Agenda item

Demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment to provide 9 residential units (Class C3) with associated access, parking and amenity space provision. 

RECOMMENDATION: grant permission subject to conditions and subject to s106 Legal Agreement

 [Cllr Carroll stood down from the Committee for the determination of this item and took no part in discussions].

The Committee considered a report on the application to grant planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment to provide 9 residential units (Class C3) with associated access, parking and amenity space provision. 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 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 setting out a number of new and amended conditions.

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

·         Over 60 objections to the scheme had been submitted by local residents

·         The site was only vacant as the current tenants had been evicted.

·         The scheme would compromise the amenity of nearby residents including from overlooking and a loss of privacy. An independent architect commissioned had identified that the development would result in overlooking and breached 20m separation distances to neighbouring properties. The proposed reduction to the height of the car park wall would further exacerbate the overlooking issue as well as creating a hazardous drop.

·         The scheme would cause noise and light pollution including from the proposed balconies and basement light wells.

·         The application contained 38 breaches of planning policy and would set a dangerous precedent for future developments in the area.

·         The building would constitute a significant increase in massing, height and scale compared to the primarily single storey building currently onsite and would be overbearing, particularly to residents of Mount Pleasant Crescent. The scheme was similar in terms of bulk and height to a previous application rejected in 2008 on the grounds of its harmful impact on amenity.

·         The scheme was bulky as a consequence of the applicant squeezing in too many units and was out of proportion to the local area which consisted predominantly of smaller scale buildings. 

·         The scheme would cause conservation harm due to its proximity to two locally listed terraces of houses. Concerns were raised that the conservation officer had not visited the site and her conclusions too brief for example in making no reference to nearby heritage assets such as Grade 2 Listed Stapleton Hall. Housing need and the PTAL of the site appeared to have been the drivers of the development to the detriment of the heritage impact and as such the application was contrary to policy DM7.

·         The application was out of line with an objective under the Council’s development management charter to confidently address feedback from local consultation.

Cllrs Gallagher and Hearn addressed the Committee in their capacity as local ward councillors and raised the following points:

·         The development would cause harm to residential amenity and the Stroud Green Conservation Area

·         Too many units would be crammed onsite resulting in unacceptable living conditions for future residents including a lack of outlook from screened balconies and the basement bedrooms, the living/kitchen room to unit 4 failing to comply with BRE standard in terms of daylight and many of the other rooms were barely above the minimum daylight/sunlight standards.

·         The Council should be focussed on bringing forward high quality developments not those that only just met minimum design standards and were borderline policy compliant.  

·         Significant objections had been raised including by local residents, ward councillors and MP. The concerns raised by local residents regarding overlooking, overbearing, loss of amenity, damage to the Conservation Area and noise and light pollution from the development were reiterated.

·         The layout of the scheme was unsuitable and unworkable due to the density, necessitating the use of obscured glass and resulting in dimly lit rooms with a lack of outlook, particularly in the basement.

·         Health and safety concerns were raised around the works proposed to the car park wall.

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

·         The Council’s policy position regarding the development of backland sites was questioned. Officers advised that emerging Local Plan policies set out a position regarding the development of backland and infill sites and that the application was in compliance with this as a comprehensive redevelopment of a vacant brownfield site. 

·         Concerns were raised over the loss of employment land from the current use of the site. Officers responded that on balance it was considered that residential use was an acceptable alternative use for the site located as it was within a residential area.

·         Clarification was sought on concerns regarding light levels to the basement rooms. In response, it was advised that a daylight survey demonstrated that the basement would meet BRE standards save for one room in one of the units but which did exceed the British Standard for Daylight and as such was considered acceptable.

·         It was questioned why the density of the scheme was low compared to the recommended standard for this part of London. Officers advised that the density of the scheme was within London Plan guidelines and sat well within the context of the area. 

·         Assurances were sought on concerns raised about the lack of outlook to the basement rooms. Officers outlined the differences between the daylight and outlook assessments undertaken, the results of which were both considered to be acceptable.

·         An explanation was sought on why an affordable housing contribution was not associated with the scheme. Officers outlined in response the current legal position on affordable housing contributions for developments of fewer than 10 units and which rendered it unlawful to impose a tariff. It was advised however that should the development to subdivided or extended in the future to increase the number of units or the floorspace over 1000sqm, a contribution would be secured via the s106 legal agreement.

