55 affordable homes and community hub at 1 to 29 Danebury Avenue;, London SW15

What was proposed

The application proposed two buildings providing 55 affordable homes, community facilities, public realm, landscaping, parking and flexible use of the existing library.

“Mixed-use development including the demolition of existing buildings and structures and construction of two buildings of four storeys and nine storeys to provide 55 affordable homes (Use Class C3) and 2,891 sqm (GIA) of non-residential floorspace comprising replacement of library, youth centre, Council offices, and healthcare facility new community hall with kitchen and erection of single storey ancillary building for cycle and refuse storage (Use Classes E, F1(d), F1(e) &…”

Officer report

Earlier applications and plans

Earlier permissions included the wider Alton regeneration scheme and improvements to Downshire Field and the Alton Activity Centre.

“Official REASON FOR REFERRAL: The Council’s Constitution does not give delegated powers to determine the application in the way recommended and must be determined by the Planning Applications Committee.”

“APPROVED The Alton Estate: March 2022 (2019/2516): (a) Phased demolition of all existing buildings and structures (except Alton Activity Centre community building). (b) Mixed-use phased development ranging from 1-9 storeys above ground level comprising up to 1,108 residential units and up to 9,377sqm (GIA) of non-residential uses comprising new and replacement community facilities (including library and healthcare facilities, youth facilities, community hall, children’s…”

Officer report

Questions and speakers

The Opposition Speaker sought clarity about retail provision, while officers and advisers answered questions about parking, the GP surgery, transport, trees, lighting and viability.

Members’ discussion

Members welcomed the design and residential layout but also discussed landscaping, tree removal, BREEAM, construction engagement, parking, public transport and development costs.

“A Member commented his concern that the applicant may not be able to deliver the goals of their transport plan without the ability to deliver additional public transport provision. In addition, it was queried whether residents would get a say about how the construction was carried out with regards to the construction management plan.”

“Members sought clarity as to whether residents would be excluded from any controlled parking zone should one be implemented. The Head of Transport Strategy stated that as part of the wider masterplan for the site there was a clear desire from residents to address parking issues, and it was anticipated that some form of controlled parking would be implemented in the future which would be subject to standard statutory consultations.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members rejected a proposal to defer the application by four votes to five, then voted for the application with four abstentions.

“Councillor Humphries proposed that the application be deferred, to allow for additional detail and clarity to be provided regarding a number of matters within the application. This was seconded by Councillor Govindia. Upon being put the vote, the motion was declared lost with 4 votes for, to 5 against.”

“RESOLVED – (5 votes for, with 4 abstentions) that planning permission be granted as set out in the report, noting the additional information as set out in the late items of correspondence paper, CIL liable and subject to S.106 Legal Agreement.”

Minutes