Agenda item

Erection of new third storey and new roof to provide 12no. two bedroom flats

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 new third storey and new roof to provide 12 two bedroom flats. 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. An amendment was advised to the wording of conditions 3, 5 and 7 to ensure they were robust and enforceable and in accordance with the approved plans.

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

·         Current residents were entitled to quiet enjoyment of their properties and which also needed to be fit for habitation

·         The construction works would generate significant dust and noise nuisance and result in loss of privacy for current residents over a significant period of time. The quality of life of the current top floor residents would particularly be impacted

·         The 5% rent reduction offered by the applicant as landlord to existing residents to compensate for disruption from the works was inadequate

·         There were existing maintenance issues with the building including damp and mould which hadn’t been addressed by the applicant

·         The new units would not be affordable family housing

·         There were already a number of new housing developments being constructed in the area

·         Long running issues with the existing refuse arrangements for the development would be exacerbated by 12 additional flats

·         Concerns were expressed over the removal of the roof and the impact on TV aerials and chimneys for the dual fuel burners provided in a number of existing flats

·         The construction timeframe was unrealistic taking into account the poor condition of the building

·         The provision of 3 new parking bays was insufficient to serve the additional demand from the new flats and residents would circumvent the car free designation despite being located in a CPZ. This would also result in increased traffic on a one way road

·         The objections made by the Conservation Officer to the application had not been addressed

·         Sunlight and daylight surveys identified that one of the windows to 2 Gisburn Road would not comply with BRE guidelines in relation to daylight. In total, 12 windows to the property would be adversely impacted by the development, infringing on the resident’s right to light. It was commented that a survey commissioned by the applicant was unlikely to be impartial.

The Committee raised the following points in discussion of the objector’s representations:

·         Assurances were sought on the concerns raised over increased car parking demand from the new flats. Transport officers outlined that parking would not be available onsite and new residents would not be eligible for parking permits. Census figures demonstrated low car ownership levels in the area and the site had high accessibility to public transport. Cycle parking and access to car club membership would be secured under condition. There were two car club bays located in close proximity.

·         The Committee suggested to the objectors that current tenants should negotiate further with the applicant over the proposed 5% rent reduction to compensate for disturbance caused by construction works.

·         Assurances were sought over the daylight and sunlight surveys undertaken. Officers advised that the survey results were considered acceptable, with only one window having a marginal shortfall against BRE guidelines for daylight but which would not be noticeable. It was advised that any right to light claims were separate to the planning system and not a material planning consideration.  

·         Further clarification was sought of the Conservation Officer’s view of the scheme. In response, she outlined that the scheme was not satisfactory from a conservation perspective due to the impact on the architectural integrity of the building, the disproportionate level of development and impact on the setting and views of the nearby Hornsey High St Conservation Area. However, as the site was not within the Conservation Area, the harm was considered less than substantial. In an additional response, the applicant identified that the building was not a heritage asset, would only be extended to three storeys and the main masonry features of the existing building would be preserved including gables and chimneys.

·         In response to questions regarding the design, the applicant advised that the exterior finish to the third floor would be grey composite panels and that no lifts were currently within the building or planned for installation.

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

·         Extensive pre and post application discussions had been held with officers and local residents, with changes made as a result of comments received

·         The site was not located in a Conservation Area. The application would not cause substantial harm and would have public benefits including the provision of new housing units available for rent and an affordable housing contribution

·         A sunlight and daylight survey had been undertaken in accordance with BRE guideline and illustrated overall compliance with the exception of a slight shortfall to one window

·         Improvements would be made to the building during the works including to the communal staircase and gardens, underpinning and cycle storage

·         The development would be designated car free as it was located in an area of high public transport accessibility

·         Scaffolding on site would be alarmed and a supervisor living on site during the course of the construction works.

·         Wherever possible, disturbance from construction would be minimised through the use of light weight materials and prefab offsite construction

·         The current aerial system and chimneys would be retained

·         A sound proof floor would be provided to the new units.

The Committee raised the following points in discussion of the application:

·         Further information was sought on the shortfall of amenity space to the new units against London Plan standards. In response, it was advised that this was acceptable as a minor shortfall, with the majority of units complying and in consideration of access to the improved communal gardens to the rear. 

·         Clarification was sought on the consultation undertaken with local residents. The applicant advised that a range of events had been held at which a number of issues had been raised including refuse arrangements and noise and disturbance from the construction process.

·         In response to concerns raised regarding refuse arrangements on site, the applicant advised that Council approval of plans for refuse and waste storage onsite would be secured under condition.

·         Concern was raised that the application constituted overdevelopment. The applicant advised that the plans had been developed in consultation with officers and although the number of new flats had been maximised, the density remained within London Plan guidelines. 

Cllr Bevan put forward a motion to reject the application on the grounds of layout, appearance, impact on the character of the adjacent Conservation Area, harm to the character and appearance of the setting and cumulative impact of the two storey extension on the building and the surrounding area. The motion was seconded by Cllrs Carter and Patterson. At a vote, it was

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2015/1273 be rejected on the grounds of layout, appearance, impact on the character of the adjacent Conservation Area, harm to the character and appearance of the setting and cumulative impact of the two storey extension on the building and the surrounding area.