Agenda item

Proposal:Construction of two linked buildings - one of 10 storeys on land adjacent to 341 Seven Sisters Rd and one of 4 storeys to the front of Cara House (Eade Road) both containing ground floor café / workspace uses and Warehouse Living accommodation with associated waste storage and cycle parking; and ten stacked shipping containers to a height of 2 storeys containing workspace / artist uses to the rear of 341 & 343 Seven Sisters Rd with associated toilet facilities, waste storage and cycle parking.

The proposals include landscaping works including the widening and remodelling of the public footpath alongside 341 Seven Sisters Rd and works to Tewksbury Road. And the creation of rain gardens, greening, seating, signage, and artworks and other associated infrastructure works, including the removal of an existing, and the construction of a new, substation.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the construction of two linked buildings - one of 10 storeys on land adjacent to 341 Seven Sisters Rd and one of 4 storeys to the front of Cara House (Eade Road) both containing ground floor café / workspace uses and Warehouse Living accommodation with associated waste storage and cycle parking; and ten stacked shipping containers to a height of 2 storeys containing workspace / artist uses to the rear of 341 & 343 Seven Sisters Rd with associated toilet facilities, waste storage and cycle parking.

The proposals include landscaping works including the widening and remodelling of the public footpath alongside 341 Seven Sisters Rd and works to Tewksbury Road. And the creation of rain gardens, greening, seating, signage, and artworks and other associated infrastructure works, including the removal of an existing, and the construction of a new, substation.

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

·         In relation to the local employment offer, some members enquired whether there would be any priority for local residents and business. The applicant team stated that the scheme would aim to attract people to the area and from the area. It was noted that there was a lot of diversity in the area, including international students and residents, and the applicant team was open to discussion targeted assistance if there was a particular definition or group in mind.

·         In response to queries about the levels of air quality and noise, the applicant team noted that they had undertaken air quality and noise assessments which had found the scheme to be compliant. It was stated that the proposals had been designed around Passivhaus energy efficiency principles and would include mechanical ventilation; there would also be an option for residents to open windows but this would not be essential. It was added that the scheme would also provide a buffer for Cara House which did not have the same level of double glazing or ventilation.

·         Members enquired about waste removal and the applicant team noted that the commercial units at ground floor level would have their own bin stores which would be subject to a trade waste contract. In relation to household waste, it was acknowledged that this had been an issue in the area and so improved waste removal had been designed into the proposals.

·         In response to a question about cycling improvements, the applicant team acknowledged that some residents required vehicles for work and travel but they stated that they did not wish to provide car parks in the area. They added that they would be happy to contribute to cycling infrastructure.

·         Regarding affordability, it was commented that the accommodation was not classified as affordable housing but would be affordable and accessible for young people and would include generous workspaces. The applicant team noted that many warehouse buildings had different landlords which led to varied conditions and investment levels. In this scheme, it was aimed to have more central control and a regulated framework to deal with issues such as fire safety and environmental health standards.

At 9.58pm, the Chair noted that, in accordance with Standing Order 18, the discussion of the specific item or case in hand at 10pm would continue at her discretion and any remaining business would be deferred to a future meeting.

·         It was confirmed that the proposal was classified as a tall building.

·         Some members noted the difficulties of recreating a warehouse building but queried the design of the proposal. It was stated that the Brutalist design of the side aspect of the building was considered to be excessive and it was suggested that a more artistic design would be welcomed.

·         In relation to a query about room sizes, the applicant team stated that the rooms were larger than the London Plan standards for Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) and that there were large, communal spaces which were a key feature of warehouse living.

·         Some members noted the issues raised by the Quality Review Panel (QRP) and felt that the design was not considered to be acceptable given the location and prominence of the site.

·         In response to a question about the ability to maintain the artistic nature of warehouse living, the applicant team explained that they were incorporating positive elements from other buildings but that there was always a mixture of people who lived in the accommodation.

The Chair thanked the applicant team for attending.