Issue - meetings

Demolition of 79-81 East Street and the construction of a part 5, part 6 storey building containing 31 residential units (10 x 1-bed, 17 x 2-bed and 4 x 3-bed) (Class C3) together with car parking, landscaping and access arrangements and associated works.

The Committee received a presentation on the application from the Principal Planning Officer.

Description:

Demolition of 79-81 East Street and the construction of a part 5, part 6 storey building containing 31 residential units (10 x 1-bed, 17 x 2-bed and 4 x 3-bed) (Class C3) together with car parking, landscaping and access arrangements and associated works.

Officer Recommendation:

Approval, subject to conditions, informatives, and s106 legal agreement.

Public Speaking:

The Agent spoke in support of the application.

Decision:

Following consideration, Councillor Neil Dallen proposed that the application be refused for the following reasons:

Reason: The proposed development would represent an overdevelopment that would fail to respect the pattern of development in the locality and would appear as an overly dominating and incongruous addition that would fail to respect the surrounding built form and the proposal would therefore fail to integrate with the prevailing character an appearance of the area, contrary to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, CS5 of the Core Strategy, and  policies DM9, and 10 of the Development Management Plan.

Reason: It has not been robustly demonstrated that the shortfall in vehicle parking provision associated with the proposed development would not have a harmful impact on the surrounding area in terms of street scene or the availability of on street parking. The proposed development cannot be considered as an exception to the policy and therefore fails to comply with section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policies DM10 and 37 of the Development Management Plan.

Reason: The proposal would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the conservation area for which the public benefits do not outweigh the harm and is contrary to section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy and policies DM 8, 9, and 10 of the Development Management Plan.

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Jan Mason.

The Committee voted (2 For, 6 Against, and the Acting Chair not voting) against the proposal, and the motion was lost.

Following further consideration, the Acting Chair put the Officer recommendation to the vote. Subsequently, the Committee resolved (6 For, 2 Against, and the Acting Chair not voting):

PART A

To grant planning permission subject to the S106 Legal Agreement with the following Heads of Terms:

a)            The provision of 16 affordable rented units with rent limited to 70% of the open market rent (including service charge) in a mix of 5 no. one bed, 9 no. two bed and 2 no. three bed units

b)           A clause to prevent occupation or use of the development by a person or person(s) in possession of an Epsom and Ewell Residents Parking Zone Permit

c)            S278 Agreement for car-club and management; within six months of the occupation of the first dwelling the provision of a car club vehicle for a minimum of five years, with all costs associated with the provision of the vehicle including provision of parking space on the public highway and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32