Agenda item

Partial demolition of rooftop structures and retention of the existing building along with the construction of a three-storey extension to the existing building and new three-storey infill building to the corner of Goswell Rd and Pear Tree Street resulting in a part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6-storey building including internal reconfiguration and refurbishment of the existing facades to provide for 8,465 square metres (GIA) of office floorspace (Use Class B1(a)), 84 square metres (GIA) of flexible gallery/exhibition/office floorspace (Use Class B1/D1) on the first floor of the new three-storey infill building, and 677 square metres (GIA) of flexible retail/office floorspace (Use Class A1/B1(a)) along with associated access arrangements, cycle parking, refuse storage and ancillary works.

(Planning application number: P2017/1103/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised Committee of a correction to paragraph 7.3 on page 140 which indicated 7 letters of support instead of 23 and 3 letters of objections.

·         The Planning Officer advised Committee that the revised scheme had reduced the extent of sunlight and daylight loss especially to the north along Pear Tree street which was in excess of BRE guidelines. Members were advised that changes introduced include setting back the external loft and the infill building; the removal of the open terraces and the amendment to the roof plan.

·         Neighbouring residents were concerned with the scale of the proposal as it would impact the amenity of residents. Privacy concerns, noise pollution and the scheme being out of character of the area were also noted.

·         In response to resident’s concerns about overlooking and loss of privacy to residents along Pear Street, the Planning Officer reminded Members that overlooking from office use to residential use was not similar to a habitable room overlooking a habitable room.

·         On concerns that the proposal was inappropriate in terms of height, scale and bulk, Members were advised that the part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6 storey building was not out of place, similar to others in the locality. In addition the Officer noted that the proposed extensions had been designed in a manner to complement the existing building and setback from the street frontage so as to minimise the impact on neighbouring properties.

·         In response to a question on whether the plant could be relocated from the roof to the basement, the agent advised the Committee that this was to allow the basement be used for small and medium enterprises.

·         In response to Members concern of the levels of daylight and sunlight loss to adjoining properties, the agent advised that the BRE test was more strictly applied to developments in suburbia, compared to central London locations.

·         The agent informed Members that the revised proposal had been developed in conjunction with Planning Officers, was policy compliant, providing over 500 jobs and would be making a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing.

·         Members welcomed the provision and improvement of workspaces but were concerned with the impact on adjoining properties.
 

Councillor Convery proposed a motion to refuse planning permission on the grounds that the proposal would impact the amenity of neighbouring residents.

This was seconded by Councillor Picknell and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out above, the wording of which was delegated to officers in conjunction with the chair.