Skip to content

Agenda item

LEROY HOUSE, 436 ESSEX ROAD LONDON, N1 3QP

Minutes:

Extensions to the existing building, including an additional storey above existing building and part 4-, part 5-storey extension over car park, to provide office, workshop and studio space with an ancillary cafe, together with hard and soft landscaping

 

(Planning application number: P2017/3081/FUL)

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

·        The Planning Officer informed Members that previous application was refused by Committee in 2016 on grounds of design, its impact on heritage assets and impact of loss of daylight and sunlight.

·        In terms of planning consideration, the Planning Officer advised Members that the revised application is considered acceptable in terms of land use policy terms, inclusive design, transportation and servicing, sustainability and energy.

·        The Planning Officer advised Members that as the site was within an Employment Growth Area and subject to site allocation OIS3 and Article 4 directions, the provision of new business floorspace including floor space suitable for occupation by micro or small enterprise was welcome in the borough.

·        On the issue of affordable work space, Members were concerned with its definition especially with ‘the and/or’ wording in policy DM5.4 of the Development Management Policies (2013). Members sought clarification from Officers on whether what was required was workspace which was affordable in terms of its rent or the provision of small units of work space which in most cases would require more details from the applicant. A suggestion that Planning Officers look into how to resolve this ambiguity on how affordable workspace is defined was noted.

·        With regards to the impact of the erection of the additional storey to the setting of the Grade II listed terrace at 178-190 Balls Pond Road, the Planning Officer acknowledged that this weighs negatively, however the harm was not considered so great as to warrant refusal of planning permission, particularly given the public benefits of the proposed development.

·        With regard to the daylight and sunlight loss especially for residents living in The Pinnacle, the Planning Officer informed the meeting that although the majority of the predicted VSC failures fall within the 0.7 to 0.79 range, the majority of the NSL/FF failures do not, and therefore significant weight must be given to this level of failure, in terms of the numbers of rooms adversely affected and the degree to which each of those rooms would be impacted.
Members were concerned that the daylight and sunlight tests was based on the applicant’s assumption of room sizes, estate agent details and the knowledge of applicant’s consultant and experience. In addition Members were concerned that residents in Pinnacle had not in particular been consulted.

·        In response to concerns on why the revised application had not been submitted back to the Design Review Panel for their updated comments, considering the issues raised in their response and in particular reference to ‘aggressive massing’, the Planning Officer advised that the DRP serves as an independent advisory body to the Council and only complements the Council in house team.

·        Members acknowledged that the revised scheme was an improvement to the previous scheme however the concerns regarding the massing and over dominance raised by the DRP still remained.

·        The agent informed Members that following Committee’s refusal of the previous application, the applicant had employed an award winning architect to address the issues. In addition, the agent acknowledged that although the scheme would have an impact on neighbouring amenity the benefits of the scheme such as the high quality development and providing employment opportunities, outweighs any loss of daylight and sunlight issues.   

 

Councillor Kay proposed a motion to defer the item on grounds of the design and the impact of the scheme on neighbouring amenity. This was seconded by Councillor Picknell and carried.

 

RESOLVED:

 

That consideration of the application be deferred for the reasons outlined above.

 

 

Supporting documents: