Agenda item

PPA-2021-0017 - 313-315 THE ROUNDWAY AND 8-10 CHURCH LANE, LONDON, N17 7AB

Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a three to five storey building with new retail and workspace at ground floor and 76 dwellings plus new landscaping, car and cycle parking.

Minutes:

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of a three to five storey building with new retail and workspace at ground floor and 76 dwellings plus new landscaping, car and cycle parking.

 

Christopher Smith, Planning Officer, highlighted that there had been an error in the report and it was clarified that the scheme was not an entirely rented development and would be available for sale with a proportion of the affordable housing being made available to rent.

 

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

·         It was noted that the Quality Review Panel (QRP) had expressed some concerns about long corridors and rooms with low light levels. The applicant team explained that the internal layout and sequencing was still being developed and was being considered alongside environmental testing for noise, air quality, and ventilation. It was added that the longer corridors had light and ventilation and it was not considered that the corridors were excessively long.

·         The Committee noted that the QRP had considered that there were too many single aspect flats and it was enquired whether the applicant would be making any adjustments. The applicant team noted that this element of the scheme had been improved and it was now proposed to have 74% of units with dual aspect. Where a unit was single aspect, it tended to be south facing with good access to light.

·         It was noted that there was a busy junction between the railway and Lordship Lane located near the site and it was enquired how traffic and other noise could be mitigated. The applicant team explained that air quality and noise had been tested and there was confidence that they could provide a high level of residential amenity. It was added that there would be different approaches to the balconies on each side of the proposal to mitigate issues.

·         The QRP had commented that the top floor of the proposals did not look as well protected from the sun. The applicant team noted that there had been some amendments to the design following QRP comments and that the corner of the proposal would now be set back, wrapped around, and more interesting.

·         In response to questions about the layout of the buildings and the site, the applicant team stated that the site was complicated and that, with advice, they had tried to bring forward a coherent scheme. It was noted that some previous attempts to develop the site had been unsuccessful as there had been insufficient land but that additional land had now been secured. It was explained that the proposals would have a route through the site and views to Bruce Castle. The applicant team noted that buildings would be set back in order to minimise the impact on Bruce Castle. There would be playspace, a garden, and areas where residents could have allotments. There would also be greening of the frontage and all roofs would have water storage. The applicant team also noted that it had been highlighted from the outset of the project that it would likely not be possible to meet affordable housing targets on the site due to the heritage setting. It was explained that this was a modest scheme and that, although costs could be reduced to provide additional affordable housing, the applicant did not want to compromise on the quality of the scheme.

·         In relation to noise issues, it was noted that there was a small area of private amenity for the family sized units in Block D. It was explained that this space would provide a buffer between the units and the adjoining garage and car wash area. It was envisioned that the garage may be used less over time, as more sustainable modes of transport were developed, and that there could be scope to include the area within the site. It was added that the scheme had been re-orientated so that it faced towards Bruce Castle.

·         It was noted that there had been some discussions about removing the gate to the site. It was explained that this would provide some additional amenity and would allow free movement across the site but that some safety concerns, particularly concerns about overnight access, were being considered.

·         It was clarified that the applicant had designed the scheme so that the business operations of the petrol station were not impeded but so that it would be possible for the site to be further developed if the opportunity arose. The applicant team also noted that the substation adjacent to the site was considered to have some architectural merit but that it would be beneficial to improve the boundary treatment; the applicant would be willing to contribute to this.

·         In relation to schools, the applicant team stated that there had been and would be child yield assessments but there was no indication that the development would have a significant impact on the capacity of local schools. It was added that the applicant would pay Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions.

·         In response to queries about the availability and accessibility of cycle storage, the applicant team explained that they were trying to encourage the use of bicycles. They were considering the practicalities of cycle storage, including the access routes for cycle storage, the availability of two smaller stores rather than one large store, and the availability of single stacking for those who could not reach taller storage options. It was confirmed that the proposal was due to have 140 cycle spaces for the 76 flats.

·         The Committee commented that the overhanging balconies could create a dark passageway and it was enquired how this would be made safe by design. The applicant team stated that the passageway was quite short and that, due to the orientation, the area would receive a lot of light during the day and would be well lit at night. It was added that the QRP felt that the scale of the proposal was impressive.

·         The Committee asked how Church Lane would reflect the heritage of Bruce Castle Park. The applicant team explained that they had originally wanted to use brick to reflect Bruce Castle but that they felt it was important not to have a pastiche or detract from Bruce Castle itself. Instead, the applicant was seeking to reflect Bruce Castle more subtly through dark brick and red lintels, windows, cornices, and the progressively set back pavilions.

 

The Chair thanked the applicant team for attending.

Supporting documents: