Agenda item

Demolition of existing garages and erection of 2 x single storey houses with associated car parking.

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse permission.

The Committee was informed that the application site comprised a lock up garage court between Cecile Park and Haringey Park.  The site was a long, narrow rectangle surrounded on all sides by the rear gardens of the neighbouring residential properties.  Access is from Gladwell Road which is a steep sloping residential street.  The site was located within the Crouch End Conservation Area.

The site had been subject to a number of planning applications for change of use to residential in recent years.  In 2006 a public enquiry was held to consider six separate applications having been made between 2001 and 2006.  Two of those appeals were withdrawn and the remaining four were dismissed.

In support of their application, the applicant had amended the scheme in relation to the Inspector’s comments and submitted a planning statement, design and access statement, sustainability checklist, structural survey, highways statement, tree condition survey, bat and other protected species survey.  The number of units had been reduced from four to two and from 2-storey to single storey along with the removal of the new garages proposed as part of the previous schemes.  The proposed houses would not be substantially higher than the existing garage buildings and would not interfere with the views across the site from the surrounding properties.

The Transportation Group considered that the development would not generate sufficient traffic to prevent sharing the access between pedestrians and vehicles.  They had however, recommended traffic calming measures at the access point via a Section 278 agreement.

The Council, in order to address the issues raised regarding the loss of the garages, carried out its own surveys into parking demand and demand for lock up garages in the local area.  The results demonstrated that there were more vehicles parked in the survey area than there were spaces available, the results clearly indicated that severe parking pressures did exist in the area surrounding the application site.  The second survey demonstrated that there was demand for lock up garages in the area.  If garages were available then the majority of local people would wish to rent or buy one.

An Arboricultural method statement had been supplied giving details of the method of construction in terms of the tree roots, particularly in relation to the foundations.  Eight trees highlighted would be removed for reasons of sound arboricultural management, the applicant had stated with the exception of these trees, there was no other intention to remove any other trees.  The large Horse Chestnut tree which was protected by a Tree Preservation Order was to be retained.

It was considered that the current scheme conflicted with the aims of policy UD3(c) of the Unitary Development Plan 2006, which stated that development should not significantly affect the public and private transport networks, including highways or traffic conditions.  In addition the proposal was considered to result in a detrimental effect on the conservation area as a result of additional on-street parking.  The scheme was considered to fail to meet the requirements of PPG15 and policy CSV1 of the UDP and was therefore recommended for refusal.

Members enquired how many garages were in use and in reply was informed that one garage was used for car parking and a small number used for storage.

An objector addressed the Committee and stated that after nine schemes and 10 years later the issues by the inspector were significant and all pertinent.  There was excessive car parking pressure in the area that could be reduced by the proper use of the garages.  These had been allowed to run down by the applicant.  The surveys clearly showed the demand for the garages and the parking pressure.

A local resident also addressed the Committee and was grateful to the Council for arranging the surveys and agreed with the recommendations in the report.  The main objections to the application were:

1. Intrusion.
2. Access, refuge and recycling collections.
3. The height and proximity to the boundaries.  The new buildings would still be intrusive as they would cover most of the site.

Members queried the access arrangements and the officers explained that the applicant had reverted to unsatisfactory arrangements for refuge collection.  It was a problem which the developer could not resolve.

The applicant addressed the Committee and informed that the scheme presented overcame the issues raised by the inspector, conservation officer, tree officer, highways department and also the reduction in the number of units.

The report indicated the limited use of the existing garages which would have to be demolished and rebuilt as asbestos would need to be removed.  If the garages were in use there would be lights, noise, more traffic and more unsafe for pedestrians.  There would be greater intrusion if the garages were in full use.  The area would further be opened to crime. 

The proposal was for two family units of accommodation, the height of the scheme was considerably lower than in previously applications.  The refuse area had been designed for the two houses and on the day of collection, bins would be taken to the entrance of the site and returned by the occupants.

Cllr Allison entered the meeting at 8:45pm.

The Committee referred to the garages not being in a usable condition and enquired when they were last marketed.  The applicant advised the garages had been available for letting and that fifty local residents had made enquiries about renting them.  Two local estate agents had advised they would not let them as they were considered to be dangerous. 

The Chair moved a motion to refuse the application and on a vote there was a unanimous decision to refuse the application.

RESOLVED

That the application for planning permission be refused on the grounds:

1.      The of loss of parking facilities in a congested area which would result in the increased demand for on-street parking.

2.      Prejudiced traffic and conditions of general safety along neighbouring highways as contrary to Policy UD3(c).

3.      Adversely affect the character and appearance of the Crouch End Conservation Area.

INFORMATION RELATING TO APPLICATION REF: HGY/2007/1866

FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE DATED 06/10/2008

Location: Rear Of 60 - 88 Cecile Park N8

Proposal: Demolition of existing garages and erection of 2 x single storey houses with associated car parking.

Recommendation: Refused

Decision: Refused

Drawing No’s: PP-01 to PP-07, PP-10 to PP24 incl.

Reason:

1. The loss of the lock up garages would result in the loss of valuable parking facilities in a congested area which would result in increased demand for on-street parking thereby,

i) prejudicing the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the neighbouring highway as a  contrary to Policy UD3(c) 'General Principles', and

ii) adversely affect the character and appearance of the Crouch End Conservation Area contrary to Policy CSV1 'Development in Conservation Areas' of the Unitary Development Plan 2006.

Section 106: No