Agenda item

Erection of a part two, part three storey end of terrace building to provide 3 x two bed, 1 x three bed and 1 x one bed flat.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant permission subject to conditions and/or subject to sec. 106 Legal Agreement

The officer presented his report and informed the Committee that the application site was in a conservation area and a piece of open land, formerly occupied by two houses at the end of a terrace on the corner of Archway Road and Southwood Avenue.  The site was in part of the extensive Highgate Conservation Area that was largely residential in character, with terraces of houses on streets to the west of Archway Road.

It was the aspiration of local residents to retain the land as a small area of informal open land (park).  This issue had been comprehensively covered in a previous appeal resulting in a situation where the Local Planning Authority (LPA) had no policy position to view this site other than a vacant residential site.  Previous appeal decisions had established the principal of residential use on the site.  The officer advised the Committee that they would not be in a position to refuse the application on the loss or the potential use of the site as open space. 

In 2007 an appeal decision by the Inspector stated that “the proposal would not cause any unacceptable harm to highway safety or neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions”.  On the basis of this comment the LPA had no objection in principal to flatted development on the site.  The proposed building was for two terrace properties of the same dimension of the adjoining terrace and the original properties on site, the scheme respected the consistency of form and detailing of the adjoining and neighbouring terraces.  The building form, detailing and materials associated with the proposal would be sensitive to the distinctiveness and character of the surrounding area and overall the proposal would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.  The proposed buildings had been designed in such a way so as not to have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties.  It was considered that the additional on-street car parking in association with the proposal could be accommodated within the parking bay along the southern boundary of the site fronting onto Southwood Avenue.

Cllr Hare addressed the Committee to object to the application.   He advised that he had been involved with the application site since 2001.  Planning permission had been granted in 2004 for one house on the site, however the owner of the site had recently appealed for two houses, which created a lack of benefit to Archway Road and a lack of space.  The proposed application was now for the development of two houses with no open space.  The Inspector in 2004 had recognised the open space to benefit Archway Road.  

The Inspector at a recent appeal had further recognised the wider aims of the Council to contribute to the Archway corridor and approved the value of the open space.  The proposal should therefore be rejected and the owner should continue with the 2004 approval already received.

The Committee enquired of Cllr Hare how much open space was around the application site.  In response the Committee was informed that Archway Road corridor was urban, busy and had a poor atmosphere.  There were small pockets of open space around a bus stop, several small areas of open space 100 metres away.  Archway Road was basically a motorway, the housing was poor, very flatted and in desperate need of greenery.  Members further enquired that in the 2003 appeal the site had ceased to be an amenity space and what was the objection to this comment.  Cllr Hare responded that the report did not fully take into account the potential value to Archway Road and the benefit of having less development on this site and the proportion given to open space.

The applicant addressed the Committee and stated that the potential for open space was not considered.  The officer’s report referred to the previous inspector’s decision “The test is not whether the site is suitable for open space”  all land could be considered for open space in the borough.

The proposed building would be of great benefit to the Conservation Area.  The Inspector had said this was vacant residential land.  It would benefit the area to have 2 buildings in line with the existing terrace.  The previous Inspector had refused the application on design grounds and for no other reason.

The Committee queried whether the applicant had altered the design of this application with regard to the Inspector’s comments.  The applicant responded that he had taken great care in the design which was classical Victorian to reflect the terrace.  The Committee further questioned the applicant on the differences between the application made in 2007 and the one in front of the Committee in terms of the building design.   The applicant replied that in 2004 the application was for one house and open space.  In 2007 the Inspector had not been happy with the design and the current application was different in design and space.  The application was for two units, double fronted and occupying the whole site.

Officers asked that, as part of the Section 106 Agreement, the development should be ‘car-free’ and that Traffic Management Orders be amended so that occupants of the new housing at 235-237 would not be eligible for parking permits.  Members indicated strong disagreement with this approach, as it made it difficult for residents whose trade required them to keep vans or cars as part of operating their business.  However, Members agreed that this provision be included in the Section 106 Agreement.

Members requested that a condition be added for boundary treatment similar to the other residential properties to preserve the character and appropriate to the conservation area.  The Officer responded that it could be made as an informative.

The Chair moved a motion to grant the application subject to conditions and a Section 106 Legal Agreement covering education contribution and car gree development and on a vote there being 6 in favour and 3 against the application was granted planning permission.

