation, but only where it respects the character and amenity of adjoining residential areas and provides an acceptable standard of accommodation for future occupiers.

We object to this proposed development on grounds of causing undue “harm” to the local area’s character and architectural historical style of dwellings inappropriate for the locality as defined by the NPPF The London Plan and The Croydon Local Plan and would set a precedent for the destruction of the character of the area and we recommend that this application be refused.

The proposed amended plans DO NOT provide the required information to assess whether the proposal meets the accommodation standards as defined in Policy 3.5 Table 3.3. Minimum Space Standards for New Dwellings and, therefore, it is not possible to prove it respects the Minimum requirements for the lifetime of the development.

We therefore object to this proposed development on grounds of non-compliance with London Plan Policy 3.5 with regard to provision of appropriate minimum space standards and built-in storage space and therefore this application should be refused.

The proposed development does NOT respect the development pattern, layout or siting of surrounding properties and therefore is Non- Compliant to Policy DM10.1 a).

The proposed development does NOT respect the scale, height massing nor density of the surrounding properties and therefore is Non-Compliant with Policy DM10.1 b).

The proposed development does NOT reflect the appearance, existing material and built form of surrounding properties and therefore is Non-Compliant with Policy DM10.1 c).

We object to this proposed development on grounds of overlooking and invasion of privacy into the adjacent garden amenity space of adjacent occupiers as defined in Policy DM10.6 b) and c). and there recommend that this application be refused

We object to this proposed development on grounds that there are no architectural or other screening to prevent overlooking into neighbouring dwellings as defined in SPD2 Section 2.9 and therefore this application should be refused.

We object to this proposed development on grounds of allocated Refuse and Recycling facilities for the new dwelling which is at an unacceptable location below a kitchen window of the host dwelling and is non-compliant to Waste and Recycling in Planning Policy Document at Para 2.4 External Storage – Design Features and Policy DM13.

We object to this proposed development on the grounds that the built form does NOT meet the SPD2 Design Guide 2.17 with regard to the observation of the building boundaries with adjacent properties which would result in eves and rainwater collection plumbing encroaching into adjacent properties curtilage area and recommend a refusal.

The access required by SPD2 is 3.6m and this access is only 3.1m

We object to this development proposal on grounds that the parking provision is totally unsuitable and could be a significant problem during any emergency requiring medical or fire service personnel gaining access to occupants on the site. The access drive is too narrow at 3.1m and does not meet the requirement of SPD2 of 3.6m minimum width and therefore this proposed development should be refused.

Permission refused on the grounds that:

  1. The proposed changes to the host building would unbalance the adjoining semi and would fail to respect or improve the existing pattern of buildings and adversely impact upon the street scene. The proposal would thereby conflict with Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2015 and Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018.
  2. The development would result in less than 200m2 of garden area and less than half of the existing garden to be retained at the host property which would be out of keeping with the adjoining semi and surrounding area and would thereby conflict Policy DM10.4 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018.

MORA Objection Sent: 11th Aug 2019
Consultation Closed: 19th Jul 2019 extended to 20th Aug 2019
Target Decision: 21st Aug 2019
• Total Consulted: 53
• Objections: 57
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referrals: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (6th Aug 2019 and 25th Jul 2019)
Permission Refused: 11th Oct 2019

Planning Conditions

9a Orchard Rise – Ref: 19/03633/DISC
Details pursuant to conditions 2 ( external materials), 7 ( land levels), 9 ( Construction logistics plan), 16 (Tree planting and protection), 17 (Rockery protection) of planning permission 18/06070/ful Demolition of the existing house and ancillary office and erection of a two-storey block of 4 flats and 5 three bedroom houses, provision of parking spaces, refuse storage and cycle stores.

The Local affected Residents convened a meeting on 10th September to raise these issues.

