Agenda item

Demolition of 32 garages and Holly Bank Cottage and construction of 6 x2 storey dwellings comprising 1 x4 bed and 5 x3 bed units, car parking and associated landscaping.

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

[Cllr Newton absented himself as a member of the Committee for the duration of discussions on this item].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing garages and Holly Bank Cottage on site and redevelopment to provide 6x 2 storey dwellings, car parking and associated landscaping. 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. A correction was outlined to point 5.5 within the Committee report in that drainage did constitute a material planning consideration but that officers considered the details provided by the applicant in this regard to be acceptable and noted that Thames Water had made no objection to the application. Three additional representations received since the publication of the agenda were also set out.

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

·         The access way to the site was narrow in nature and restricted to less than 3m wide at some points due to overhanging first floor bay windows to the adjacent block of flats and was therefore unsuitable for two way traffic and large delivery vans or refuse vehicles.  

·         Separation was not proposed between vehicles and pedestrians using the access way giving rise to safety concerns in particular for the residents of Holly Bank flats who utilised the route to access the side gate to their development. This route was the sole access pathway for one of the residents as a wheelchair user and was also used frequently used by parents with pushchairs.

·         The development would result in increased traffic using the access way and a change to the hours of use which would cause disturbance to the residents of Holly Bank flats.

·         It was proposed that the communal bin store for the new development be located adjacent to the Holly Bank flats which would further narrow the access way and cause a nuisance to residents due to the proximity to their windows. 

·         The access junction onto Muswell Hill was dangerous.

·         Parking pressures in the area would be exacerbated including from the loss of the existing garages.

·         The scheme would have a detrimental impact on mature trees on the site, with the design requiring a number to be felled and potentially damaging the roots of those located to the boundary.

·         The depth of the basement development works would extend below the water table and could cause future flooding problems.

·         Neighbouring properties on Etheldene Avenue would suffer from overlooking from the new houses.

·         Development of the site was not opposed but it was considered that this design sought to cram too many properties onto a constrained site. 

Members sought clarification from officers on a number of points:

·         A response was requested on the issues raised by the objectors on the constrains of the access way. Officers advised that the access way was in general 4.7m in width although it narrowed at a number of points. It was considered acceptable for shared pedestrian and vehicular access in line with the Department for Transport’s Manual for Streets and in that it would be fairly low trafficked. Vehicles exiting onto Muswell Hill had a good view of oncoming traffic, with no reported accidents at that junction. Displacement parking from the redevelopment of the site was forecast to be negligible and traffic flow likely reduced from that associated with the current 32 garages on site.

·         The impact on adjacent properties on Etheldene Avenue was questioned. Officers outlined that separation distances of at least 20m between the buildings would be maintained and that the roof level of the new dwellings, although slightly higher than the existing garages, would have a lower ridge height than the Etheldene properties.

·         Concerns were raised regarding the basement excavation works and the potential impact on the water table. Officers confirmed that a basement impact assessment had been undertaken which demonstrated that due to the relatively shallow excavation depth of 1.5m and presence of mainly London clay, the basement would not have a significant impact on the water table.

·         Members expressed dissatisfaction with the low £150k offsite affordable housing contribution. Officers affirmed that the contribution was in line with the affordable housing SPG and that the scheme due to its size did not support onsite provision.

The applicant’s representatives addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         An innovative, sensitive and high quality design had been created for the site to mirror the existing footprint and retain similar building heights.

·         The density of development on the site would be relatively low and did not constitute overdevelopment.

·         The garages currently on site were underused and as such their demolition would not lead to additional parking pressures in the area.

·         The scheme would provide a number of family sized houses which were in demand.

·         The current separation distances to adjacent buildings would be maintained and only a slight 1m increase made to the ridge height of the new dwellings.

·         The new dwellings had been designed with an internal aspect, with only limited and obscure glazing provided to rear elevations.

·         The junction onto Muswell Hill was an existing access way and it was projected that the number of car journeys would be lower than that associated with the garages.

·         The proposed bin store was close to the existing store for Holly Bank flats in order to be close to the road junction for ease of servicing.  

Cllrs Engert and M. Blake addressed the Committee in their capacity as local ward Councillors and raised the following points:

·         Over 250 objections had been received from local residents concerned that the scheme would have an unacceptable impact on the Rookfield Conservation Area and Article 4 Direction Area and would not enhance or preserve its character.

·         The scheme would constitute overdevelopment of what was a semi-rural site and would set a precedent for future development in Conservation Areas.

·         Access arrangements to the rear of the Holly Bank flats would be affected, including making more dangerous the only route of entry for one of the residents who was a wheelchair user and parents with prams.

·         The narrow nature of the access way did not support two way vehicle flow, restricted even further by the siting of the bin stores and the overhanging bay windows.

·         Vehicle access onto Muswell Hill was dangerous illustrated in a number of adjacent side roads being blocked off at this end.

·         The development of the site was not opposed in general terms but the current scheme was not considered suitable.

·         The development would be a full profit scheme and in consideration of the high land value and resale values of the completed units, the affordable housing contribution was too low.

The legal officer advised the Committee that the Article 4 Direction Area designation was not relevant to the determination of the application and that granting permission would not set a precedent for development in Conservation Areas as individual applications were determined on their own merit. 

In response to a request from the Committee, the conservation officer provided further clarification on her position in supporting the application. It was advised that the dilapidated garages currently on site detracted from the Conservation Area and that the design of the proposed scheme was well interpreted within the context of the Conservation Area, of high quality and would constitute better use of the site.  

Cllr Bevan put forward a motion to reject the application due to the low s106 contribution. Officers advised that this was unlikely to be upheld on any appeal as the contribution was in line with the Council’s current SPD. The motion was not seconded.  

Cllr Rice queried whether the application could be rejected on the grounds of the restricted nature of the access way and the lack of separation between vehicles and pedestrians. Officers advised that it would be unlikely that an appeal would be upheld on this grounds due to low volume of traffic using the access way and its compliance with the Manual for Streets. Confirmation was provided that the access way at an average 3m width would accommodate larger vehicles such as delivery lorries. 

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report to grant permission and which following a vote, the recommendation was lost.

Cllr Bevan put forward a motion to reject the application on the grounds of affordable housing, access and that bedroom 3 to house 6 did not comply with the minimum room size threshold set out within the London Plan. The motion was not seconded.  

The Chair put forward a motion, with input from Cllrs Bevan and Carroll, and seconded by Cllrs Mallett and Bevan and which was subsequently carried at a vote and it was

RESOLVED

·         To reject application HGY/2013/2606 on the grounds of conservation in that the application was out of keeping with the Conservation Area, the level of the affordable housing contribution, access difficulties to the site and the failure for all rooms in the properties to comply with minimum room size standards.