Agenda item

Proposal: Redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of existing garages and the erection of a nine-storey building to accommodate 23 residential units for council rent (Class C3). Associated cycle and refuse/recycling storage facilities, accessible car-parking spaces, and landscaping and public realm improvements including a children's play space. Relocation of existing refuse/recycling facility.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of existing garages and the erection of a nine-storey building to accommodate 23 residential units for council rent (Class C3); associated cycle and refuse/recycling storage facilities, accessible car parking spaces, and landscaping and public realm improvements including a children's play space; relocation of existing refuse/recycling facility.

Conor Guilfoyle, Planning Officer, introduced the report and highlighted that additional information relating to access, servicing, and waste; fire; Thames Water; and landscaping was set out in the addendum. The Planning Officer responded to questions from the Committee:

·         The Head of Development Management explained that the application had been publicised in a number of ways; a press notice, letters, and site notice, but that, due to an administrative error, there had been a delay in the press notice being published. It was noted that the consultation would run until 23 September 2021. It was explained that, if any material objections were raised during this time, they would have to be considered and that the decision would not proceed if there were any material impacts on the decision.

·         It was clarified that the sustainable transport initiatives referenced on page 8 of the agenda pack included measures such as the installation of bike stores and limits on parking.

·         It was commented that, on page 36 of the agenda pack, the Conservation Officer had noted that there was a significant impact on the conservation area. It was confirmed that this should state that they considered that there was not a significant impact.

·         It was confirmed that, on page 56 of the agenda pack, it should state that there would be 23 residential units, rather than eight.

·         It was confirmed that the proposed building would be nine storeys and that the two existing tower blocks were both 15 storeys. The Planning Officer explained that the design approach was set out in the report and that planning policies now asked certain sites to be developed at higher density to meet housing demand.

·         The Committee expressed some concerns that residents did not always use cycle stores due to security concerns. The Planning Officer commented that the proposal would have internal cycle storage that would be secure, weatherproof, and accessible only by residents. The Committee noted these points in relation to this application but requested that a report on cycle stores be presented to the Strategic Planning Committee.

·         In relation to play facilities, it was confirmed that there would be in excess of 10sqm of play space per child for residents of the new building. It was intended that this space would be used by children under 11 as there were other areas locally for older children; it was noted that the space on site would be available for existing residents as well as residents of the new building. It was added that the play space provided would exceed the level required by planning policy. It was also noted that there would also be biodiversity measures in this area but that these would be small and would not try to compete with the play space.

·         In response to a question about the ability of buildings to accommodate hoists in wheelchair units, it was noted that this would be considered under the Building Regulations; although compliance would be required, this was assessed under a different process. The Committee acknowledged this but asked that a report on this issue be presented to the Strategic Planning Committee.

·         In relation to a question about whether visitors would be able to obtain visitor parking vouchers, the Chair believed that these were now available, even where residents did not have a parking permit.

·         It was noted in the report that there would be an improvement of 64% in carbon dioxide emissions.It was clarified that this related to the level of reduction for the new build over and above the requirements of Building Regulations rather than the replacement of the garages.

·         The Committee enquired whether the development could be required to commence within two years rather than three. The Head of Development Management noted that this was a standard condition but that the Committee could put this question to the applicant and amend the condition.

·         It was explained that the applicant for this scheme would make carbon offset contributions. These would go to the carbon offset community fund which would be spent on mitigation measures off site. It was suggested that a report on carbon offsetting could be provided to the Strategic Planning Committee.

·         The Committee noted the comments of the Quality Review Panel (QRP) to ensure that the courtyard area did not become a waste storage area for residents. The Planning Officer noted that the measures to prevent this would include access to the area through a locked gate, additional surveillance provided by foot traffic, and a hard and soft landscaping scheme which would be subject to approval by the Local Planning Authority.

