Agenda item

Erection of roof extensions to Blocks A, B and C to provide 4 self-contained flats (2 x 2 bed flats and 2 x 1 bed flats). Erection of a 4 storey infill rear extension to Blocks A and B to enlarge 4 existing studio flats to create larger 1 bedroom flats. Elevational improvements to street elevations of all blocks and the provision of refuse & recycling and cycle storage facilities and associated alterations.

(Planning application number: P2017/0209/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·        The Planning Officer advised Members that an additional letter of objection had been received since agenda was published which raised concerns on the revised scheme on issues related to the proposed improvements to the elevation, the Juliet balconies, the full height windows, the service shaft blocking light and ventilation, the loss of a fire exit door and safety concerns about the zinc material.

·        The Planning Officer informed Members of an amendment to paragraph 10.28 in the report, that it should read ‘the proposed service shaft would not provide light and ventilation to the bathroom as it is not open at the top floor’.

·        In response to questions about fire safety concerns, the Planning Officer advised that although a written response had not been received from the Fire Service, no objections had been suggested following a telephone conversation and building control had requested conditions to be included as part of the planning permission.

·        With regard to the relationship between the leaseholders and freeholders, the Legal Officer advised that this was not a planning consideration.

·        Members were informed that applicant had agreed to increase the length of the shaft up to the top of the building so as to address concerns of residents about the loss of light to their bathroom following the erection of the 4 storey infill rear extension.

·        Members were concerned that residents had not been consulted by the applicant and that officers had not received a written response especially in light of the proposed loss of a fire exit door from the Fire Service.

·        Members noted the closeness of the adjacent locally listed building and boundaries of the conservation area. Members also considered the councils design and conservations officer’s objections to the scheme. In discussing the design merits of the scheme members raised concerns regarding the overall design, scale, bulk, massing and zinc finish to the proposed roof extension and considered the proposed front balconies to be a discordant feature.

·        Members suggested a refusal on grounds of the design, the loss of amenity for present occupiers, the erection of an inadequate ventilation shaft with associated poor ventilation and a contrived access arrangement to the shaft through an existing flat.

·        Members also raised concerns regarding the loss of existing fire doors and lack of an integrated fire strategy for the scheme as a whole.

Councillor Picknell proposed a motion to refuse Planning Permission based on the agreed reasons stated below.  This was seconded by Councillor Ward and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out above, the wording of the reasons for refusal which was delegated to officers to be agreed by the Chair.

REASON 01: The proposed roof extensions (Blocks A, B & C) and balconies by reason of their inappropriate design, bulk, scale, massing and finishing materials would form a discordant and dominant features when seen from both the public and private realms. The extensions would cause visual harm to the character and appearance of the host building and wider urban setting. The proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the setting of the adjacent locally listed building and the Tollington Park Conservation Area. The proposed development is considered to be contrary to policy 7.6 of the London Plan (2015), policies CS8 (Enhancing Islington's Character) and CS9 (Protecting and Enhancing Islington's Built and Historic Environment) of the Core Strategy (2011); DM2.1 of the Development Management policies 2013 and the Islington Urban Design Guidelines 2017.

Reason 02: The proposed development would result in the unacceptable loss of amenity levels to existing occupiers of the host building Block A in terms of loss of light and natural ventilation to the existing bathroom and corridor windows of these units and would create a contrived and unacceptable maintenance accessway to the proposed enclosed ventilation shaft/well through the proposed enlarged flats. The proposed development therefore fails to comply with DM2.1 of the Development Management policies 2013 and the Islington Urban Design Guidelines 2017.