Agenda item

Proposal: Construction of 6 dwellings set in landscaped area and creation of ‘community wildlife garden’ following the demolition of existing structures.

Recommendation: GRANT

Councillor Sarah Williams in the Chair

The Committee considered an application for the construction of 6 dwellings set in landscaped area and creation of ‘community wildlife garden’, following the demolition of existing structures.

Officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-       The garden extended to 122 Station Road and 11 Barratt Avenue.

-       The units were south-facing so were generally considered acceptable in terms of daylight and sunlight.

-       There was very little demolition proposed on site – one small building and other remnants of outbuildings.

Toby Castle spoke in objection to the application.  The site was bordered by Barratt Avenue and Park Avenue, part of the Wood Green Conservation Area.  The previous application in 2018 was refused, and this application was for double the amount of homes (six) and failed to address the objections and concerns outlined in the Planning Inspectors decision.  The development would alter the character of the site and would harm the quality and character of the Conservation Area.  Local residents would have overbearing visual intrusion from the properties.  The concerns raised by residents had been ignored.

Simon Fedida spoke in objection to the application.  Over 50 people had objected to the application.  The current application was larger than the last proposed application, and did not deal with the reasoning for the last refusal or appeal.  The Officer Report undervalued the site as part of a Conservation Area.  The green character of the area would be destroyed and the adverse impact outweighed the benefits of the development.

Councillor Peter Mitchell spoke in objection to the application.  He referred to the National Planning Policy Framework and the protection of Conservation Areas as a reason to refuse applications.  The previous application was dismissed on appeal on the grounds that the character and appearance of the area would be unacceptably harmed.  The design element of this application was overscaled, and there were serious issues with the living conditions.  The new London Plan referred to level access to private amenity space – this application had private amenity space at basement level, accessible by bedrooms.  All houses were single aspect with one window at ground floor level.  He urged the Committee to reject the application.

Clerks note: Cllr Mitchell left the meeting after his submission.

Mark Pender (Planning Consultant) addressed the Committee.  The new proposal for the site was covering an area twice the size of previous applications, which was a significant difference.  All of the houses were set into the ground to create an ‘upside down’ house, and green roofing would help the scheme blend into the area.  The scheme was led by the landscaping of the site.

The Applicant and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

-       The Applicant would be happy to include a condition to prevent the installation of satellite dishes.

-       A full daylight assessment according to BRE calculations had been carried out, with the design amended as a result.  All rooms now pass the daylight test.

-       The benefits of the scheme were the quality elements, the properties were unique to the site.  Despite being single aspect, none of the properties would provide substandard living accommodation.

-       The Applicant had experience of installing green roofs for 14 years, so had an understanding of what was required to design, install and maintain to a high standard.  There was a maintenance condition included in the permission, which would include the maintenance of the gardens.  It was hoped that residents would also take control of day to day issues and report any maintenance issues to the management company.

-       Neighbouring residents would be offered replacement fences – if the offer was not taken up then new fences would be built in front of the neighbours fences.

Dean Hermitage summed up the application and advised that the recommendation was to grant with the conditions as set out in the report, along with the additional condition to not allow the installation of satellite dishes.

The Chair moved that the application be approved and following a vote with 8 in favour and 2 against it was

RESOLVED

i.        That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management or Assistant Director for Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to the signing of a section 106 Legal Agreement providing for the obligation set out in the Heads of Terms below.

ii.       That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Standards and Sustainability to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended heads of terms and/or recommended conditions as set out in this report and to further delegate this power provided this authority shall be exercised in consultation with the Chairman (or in their absence the Vice-Chairman) of the Sub-Committee.

iii.      That the section 106 legal agreement referred to in resolution (2.1) above is to be completed no later than 08/04/2021 or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning shall in her/his sole discretion allow; and

iv.      That, following completion of the agreement(s) referred to in resolution (i) within the time period provided for in resolution (ii) above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions.

v.       That, in the absence of the agreement referred to in resolution (2.1) above being completed within the time period provided for in resolution (2.2) above, the planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.      The development, in the absence of a legal agreement does not include a formal undertaking to secure a contribution to allow the modification of the existing traffic order to exempt future occupants of the proposal from purchasing parking permits and alterations to the public highway, arising as a result of the development. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy 6.13 of the London Plan 2016, SP7 of the Local Plan 2017 and Policy DM32 of the Development Management Development Plan Document 2017.

vi.      In the event that the Planning Application is refused for the reasons set out in resolution (v) above, the Head of Development Management (in consultation with the Chair of Planning sub-committee) is hereby authorised to approve any further application for planning permission which duplicates the Planning Application provided that:

(i)      There has not been any material change in circumstances in the relevant planning considerations, and

(ii)     The further application for planning permission is submitted to and approved by the Assistant Director within a period of not more than 12 months from the date of the said refusal, and

(iii)    The relevant parties shall have previously entered into the agreement contemplated in resolution (1) above to secure the obligations specified therein.