RESOLVED

That the application be granted and approved subject to conditions and a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2008/0703

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 08/09/2008

Location: 235- 237 Archway Road N6 5BS

Proposal: Erection of 3 storey original end of terrace building to provide 3 x two bed, 1 x three bed and 1 x one bed flat.

Recommendation: GTD

Decision: GTD

Drawing No’s: 743/001, 010 Rev C, 011,012, 013,014, 020, 021,022, 023, 030, 031, 032, 033, 040 & 041.

Conditions:

1.       The 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.       The development hereby authorised shall be carried out in complete accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in particular in accord with revised plan 743-010 Revision C dated 02 September 2008.

Reason: In order to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved details and in the interests of amenity.

3.       Notwithstanding the description of the materials in the application, no development shall be commenced until precise details of the materials to be used in connection with the development hereby permitted, including details of boundary treatment, have been submitted to, approved in writing by and implemented in accordance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to retain control over the external appearance of the development in the interest of the visual amenity of the area.

4.       Notwithstanding the details of landscaping referred to in the application, a scheme of hard and soft landscaping including details of replacement trees shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development hereby permitted, is commenced. 

Reason: In order for the Local Authority to assess the acceptability of any landscaping scheme in relation to the site itself, thereby ensuring a satisfactory setting for the proposed development in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

5.       The species, size and siting of the replacement trees shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the trees shall be planted within 6 months (or as otherwise agreed in writing) of the commencement of the approved treatment (either wholly or in part). The replacement trees shall be maintained and/or replaced as necessary until they are established in growth.

Reason: To maintain the visual amenities of the area.

6.       The construction works of the development hereby granted shall not be carried out before 0800 or after 1800 hours Monday to Friday or before 0800 or after 1200 hours on Saturday and not at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposal does not prejudice the enjoyment of neighbouring occupiers of their properties.

INFORMATIVE: There are public sewers crossing this site, and no building works will be permitted within 3 metres of the sewers without Thames Water's approval. Should a building over / diversion application form, or other information relating to Thames Waters assets be required, the applicant should be advised to contact Thames Water Developer Services on 0845 850 2777.

INFORMATIVE: Transport for London (TFL) would ask the developer to observe that restrictions apply to the contractors as follows:

• The Archway Road (A1) is a Transport for London Road Network (Red Route) therefore no stopping is permitted during the operating hours of the Red Route and footway, except at during specific times and at specific locations
• Scaffolding or hoardings should not be erected on the footway without TFL's prior approval.
• In order to co-ordinate construction works with TFL's general maintenance and improvement programme, please contact Gordon Adam, Principal Development Control Engineer Road Network Development (North Area), TFL's Road Network Management, Transport for London 4th Floor. 84 Eccleston Square London SW1V 1PX

INFORMATIVE: Further to condition 3 above, where that condition relates to boundary treatment, the Council will wish to see a low brick wall with hedging behind, on that part of the boundary fronting Archway Road and for a length of 6 metres on the return frontage to Southwood Lane: in a style to harmonise with that of nearby properties.

REASON FOR APPROVAL:                        

The current scheme for this site has been considered having regards to the previous appeal decisions which have established a number of underlying principles in respect of the development of this site. The proposed building form will reinstate the two original terrace properties and will be an exact replica of the original properties with the exception of the dormer windows and rooflights. The reinstatement of these terrace properties will address the unsightly nature of the site, in particular removing view of the cement rendered wall of No 239 and providing associated landscaping on site. The building form, detailing and materials associated with the proposal will be sensitive to distinctiveness and character of the surrounding area and overall the proposal will preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal will not give rise to significant loss of sunlight, daylight, outlook or loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers.

As such the proposal is considered to be in accordance with policies UD3 'General Principles', UD4 'Quality Design', UD8 ‘Planning Obligations’, HSG1 ‘New Housing Development’, HSG10 ‘Dwelling Mix’, M10 ‘Parking for Development’, CSV1 ‘Development in Conservation Areas’ of the adopted Haringey Unitary Development (2006) and with Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG1a 'Design Guidance and Design Statements', SPG2 'Conservation and Archaeology', SPG3a 'Density, Dwelling Mix, Floor Space Minima, Conversions, Extensions and Lifetime Homes', SPG3b 'Privacy/Overlooking, Aspect/Outlook and Daylight/Sunlight', SPG8b ‘Materials’, SPG10 ‘The Negotiation, Management and Monitoring of Planning Obligations’ and SPG 12 ‘Educational Needs Generated by New Housing Development’.

Section 106 Yes.