MORA Response to Conditions of Approval sent: 18th Sep 2019
Case Officer’s Report – Approval of the Conditions for 9a Orchard Rise 30th Sep 2019

Officer’s Report: Condition 9 Construction & Logistics Plan

Officers have examined the Construction Logistics Plan. In response to the local group objections officers agree with that vague terminology has been used. However, assuming that all deliveries take place within the site, specific pedestrian management plans would not generally be required as a construction vehicle using a crossover to access the site would not be any different to a normal vehicle access the private off-street parking facility via a crossover.

With regards to comments on hours of deliveries officers agree that the peak time deliveries need commitment to be avoided completely (except concrete). Displaying a large and clear sign indicating accepted delivery times on the hoarding would be very useful. However, outside of concrete deliveries, which are permitted in the restricted hours, any demand for public notice of exceptional deliveries is unreasonable. Exceptional deliveries would however require notification to LB Croydon as the highway authority. The specified working hours do not conflict with other standards.

Stacking of waiting vehicles is not permitted outside of the site, if the site believes this may happen, they need to approach us to arrange the use or establishment of a holding area before the start of works. Parking adjacent to dropped kerbs is legitimate and there is no right or power to restrict this providing access is not blocked, only parking in front of dropped kerbs is not permitted, which is a general condition of parking in London.

Assuming the access for construction is at least 3m, then access for construction traffic should not be an issue. Since the CLP states loading/unloading will take place on site, the craned deliveries from the road issue is irrelevant as it would not apply except by breach of the CLP commitments. The local groups comments on oversail would not apply unless loads are transported over other properties. Neighbouring sites are also not entitled to any notice of service connections beyond that provided by the utility companies. Dust/Noise is the remit of the Pollution and Environment Team. Environmental officer considers that the CLP I satisfactory for discharge regarding issues of air quality and noise.

Banksmen/Traffic Marshalls are obviously needed as usual practice. Officers consider that expecting residents to be notified of delivery activity is unreasonable and impractical. Likewise, neighbours are not entitled to CCTV images or recordings. Overall officers are satisfied with the details proposed and consider it sufficient to discharge this condition.

MORA Objection sent: 10th Jan 2019
MORA Objection Addendum sent: 25th Jan 2019
Consultation Closed: 30th Jan 2019
• Total Consulted: 59
• Objections: 42
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referrals: Councillor Sue Bennett (25th Jan 2019) & Councillor Richard Chatterjee (25th Jan 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 21st Mar 2019
Permission Granted: 21st Mar 2019
MORA Stage 1 Complaint (28th Mar 2019) relevant Planning Policies contained in the emerging Supplementary Planning Guidance at Suburban Residential Development SPD2 were NOT adequately considered in the determination of this planning application (Case Number: 4939913).
Stage 1 Response (24th Apr 2019) from Pete Smith, Head of Development Management.
MORA Stage 2 Complaint (1st May 2019)
Stage 2 Response (23rd May 2019) from Shifa Mustafa, Executive Director of Place.
Escalation to the Local Government Ombudsman (4th Jun 2019) Case ID Number 19 000 3809
Local Government Ombudsman Response (16th Jul 2019) from Neil Potts, Investigator.
MORA Response to Local Government Ombudsman (22nd Jul 2019)

Awaiting Decision

Land R/O The Shirley Inn Public House 158 Wickham Road Croydon: 19/03279/FUL
Erection of a residential development of two detached three storey buildings comprising a total of 6 flats (2×1 bed, 2×2 bed, 2×3 bed), provision of refuse and cycle storage, hard and soft landscaping and provision of two parking spaces.

The proposed development is outside the MORA area but in the Shirley North Ward. The application is in the Spring Park Residents’ Association (SPRA) Area, but we are in support in objecting to this development.

The proposed development fails to meet the objectives of London Plan Policy 3.4 – Optimising Housing Potential Table 3.2 in relation to an Excessive Residential Density of 459.77 hr/ha requiring a local PTAL of 5.031 when the local PTAL is actually only 3 and forecast to remain at PTAL 3 until 2031.

There is no allocated play space for children of the future occupants of this proposed development.

The development has inadequate parking provision in an Urban Shopping Locality of PTAL 3 of only two Parking Bays when the current London Plan Policy 6.13 requires up to 1.5 space at PTAL 3 and Residential Density of 459.77hr/ha & Housing Density of 114.94 units/ha which equates to 9 Parking Bays for 6 dwellings.

This proposed development also does not meet the Croydon Local Plan Policy DM10.1 in that development in the grounds of an existing building which is retained shall be subservient to that building. It also fails to meet the objectives of PolicyDM10.9 a) & b) in that the proposed development does NOT respect or enhance the local character specifically the architecture of the host Shirley Inn and Public House.

We objected to this proposed development on grounds of direct overlooking into gardens and properties of Barmouth Road.

MORA Objection Sent: 2nd Aug 2019
Consultation Closed: 11th Aug 2019
Target Decision: 6th Sep 2019
• Total Consulted: 45
• Objections: 65
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Sue Bennett (15th Aug 2019)

Further developments are in the November 2019 Planning Report.

Planning Complaints

37 Woodmere Avenue – Ref: 19/03064/FUL
Demolition of existing dwelling. Erection of two storey building (with roofspace accommodation) comprising 8 flats (1 x 3 bed, 5 x 2 bed and 2 x 1 bed) with associated car parking, amenity space and cycle and waste stores.

Flyer for download and distribution.

Suggested Reasons for refusal:

• Over Development Housing Density @ 91.43u/ha; should be between 40 to 65u/ha
• Over Development Residential Density @ 342.86hr/ha; should be between 150 to 200hr/ha
• Densities would require a PTAL of 5.91 for Residential Density and 4.71 for Housing Density when the locality has PTAL of 1a (numerically = 0.66)
• Inadequate Car Parking spaces 8 for the 26 occupants should be 12 spaces.
• Over Development with regard massing and bulk as compared to existing surrounding properties.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.1 – Thursday 26th Sep 2019.
Local Resident Richard Chambers spoke on behalf of local residents.
Our local councillors failed to register and therefore could not speak on behalf of local residents.
Voted 5 : 4 to Grant Permission

MORA Objection sent: 24th Jul 2019
Consultation Closed: 4th Aug 2019
Target Decision: 5th Sep 2019
• Total Consulted: 29
• Objections: 18
• Supporting: 0
Councillor Referral: None
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 26th Sep 2019
Permission Granted: 26th Sep 2019

MORA Stage 1 Complaint (17th Oct 2019) Our Complaint comprises the following issues:
1. Failure to apply the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 to Optimise the Housing Potential in accordance with the Policy on Residential and Housing Density appropriate for the locality at a suburban setting and at PTAL of 1a. Based upon a false determination of Residential Density by incorrect analysis of number of Habitable Rooms.
2. Failure to consider the overbearing nature of the proposed development to 2b Tower View with regard to Policy SPD2 Figure 2.11 c: Height of projection beyond the rear of neighbouring properties to be no greater than 45 degrees as measured from the middle of the window of the closest habitable room on the rear elevation of the neighbouring property.
3. Failure to consider the unreasonable closeness of facing windows at Unit 1 overlooking and invasion of privacy toward (bedroom) window at the adjacent bungalow at 2b Tower View at separating distance of 5.25m.
4. Overbearing massing of proposed development in relation to surrounding properties.
5. Infraction of Planning Policies on grounds that it is more imperative to meet housing targets than to countenance and implement adopted Planning Policies. (Case Number CAS-105503-W1M7W2).

Further developments are in the November 2019 Planning Report.

Pegasus (18a) Fairhaven Avenue – Ref: 19/01761/FUL
Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a 3-storey block, containing 2 x 3 bedroom, 6 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 1-bedroom apartments with associated access, 9 parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse store.

Although the proposed development presented is architecturally acceptable, the proposal fails on a number of design requirement Planning Policies which are unacceptable for future occupants for the life of the development.

