Agenda item

Demolition of existing MOT garage (Use Class B2) and the erection of a 5 storey building to provide 2no. commercial units (Use Class B1/B8) at ground floor, 15 residential units above (4x1 beds, 11x2 beds, Use Class C3), with cycle parking, refuse storage, plant, landscaping, and associated engineering works.

(Planning application number: P2017/2754/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer advised Members that no representations had been received since the papers were published and that Network Rail had withdrawn their previous objections.

·         The Planning officer provided a number of updates to reflect corrections -: Condition 2 (drawing numbers), Condition 5 (omitting the reference to PV panels) and Condition 13 (omitting the reference to a basement).  Also Members were advised that the opening hours referred to in condition 11 were correct, and p38/ paragraph 10.104 of the report should be updated to reflect condition 11.  

·         With regards to the provision of affordable housing, Members were advised that a financial viability assessment had been submitted by the applicant which had had been independently appraised, and that that the scheme could viably provide 5 shared ownership units and a residual surplus of £42,000.

·         The objector was concerned that the proposal would impact his amenity and quality of life, as his own house would be sandwiched between the scheme and another proposal seeking permission.  The case officer advised that the other proposal (469 Hornsey Road) was acknowledged in the committee report, does not currently have planning permission, and that the objector’s concerns would only be realised if both schemes were granted planning permission.  Therefore the current application should be assessed on its own merits, and if permission is granted, the cumulative impacts of any future decisions will need to be assessed when those decisions are made.

·         The objector was concerned with overlooking and privacy due to the height of the building and suggested a more solid screening to address their concerns.

·         The agent in response informed Members that the scheme before the Committee was as a result of the advice received from both the design review panel and council officers and that issues of overlooking and loss of privacy had been addressed by ensuring that the living rooms were sited in the rear elevation of the site and privacy screens would be included.

·         The agent advised that the scheme had been designed to minimise the impact of overlooking. With regards to noise pollution during construction, this will be managed by a construction management plan. He reiterated the benefits of the scheme.

·         A suggestion to amend condition 15 to refer to the privacy screens being solid and fixed in place was agreed.

·         The committee resolved to approve the application subject to condition 15 (privacy screens) being amended to refer to the privacy screens being solid and fixed in place.

Councillor Fletcher proposed a motion to amend condition 15 as stated above. This was seconded by Councillor Nicholls and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report plus the amendments set out above and within the report and the additional condition outlined above; and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1.