·         The Committee welcomed the installation of stores for mobility scooters. It was enquired whether there could be additional visitor cycle parking and whether there was storage space for larger or cargo bikes. The Transport Planning Officer explained that the provision of two visitor cycle parking spaces met the London Plan policy for 5-40 dwellings. It was confirmed that larger or cargo bikes could be stored internally.

·         Some members commented that the drawings of Bounds Green Road had additional green landscaping and that the visuals provided should be more representative of the area.

·         Some members suggested that the building would be more appropriate with six storeys. The Planning Officer explained that, due to issues of housing demand, there was a need to maximise housing as much as possible, based on a design-led approach, and that officers considered that the proposals could be accommodated on the site.

The Chair noted that, at her discretion, the Committee would hear from three objectors in relation to this application. They would have three minutes each to present their views to the Committee and then the applicant would have nine minutes to speak.

Jack Grant spoke in objection to the application. He noted that, in the pre-application consultation, there had been 28 responses, with 26 negative responses and no responses in favour. He stated that a number of the concerns raised had not been addressed in the application, including issues such as the location of bin stores. He commented that the report stated that light levels would not be adversely affected but highlighted that domestic windows would be losing 62% of their light and that the playground would be losing 44% of its light. He added that the playground would be dark in January and December. Jack Grant explained that he would like to raise a point of order. He drew attention to the planning protocol, which stated that objectors would be able to speak against an application, and enquired why the applicant would be given equal time to address the Committee. Ed Telepneff, Legal Advisor, noted that the applicant had a right to respond and that the applicant would be given the same amount of time as objectors; it was explained that this was the Council’s protocol.

Paul Burnham spoke in objection to the application. He stated that the visual impact of placing housing blocks so close together was problematic and that, with a distance of 15 metres, the outlook would be foreboding. He commented that the proposal was incompatible with the typology of area, which was primarily built pre-1939. He noted that overlooking was an issue in several directions, particularly between Finsbury House and the proposed block. He stated that this would impact privacy which was a major quality of life issue. He added that there would be a loss of light and that the new building was inappropriately situated directly south of the two existing blocks and play cabin. He commented that the first and second floors of Newbury House would have a 20% reduction in light and that the play cabin would lose 18% of total sunlight hours and 38% of winter sunlight hours. He asked for the proposed height of the building to be reconsidered. He stated that dense housing developments were not good for future residents and asked that residents were treated with more respect and asked the applicant to look at the proposal again. He added that the Committee should not make a decision while the consultation was still in progress.

MalganGrech spoke in objection to the application. He stated that he objected to the height and space of the proposal and that the closeness and overshadowing made the application unreasonable. He commented that there would be a loss of privacy, light, and peace due to the scale, position, and height of the proposed building. He stated that the area had a shortage of parking already and that motorbike parking was not mentioned. He commented that the application would result in diminished quality of life and more social problems which had not been taken into account. He did not believe that the proposals respected the scale and context of the area and he felt that the building would have an unattractive design which was out of character in the area. In relation to his property, he noted that the proposal would remove the view from his balcony, would result in light loss, would diminish the value of his property, and would mean that he had no parking or bulk storage.

At 8.14pm, the Committee had a brief adjournment to rectify some technical issues for those joining and watching the meeting remotely. The meeting resumed at 8.16pm.

The objectors responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In response to a question about alternative proposals, Paul Burnham noted that different objectors would have different views but stated that the number of homes proposed in the area was excessive and that the design was not acceptable. He commented that the loss of light and access proposed was unacceptable. It was noted that residents supported the provision of council homes but that more thought was required for the proposals.

·         In response to a question about the loss of light, Paul Burnham stated that the Building Research Establishment (BRE) standards denied light access to people that they should be reasonably entitled to. He added that residents did not think that the loss of light would be appropriate.

