Agenda item

Proposal: Retention of existing Police Station building (Block A) with internal refurbishment, rear extensions and loft conversions to create  6 terrace houses and 4 flats. Erection of two buildings comprising of Block C along Glebe Road and Harold Road to create 8 flats and erection of Block B along Tottenham Lane and towards the rear of Tottenham Lane to create 7 flats and 4 mews houses including landscaping and other associated works.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the retention of existing Police Station building (Block A) with internal refurbishment, rear extensions and loft conversions to create 6 terrace houses and 4 flats. Erection of two buildings comprising of Block C along Glebe Road and Harold Road to create 8 flats and erection of Block B along Tottenham Lane and towards the rear of Tottenham Lane to create 7 flats and 4 mews houses including landscaping and other associated works.

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

·         The Committee noted that the police station was a community use building and that, under Council Policy DM49, there was a requirement to seek alternative community uses for the building, including through marketing; it was enquired whether this had been undertaken. The applicant team stated that the pre-application had outlined the change of use and had been supported and it was believed that no further marketing was required in relation to DM49. The applicant team explained that the police station was considered to be sui generis use rather than community use. The Head of Development Management noted that this would require confirmation.

·         In relation to the elevations and pitched roof, the applicant team explained that the application did not aim to create a pastiche or replicate existing buildings in the area. It was stated that the design was more contemporary and that the proposed undulations took inspiration from the local context.

·         Regarding resident concerns about daylight, the applicant team stated that there had been a daylight and sunlight assessment. It was noted that all Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines had been met and that there would be no infringements for overshadowing on neighbouring properties.

·         It was confirmed that the affordable housing provision, including type and tenure, was provisional. The current proposal was to have eight affordable units, subject to the conclusion of the viability assessment.

·         The applicant team noted that a transport assessment and parking stress survey had been conducted which found that there were sufficient parking spaces. It was clarified that only the 12 family sized units would have access to parking.

·         Some members of the Committee expressed concerns that waste would be collected from the roadside which would have a negative impact on the nearby junction. The applicant team stated that waste collection was currently from the roadside and it was proposed to maintain this. It was added that introducing waste collection from within the site would negatively impact the landscaping and greening of the site. It was added that the number of bin stores had been calculated in line with the Council’s requirements.

·         The applicant team clarified that some changes had been made to the design of the proposal in response to comments from the Quality Review Panel (QRP). It was noted that Block C now included different brick treatment, dormers, and low level planting in order to look more interesting.

·         In response to a question about conservation and resident views, the applicant team stated that a heritage consultant had been used and a heritage assessment had been drafted. It was noted that a number of comments had been received throughout the process, including strong, positive feedback for Blocks B and C. It was stated that design was subjective and that some people had requested more traditional design whilst others had requested more architecturally styled design. The applicant team explained that the proposed design was informed by the design context, feedback from residents, and feedback from the Planning Team.

·         In relation to internal landscaping, the applicant team noted that there would be seating areas on raised sculptural forms and it was aimed to have a congregation space. It was highlighted that all units would have access to these areas and that there would be natural surveillance through overlooking of the communal area.

·         Some members enquired whether the Committee would be able to consider examples of finished materials in order to make a decision. The Head of Development Management explained that materials would only be brought before the Committee if they were of fundamental importance.

The Chair thanked the applicant team for attending.