We objected on grounds of over-development and non-compliance to the London Plan Policy 3.4. The proposed development does not fully meet the minimum space standards as required by the London Plan Policy 3.5. The width of the access drive is unacceptable and fails to meet the requirements of SPD2 guidance.

We also objected to this proposed development on grounds of inadequate parking provision and non-compliance to the London Plan Policy 6.13 and London Plan Policy 6.11. We objected to the proposed development on grounds that it does not meet the 45° Rule on height as measured from the adjacent dwelling ground floor window as required by the recently adopted Supplementary Planning Document SPD2. We objected to this proposed development on significant issues relating to Refuse Storage facilities on grounds that it does NOT fully meet the requirements of Policy DM13.1, DM13.2 on Refuse and Recycling or requirement of BS 5906:2005.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.8 – Thursday 20th June.
MORA Chairman Sony Nair spoke on behalf of MORA and Local Residents.
Councillor Sue Bennett spoke on behalf of Local Residents.
Voted 6 : 4 to Grant Permission

The Decision Note at Condition 13 States:
13 The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in strict accordance with the Surface Water and SuDS Assessment.
Reason: To ensure that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into the development and to reduce the impact of flooding.

However, there is no mention of the Chaffinch Brook issues or advice from the Chaffinch Brook Flood Alleviation Study (FAS) or the suggested need to raised the development by a few bricks to overcome any surface water issues as the locality suffers 300mm to 900mm probability of surface water flooding. This proposed development will increase the volume of surface water and soil waste and sewage into local drains and thence into the Chaffinch Brook and in times of high precipitation could significantly increase the probability of higher surface water flooding due to the increased number of households.

MORA Objection sent: 8th May 2019
Consultation closes: 17th May 2019
Target Decision: 7th Jun 2019
• Total Consulted: 29
• Objections: 22
• Supporting: 0
Councillor Referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (23rd May 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 20th Jun 2019
Permission Granted: 20th Jun 2019

MORA Stage 1 Complaint (21st Jul 2019) Our complaint is threefold:
1. The failure of interpretation of the current adopted planning policies to ensure cumulative development proposals fully meet the requirements for the localities’ existing and planned public transport infrastructure.
2. The failure to fully consider the implications of ‘Access’ limitations which are noncompliant to SPD2 section 29 and the resulting local parking stress.
3. The lack of consideration of contribution to Flood Risk into the Chaffinch Brook or to obtain advice from the Chaffinch Brook “Flood Alleviation Study” (FAS) to verify whether the proposal would contribute to increased risk of local flooding and contribute to the Chaffinch Brook culvert and flood risk toward Bywood Avenue (Case Number: CAS-73997-G6H8D7).
Stage 1 Response (12th Aug 2019) from Pete Smith, Head of Development Management.
MORA Stage 2 Complaint (19th Aug 2019) Case Reference: CAS-73997-G6H8D7
Stage 2 Response (15th Oct 2019) from Shifa Mustafa, Executive Director of Place

Further developments are in the November 2019 Planning Report.

32 Woodmere Avenue – Ref: 19/00783/FUL
Demolition of the existing property and the erection of a replacement detached two storey building with accommodation in the roof-space, comprising 7 self-contained flats (2 x 1 bedroom, 3 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom) with 5 off street car parking spaces, bike store, integrated refuse store and site access.

Although the proposed development presented is architecturally acceptable the proposal fails on a number of design requirement Planning Policies which results in an overdevelopment of the proposal for the locality and would not provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants. We therefore objected to this proposed development on grounds of over-development and non-compliant to the current adopted London Plan Policy 3.4 Optimising Housing Potential due to excessive Residential Density of 350hr/ha and excessive Housing Density 116.67 u/ha at a locality of PTAL 1a. without justification.

On 9th May amended drawings were uploaded to the online register.

