Issue - meetings

Demolition of existing mixed use building (North Road, No. 26) and adjoining single storey structure with basement under; change of use (No. 28 North Road) from residential building to ancillary medical centre for Highgate School; demolition of existing pitched roof (Garner Building); erection of four storey and lower ground (School Building); erection of roof extension (Garner Building) of 1 storey; forming a new entrance into the existing science building and relocation of external steps.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report, previously circulated, which set out the application, the consultation, the site and its environment, planning history and all relevant planning policies and guidance. In addition the Committee considered the accompanying Conservation Area consent and Listed Building applications.

The Planning Officer gave an outline of the planning application, highlighting the key points. The Officer outlined that conditions 2 to 10 of the CAC and Listed Building applications needed to be deleted as they should only apply to the planning consent. The Officer highlighted that a standard condition preventing demolition works until there was a signed contract for the implementation of the scheme needed to be imposed on the CAC consent. The Officer responded to questions from the Committee.

In response to questions regarding comments submitted in writing by Mr MacBryde, an objector to the proposal, the Planning Officer advised that he disagreed with the assessment that the design was not sensitive, and judged that the proposal fitted the context of its environment. The Committee asked about the impact on neighbouring properties in respect of light, in response to which it was reported that there was an impact on one first-floor window in a property in the almshouses, but that the overall impact was not felt to be significant.

The Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Economy advised the Committee that the scheme had gone through a pre-application process, resulting in the application in its present form, which addressed issues raised by the Council. In response to a question from the Committee regarding whether officers agreed with the objectors’ assessment of the degree of overlooking to the almshouses which would arise from the proposal, it was confirmed that officers did not agree with this assessment, as it was their view that the existing high wall facing the almshouses prevented the proposed new building from affecting these properties further.

Two local residents, Mr MacBryde and Ms Goudy addressed the Committee in objection to the application on behalf of a number of other local residents. Mr MacBryde explained that he was an architect and planner who had formerly worked for the Planning Inspectorate. Mr MacBryde had submitted a written statement objecting to the application, expressing a number of concerns, the main issues being the impact on the amenity by loss of light, noise and disturbance caused by traffic on the access lane and failure to preserve or enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area. Ms Goudy advised the Committee that she was a resident of the Island site, where local residents felt that the proposals were disproportionate and would loom over residential properties. Ms Goudy also expressed concerns that the proposals would exacerbate existing issues of traffic and parking, and that the back lane was unsuitable for vehicular access to the site. Ms Goudy read out a letter from a resident of the almshouses who was alarmed to hear of the proposals due to concerns about loss of sunlight, as sitting in her garden, which was her pride and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114