Christian Pinchin, applicant team, addressed the Committee. Christian Pinchin stated that they were making use of an under used site in a highly accessible location. It was noted that, through the QRP and pre-application process, the design of the proposal had evolved based on the advice given. The applicant team felt that they had consulted widely through a programme of community engagement. They considered that the building proposed was the best solution for brief which made use of a tight brownfield site whilst respecting its location. It was noted that there would be three units per floor which was considered to be efficient and to provide good gross floor space. It was explained that the site had a unique, triangular shape and the applicant considered that the proposal provided a modern and unique response which minimised direct overlooking to the adjacent properties. It was considered that the design was elegant, complemented the surroundings, and used modern materials to layer the façades with visually interesting components. It was noted that the proposals delivered an optimum number of units, a 64% carbon dioxide reduction, an energy efficient building, complied with policies, and provided 23 high quality, affordable units.

In relation to some queries raised by objectors and councillors, the applicant team noted that it was noted that the building would have a reinforced, concrete frame with inherent strengths in the structure which would be able to accommodate hoists and disabled access. In relation to possible dumping in the side yard, it was noted that the area would have secure access gates and CCTV and would be naturally policed by foot traffic. Regarding sunlight and daylight, it was explained that the building had been analysed using BRE guidance and was considered to be acceptable. It was noted that there were some impacts but that, on balance, it accorded with the regulations.

The applicant team and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was enquired whether the proposal could have a lower number of storeys. The applicant team considered that a design with nine storeys created a more slim profile, especially when viewed from Bounds Green Road, and that the building would look blockier with six storeys. It was added that a nine storey building would provide a more optimal number of social housing units.

·         The Committee asked how many rooms would be affected in terms of daylight, sunlight, and overlooking and whether there was any non-compliance. The applicant team explained that it was very rare that a building in London had no impact on its neighbours. It was noted that there had been detailed analysis and that the professional report considered the proposal to be compliant. In relation to overlooking, it was explained that the building had been designed so that, as much as possible, the habitable rooms faced primarily south, sometimes east or west, and rarely north to avoid the existing blocks. It was added that a small proportion of rooms were significantly affected.

The Committee discussed the proposed conditions:

·         It was noted that condition 17 should be corrected to read 23 residential units.

·         The applicant confirmed that they were content for condition 1 to require development to commence within two years, rather than three years. The Committee agreed that condition 1 should be amended to require development to commence within two years.

·         It was agreed that a condition should be included to state that no satellite dishes should be attached to the building. The Head of Development Management noted that the standard wording in relation to satellite dishes could be included and that this condition would be included with appropriate numbering.

·         It was noted that there were some changes to conditions set out in the addendum. It was commented that there were two sections titled ‘condition 6’. The Head of Development Management confirmed that all conditions would be numbered consecutively.

The Committee noted that the consultation period for this application was still open and enquired what would happen if there were further objections. Ed Telepneff, Legal Advisor, explained that, if any material objections were received and the issue had not been considered or addressed, it would not be advisable for permission to be issued. He noted that the new objections should then be considered by the Committee and the application should be reheard, taking the issues into account.

Cllr Rice suggested that it would be appropriate to wait until the outcome of the consultation before the Committee considered the application. Cllr Rice moved to defer consideration of the application until after the close of the consultation process; this was seconded by Cllr Say. There were 4 votes in favour of the motion to defer and 5 votes against the motion to defer. The motion was not passed.

Following a vote with 6 votes in favour and 3 votes against, it was

RESOLVED

1.    To GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives subject to the signing of an agreement providing for the obligations set out in the Heads of Terms below following the expiry of the consultation by way of press notice on 23rd September without any new material representations.

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & 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 Chair (or in their absence the Vice-Chair) of the Sub-Committee.

3.    That the agreement referred to in resolution (1) above is to be completed no later than 14th October or within such extended time as the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards & Sustainability shall in her/his sole discretion allow; and

4.    That, following completion of the agreement(s) referred to in resolution (1) within the time period provided for in resolution (3) above, planning permission be granted in accordance with the Planning Application subject to the attachment of the conditions (the full text of recommended conditions is contained in Appendix 1 of the report, the addendum to the report, and the agreed amendments noted by the Committee above).

Cllr Ibrahim did not take part in the voting for this item as she was not present for the full item.