  • Amended Street Scene Elevations
  • Proposed Floor Plans
  • OS plans & Existing and proposed Block Plan
  • Existing and Proposed Elevations

The changes provide new internal arrangements to meet the London Plan Policy 3.5 Table 3.3 minimum space standards.

In addition, the Refuse Store has been moved nearer the front (previously where Unit 2 En-suite bathroom and Bedroom was located) and now has sliding doors so overcoming the non-compliance to Policy DM13 Refuse & Recycling, but Access passageway is still only 1.1m width (should be 2m).

Residential & Housing Densities remain excessive and the 45° Rule for adjacent property still remains.

Planning Committee Agenda Item 6.7 – Thursday 20th June.
MORA Chairman Sony Nair spoke on behalf of MORA and Local Residents.
Councillor Sue Bennet spoke on behalf of Local Residents.
Voted 6 : 4 to Grant Permission.
Conditions: TBC

MORA Objection sent: 14th Mar 2019
MORA Objection (Amended Drawings) sent: 28th May 2019
Consultation Close: 24th Mar 2019 – Extended to 30th May 2019
Target Decision: 16th Apr 2019
• Total Consulted: 46
• Objections: 25
• Supporting: 0
Councillor referral: Councillor Richard Chatterjee (29th Mar 2019)
Case Officer Report recommends: Grant Approval
Planning Committee Slot: 20th Jun 2019
Permission Granted: 20th Jun 2019

MORA Stage 1 Complaint (4th Jul 2019) relevant Planning Policies were NOT adequately considered in the determination of this planning application (Case Number: 5039127).
Stage 1 Response (26th Jul 2019) from Pete Smith, Head of Development Management.
MORA Stage 2 Complaint (4th Aug 2019) Case Reference: CAS-79367-X3T0W3.
Stage 2 Response (10th Sep 2019) from Heather Cheesbrough, Director of Planning & Strategic Transport.
Escalation to the Local Government Ombudsman (1st Oct 2019) Case ID Number 19 011 300.

Further developments are in the November 2019 Planning Report.

Additional Matters

Supplementary Questions to The Mayor of London Sadiq Khan

Supplementary to Questions 2019/8973 for Mayor’s Question Time 12th September 2019
Q1 – London Plan Density (1)
Question No: 2019/17533
Further to your response to question 2019/8973, the first paragraph of your answer related to the current Policy 3.4 which includes a density matrix but did not answer the question on Policy D6 which requested why Policy D6 does not give guidance to applicants for the appropriate densities for development proposals at given localities and therefore does not meet the requirements of NPPF para 16 and 122.

16. Plans should:
d) contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals;

122. Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account:
c) the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use;
d) the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting (including residential gardens), or of promoting regeneration and change; and

The second part of the first paragraph provided a history of planning officers’ failure to implement the provisions of the density matrix. This suggests that planning officers were ignoring the policy to meet housing targets, not that the Policy 3.4 was flawed. The result of officers ignoring the policy is the visible increase in local congestion due to over-development, overcrowding and inadequate public transport to support the approved high densities of which supporting evidence is available.

With the replacement Policy D6, if there is no defined relationship, or methodology, what way is there of preventing public transport under or over capacity or traffic congestion as residents in high density developments (localities) revert to cars due to unavailable public transport capacities?

Answered by The Mayor (13th September 2019)

The density ranges in the SRQ density matrix in the current London Plan provide no indication of whether there is enough infrastructure to support a development or not.

In contrast, my draft London Plan provides clear policy to ensure boroughs plan for the delivery of infrastructure necessary to support new housing and ensures that the scale of a development does not exceed current or future planned supporting infrastructure. Policy D1A Infrastructure requirements for sustainable densities is clear that ‘where there is currently insufficient capacity of existing infrastructure to support proposed densities (including the impact of cumulative development), boroughs should work with applicants and infrastructure providers to ensure that sufficient capacity will exist at the appropriate time’. It is also clear that where a ‘borough considers the planned infrastructure capacity will be exceeded, additional infrastructure proportionate to the development should be delivered through the development’.

