Agenda item

John Robertson, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the Committee was for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a part 23, part 19 and part 14 storey building on a derelict commercial site just south of Southall town centre. The proposals were for a residential-led redevelopment comprising 95 residential units, with flexible community/amenity space on the ground floor available for residents and the local community. There was also going to be communal outdoor amenity space in terraces at the first and fourteenth floor levels.

Mr Robertson noted that an application had been approved by the planning committee in July 2022, although this had required revision due to changes in fire safety regulations. The proposals had been amended to provide a second staircase in the building, which had led to changes in the shape of the building and an enlargement of its core area.

Some key aspects of the proposals remained unchanged from the consented application. The proposed tenure split remained unchanged, with 70% intermediate and 30% London Affordable Rent. This was not the preferred tenure split of the Council, although officers were satisfied on the basis of the evidence submitted by the applicant that this was the best tenure split which was financially viable for the applicant. Mr Robertson also noted that the proposed height of the building was unchanged from the existing consent. Whilst the site was not within a site identified as appropriate for tall buildings, it did lie in the Southall Gateway character area and was close to other sites in the area which had gained consent for similarly tall buildings.

Mr Robertson noted the public realm improvements secured through the scheme. These included widening pavements, tree planting, new benches, and integrated street lighting between public realm area and the raised highway. Whilst the urban greening factor was below what the Council would usually expect, Mr Robertson noted that this was likely due to small size of the site. There were also going to financial contributions as a result of the scheme through a Section 106 Legal Agreement and a Community Infrastructure Levy, with contributions overall in the region of £1.2 million.

Overall, it was the view of officers that the scheme was likely to provide a number of planning and regeneration benefits. On balance, it was considered that the proposed development accorded with relevant planning policy. Mr Robertson therefore recommended that the committee grant the application, subject to conditions, Section 106 and Section 278 legal agreements, and Stage II referral to the Greater London Authority.

A briefing note in respect of the application had been produced by Planning Officers, circulated to the Committee and published on the Council’s website prior to the meeting. It had provided information on amendments to the recommendation in the committee report and details further comments which had been received. Mr Robertson explained that the London Fire Brigade had raised concerns about lobbies to the fire evacuation lifts and the 14^th floor amenity area. Mr Robertson explained that the applicant had provided a response to the concerns and had satisfied officers that the proposed design was complaint with the London Plan and relevant fire safety legislation. It was also noted that no objections had been raised by the Health and Safety Executive in relation to the scheme and that the proposals were to be reviewed by the Greater London Authority as part of a Stage II referral.

The Committee asked questions and debated the proposal. In response to some of the questions and points raised, officers confirmed that:

·       Because of the size of the site, it had not been possible to offer on-site parking. It was proposed for one parking bay on Hortis Road to be converted into a disabled parking bay.

·       There had been discussions about the potential for additional disabled parking bays being allocated on The Green. However, there was a risk that parking pressures in the local area could worsen if additional bays were converted to disabled bays. Officers were asked to probe this issue further and to feedback to the chair and vice-chair of the committee on any developments in provision of parking for the scheme.

·       There had not been any agreed parking for the consented scheme, so it was officers’ view that the agreed disabled parking bay on Hortis Road was an improvement on the original application.

·       Loading and servicing areas were planned to be on-site at the ground floor level. Entrance to the site for these areas was considered adequate by the Council’s highways team.

·       Because there were two fire evacuation lifts rather than one, and each one was in a separated ventilated corridor, these corridors provided the dedicated lobby area noted by the London Fire Brigade and these would be suitable for refuge for all fire scenarios considered by fire safety guidance.

·       The ground floor amenity area had not changed from the previous consent. It was available for use by residents of the flats in the buildings and by any community groups which came forward.

·       It was common for tall building developments to propose amenity areas for their residents on a top floor terrace. There were conditions proposed to ensure high balustrades were installed to ensure the safety of the terrace and it was noted that the plans were to be scrutinised by building regulations and the Health and Safety Executive.

·       Public realm landscaping was going to be managed and maintained by the development’s managing agent, whilst works to the area outside of the applicant’s control were going to be dealt with by a Section 278 Agreement.

The Committee proceeded to vote on the application.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for application REF 216215FUL be GRANTED subject to:

1. Successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent;
2. Satisfactory completion of Section 106 and 278 Legal Agreements; and
3. A Stage II referral to the Greater London Authority.
4. A Community Infrastructure Levy payment to the Greater London Authority (GLA).