·         Clarification was sought over how closely the current application resembled the previously refused scheme. Officers advised that the current scheme had a different roof form and therefore had improved massing and outlook in comparison to the refused application. 

·         Clarification was sought on overlooking distances to neighbouring properties. Officers advised that the Council did not have a specific policy position on this, with applications determined on their own merits. 20m was often used as rule of thumb but it was recognised that this was often unachievable in London.

·         Further assurance was sought over the impact of the scheme on the Conservation Area. The conservation officer advised that although she had been unable to visit the site in person, it had been comprehensively assessed on a heritage basis using computer software. The scheme was only two storeys in height, would be an improvement on the current building on site and overall an enhancement to the setting of the heritage assets. The design maintained an ancillary scale to Mount Pleasant Crescent and Stapleton Hall Road and was considered appropriate for the site. The site was also a fair distance from the listed building on Stapleton Hall Road. 

Representatives for the applicant addressed the Committee and raised the following points:

·         The scheme had been revised a number to times in response to comments received from officers and local residents during the two year consultation process.

·         Much needed new homes would be provided on a brownfield site that would be brought back into use.

·         The conservation officer had the view that the application would enhance the Conservation Area, with the currently derelict site being unsightly and a security risk.

·         Clarification was provided that the tenants previously onsite had not been evicted but had moved to purpose built premises.

·         The scheme design was sympathetic, would have no adverse impact on neighbouring properties and was of an appropriate scale being only 2sqm larger than the current building onsite.

·         The scheme exceeded all building design standards.

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

·         In response to a question, the applicant advised that the basement element served to reduce the scale of the scheme and the impact on neighbouring properties. 

·         Further assurances were sought on concerns raised by objectors that the new residential units would be substandard. The applicant advised that the units all exceeded minimum standards including London Plan room and amenity space guidance and would provide acceptable living conditions.

·         Assurances were sought on the accuracy of the sunlight and daylight surveys undertaken. The applicant advised that these had been undertaken using laser scanning, with a tolerance of just 3mm.

·         Further clarification was sought on proposals for the reduction in height of the retaining wall in the car park and the potential for this to pose a health and safety risk. The applicant advised that this measure was to further improve living conditions to the basement accommodation although it was emphasised that the units would still comply with BRE daylight standards even if the wall was retained at its current height. Officers advised that a condition could be added related to this wall to require some form of boundary treatment to be installed such as a grill to protect any drop to the basement light wells.

·         Further details were sought on claims made that the scheme would improve daylight to neighbouring properties. The applicant advised that the current structures on site were of a greater scale and located closer to neighbouring boundaries than the proposed scheme.

·         Further assurances were sought over the quality of light received to the new units in consideration of proposals for obscured glazing to windows and balconies and the lack of direct light to the basement bedrooms. The applicant advised that only the parts of the balconies that were overlooked would be obscured. Assurances were also provided that daylight assessments were undertaken based on a level 850mm from the floor as opposed to standing head height and that even on these terms, the basement rooms were assessed as being acceptable in terms of daylight.

The Chair moved the recommendation of the report and at a vote, the recommendation fell.

The Chair invited the Committee to put forward alternative motions. The legal officer reminded the Committee that any refusal needed to be on material planning grounds and be capable of being sustained at appeal to avoid the potential for the award of costs against the Council. 

Cllrs Mallett and Mitchell put forward a motion to reject the application on the following grounds: one of the ground floor livings rooms in one of the units did not comply with BRE standards; harm caused to the Conservation Area; the living conditions for future residents; harm from overlooking and to the residential amenity of surrounding occupiers; the scheme did not comply with policy DM1 as it did not relate positively to neighbouring structures to create a harmonious whole and did not make a positive contribution to a place improving the character and quality of an area; the application did not confidently address feedback from local consultation and was contrary to DM7 regarding backland sites in not relating appropriately and sensitively to the surrounding area as well as the established street scene. At a vote, the motion was carried and it was agreed to delegate to officers the exact drafting of the refusal based on the points outlined above.

RESOLVED

·         That planning application HGY/2015/3288 be refused inline with the reasons outlined above and that delegation be given to officers in the drafting of the wording of the refusal.