My officers in the London Plan team would be happy to discuss the SRQ density matrix and its application, and the draft Plan’s approach to density with you.

MORA Response:
1) The SQR Density Matrix does indicate the appropriate PTAL range required for a given Density range at a given setting which gives guidance as to infrastructure requirements!
2) Policy D1 does NOT clearly define how to evaluate whether the existing infrastructure meets the required capacity to cope with new developments – is this a subjective evaluation by a case officer?
3) It is NOT clear how inadequate infrastructure to support a development is defined.
4) If it requires the Mayor’s Officers to explain the draft plans approach – how in heavens name are applicants supposed to be able to interpret the policy to know the appropriate residential density of a development to offer for a locality?
5) Similarly how can residents or Residents’ Associations have a clue what the appropriate Density would be for a development proposal to meet the infrastructure available or planned?

Q2 – London Plan Density (2)
Question No: 2019/17474
Further to your response to question 2019/8973, the second paragraph of your response states: “My draft London Plan explicitly recognises that the appropriate density of a site is an output of a process of assessment, rather than an input.”

Policy D6 at D States:
The following measurements of density should be provided for all planning applications that include new residential units:

1) number of units per hectare
2) number of habitable rooms per hectare
3) number or bedrooms per hectare
4) number of bedspaces per hectare.

Policy D6 does not define the process by which to analyse these parameters to define an acceptable Housing or Residential Density.

If the assessment of a proposal to define the appropriate density of a development site is an output of a process, how exactly should those input parameters, listed above at 1 through 4 of that process, be analysed and by what methodology to provide an output figure to define the appropriate density and what are the individual weighting factors?

Answered by The Mayor (13th September 2019)

Density measurements are an output of a proposed development design not an input parameter to dictate the feasible number of units. The value of these density measurements is that together they provide a more meaningful numeric comparison between different developments, and between a proposed development and the surrounding area, than is provided by a single density measurement. Requiring these measurements in the London Plan helps ensure this data is collected across London for all relevant developments and thus can be used to inform future reviews of the London Plan.

My officers in the London Plan team would be happy to meet with you to discuss the draft London Plan’s approach to density with you in more detail.

MORA Comment:
1) I don’t think this answers the question – how do you use these parameters to establish whether a proposal requires additional infrastructure to support the development on not!
2) Again if the Mayor cannot describe the policy – how on earth could an applicant decide whether their proposal is an appropriate density for the locality and an available methodology to forecast infrastructure requirement?
3) Similarly how can residents or Residents’ Associations have a clue what the appropriate Density would be for a development proposal to meet the site setting, local character and infrastructure, available or planned?

Question No: 2019/8976
Answered by The Mayor (17th May 2019)

The policies in my draft London Plan set out a clear and systematic approach to assessing development proposals that reflects site specific circumstances. These policies will help boroughs in assessing the optimum density for sites to be allocated in their Local Plans, as well as assessing individual applications. My draft Plan also requires boroughs to proactively establish appropriate site capacity parameters, following the design-led approach, for strategic development sites in their Local Plans. I am currently preparing detailed supplementary planning guidance to accompany the Plan that will provide additional detail on how to effectively optimise the capacity of sites by following the design-led approach.

New Supplementary Question for Mayor’s Question Time 17th October 2019.

Supplementary Planning Guidance on Density
Your answer to Question 2019/8976 on 17th May 2019 indicated you are currently preparing a detailed Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) to accompany the London Plan Policy that will provide additional detail on how to effectively optimise housing potential using the design led approach.

Can you indicate when you intend to publish this Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) providing guidance on assessing appropriate Housing and Residential Densities for new housing developments?

Answered by The Mayor (17th October 2019)

I will publish a draft of the supplementary planning guidance for optimising site capacity through a design-led approach in early 2020.

DEREK RITSON
MORA Planning

< September 2019 Planning Report November 2019 Planning Report >