Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Akwasi-Ayisi.

Cllr Basu identified that item 7, 1B Candler Street was opposite his house but that he felt this would not prejudice his judgement.

Erection of a part 4/part 5 storey building to contain retail development on the ground floor consisting of 422sq.m of A1 use and 218sq.m of A3 use with 18 residential units on the upper floors.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the erection of a part 4/part 5 storey building to contain A1 and A3 retail use on the ground floor with 18 residential units on the upper floors. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The Committee’s attention was drawn to a tabled addendum setting out an additional condition covering consultation with Thames Water regarding any piling works. Officers were also recommending a s106 obligation claw back clause to allow the Council to obtain further funds for offsite affordable housing should the actual sale price of the flats exceed that estimated in the viability statements.

A local resident addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         A number of plans to develop the site had been brought forward over the years and local residents had worked with the applicant on the current scheme design.

·         Local residents in general were resigned to the fact that the site would be developed but would have preferred a smaller scale scheme without the commercial space to the ground floor as it was considered there were sufficient units already available in the vicinity.

·         A number of additional conditions were proposed on behalf of local residents:

o   That commercial deliveries be received to the front of the site only.

o   Public access to the commercial units be only to the front.

o   The rear paved area be exclusively used for parking.

o   That measures be put in place to prevent any light pollution from the building such as the shading of external lights to the parking area where necessary.

o   Any plant and/or ventilation equipment be routed to the front of the building.

o   Any designated smoking area be located to the front of the building.

o   Retention of the 4m high wall to the site boundary and which should be clad in weatherproof wood.

An representative for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The applicant would be willing to consider the additional conditions proposed by the residents.

·         The new application addressed all the points of objection received over the last application to renew the extant permission in place which was refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal.

·         The design sought to make a positive contribution to the area and replicate materials and prominent design features in the vicinity.

Clarification was sought on the refuse storage arrangements for the commercial units. Assurances were provided that the applicant would be required to submit a waste management plan for Council approval.

The Committee expressed some concern over the use of impervious materials to the parking area at the rear of the development and subsequent water runoff and drainage issues. Officers proposed that a landscaping  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Refurbishment and reconfiguration of existing building including the erection of extensions to the south and west elevations; erection of a one storey roof extension across the top of the existing building; provision of eight additional flats; and alterations to existing parking area.

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the refurbishment and reconfiguration of the existing building including the erection of extensions to the south and west elevations, erection of a one storey roof extension across the top of the existing building, provision of eight additional flats and alterations to the existing parking area. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions and subject to a s106 legal agreement.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report. The attention of the Committee was drawn to a tabled addendum circulated which set out an amended condition covering balcony screening and an additional travel plan s106 heads of term. 

A number of objectors addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The scheme constituted a dominant and incongruous form of overdevelopment, with the existing building extended in volume by 70%.

·         The development would have an overbearing impact on neighbouring properties from the addition of a fourth floor, particularly from the proximity of the new extensions to properties at Eveline Court and Teresa Walk. 

·         Eveline Court and Teresa Walk would suffer from loss of light and overlooking from the additional windows and balconies. There were also concerns that the use of the balconies would result in noise nuisance and loss of amenity to neighbouring properties.

·         The parking provision proposed was inadequate at only 9 spaces.

·         The affordable housing s106 contribution was very low considering the likely high sale price of the finished units.

Cllr Engert addressed the Committee in her capacity as ward councillor and raised the following points:

·         The current application did not address the reasons for refusal for the previous scheme.

·         The design was not of sufficient quality nor sympathetic to the local area.

·         The refurbished building would be too large and overbearing, with a 70% increase in the volume of the existing building.

·         The scheme would result in a net loss of social housing provision and the contribution proposed for affordable housing under the s106 agreement was very low.

·         The parking provision proposed was inadequate for the number of units.

A representative for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The block had never been used for social housing although it had been leased on a short term basis to a registered social landlord following the disposal of the site by the Police. The scheme would provide 8 additional residential units.

·         The affordable housing contribution was in line with Council policy.

·         Comments made by the Planning Service and local residents had, where possible, been addressed such as changing the palette of external materials to suit the local street scene.

·         The reconfiguration would enable the creation of units of various sizes including larger family sized and bring the building up to modern standards.

·         Trees would be retained to the boundaries for screening  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Erection of a second floor extension to an existing flat, increasing in size from a 1 bed to a 2/3 bed unit

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions.

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the erection of a second floor extension to an existing flat, increasing it in size to a 2/3 bed unit. The report set out details of the proposal, the site and surroundings, planning history, relevant planning policy, consultation and responses, analysis, equalities and human rights implications and recommended to grant permission subject to conditions.

The planning officer gave a short presentation highlighting the key aspects of the report and drew the Committee’s attention to a tabled addendum circulated which set out a number of minor amendments to the report and an additional condition covering the provision of obscured glazing to the windows of the extension. It was also advised that following concerns raised at the site visit about overlooking from a proposed balcony, this element had now been withdrawn from the plans.

Confirmation was provided that the scheme was before the Committee as an objection had been made by a councillor under the previous scheme of delegation.

Concerns were raised regarding the impact of the proposed extension on the adjacent building. It was identified that the separation distance at the closest point was 2.5m, extending to 4.5m at roof level. It was acknowledged that there would be an impact on outlook from the bedroom window on the first floor of the adjacent building but that this was not considered to be significant enough to be a grounds for refusal. Obscure glazing would be provided to the facing window in the new extension. The development passed both BRE guidelines regarding the impact on levels of daylight and sunlight to the rooms to the rear of 600 Seven Sisters Road.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and it was

RESOLVED

·         That application HGY/2014/0389 be approved subject to conditions

1.    Development hereby authorised must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, failing which the permission shall be of no effect.

Reason: This condition is imposed by virtue of the provisions of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and to prevent the accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions.

2.    Notwithstanding the information submitted with the application, the development hereby permitted shall only be built in accordance with the following approved plans:   list the plans

Reason:  To avoid doubt and in the interests of good planning.

Samples of materials to be used in conjunction with the proposed development for all the external surfaces of buildings hereby approved, areas of hard landscaping and boundary walls shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority before any development is commenced.  Samples should include sample panels or brick types and a roofing material sample combined with a schedule of the exact product references.

Reason: In order for the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the exact materials to be used for the proposed development and to assess the suitability of the samples submitted in the interests of visual amenity consistent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The next meeting will be a Planning Committee on 13 October.  

13 October.