Agenda item

Demolition of 12 (twelve) existing garage units and removal of adjacent car parking facilities to facilitate construction of a three storey (plus basement), 11-bedroom (plus staff sleep-in unit) building to accommodate a supported living scheme (use Class C2). The proposal also includes communal kitchen/living/dining facilities, staff offices, laundry, plant room, and accessible bathroom facility. Associated landscaping including courtyard garden areas, refuse and cycle storage provision for both residents and staff, is also proposed.

(Planning application number: P2017/3493/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer highlighted a number of typographical errors in the report. Members were informed that the report (paragraphs 6.6 and 24.4) incorrectly refers to the removal of 6 trees and 2 trees respectively instead of the removal and replacement of 4 trees and 1 tree stump. Members were advised that the removed trees would be replaced as part of the landscape strategy submitted by the applicant. Also throughout the report, the number of PV panels is referred to as being reduced from 73 to 40; the number has actually reduced from 73 to 55. The Planning Officer also informed Members that the report erroneously describes 13 Windsor street in paragraph 20.19 as commercial instead of residential but that the BRE assessment remained accurate and did not need to be corrected.

·         The Planning Officer informed the meeting that since the publication of the agenda, 4 new objections had been received and 4 further objections had been made. In addition, a further 15 new letters of support for the scheme had been received.

·         With regard to the objectors concerns of possible contamination, the Planning Officer informed Members advised that this could be addressed by way of a condition which will ensure an investigation survey for any possible residue is undertaken before any works commences.

·         In response to a resident’s concern that the loss of a tree was a subject of a Tree Preservation Order, the Planning Officer advised that although Packington Street lies within a conservation area, and as such the tree would be afforded some level of protection as a result of this, Council records did not indicate that the tree in question had a TPO attached to it.

·         Members were advised that the loss of the off street car parking and garages due to the proposed scheme was welcomed as Islington Council promotes schemes that deters car movement and car ownership in the borough and aligns with council policy on parking.

·         Objections raised included loss of light, light pollution, noise & disturbance and quality of accommodation. Concern was raised that the scheme would not result in a satisfactory level of accommodation for future occupiers of the building. Members were advised by neighbouring residents that the design of the buildings would not be suitable for residents as it represents a form of institution which was not ideal for the intended client group. Other concerns included inadequate and inaccurate consultation, overdevelopment of the site and the loss of parking resulting in parking pressures to neighbouring streets.

·         The Project Manager of the scheme informed Members that the building would provide accommodation for adults with a range of support needs. Members were informed that due to accommodation shortages within the borough, the Council has had to place over 130 residents outside the borough and providing a building within the community would provide a place for tenants with family ties. Members were advised that the building has been designed to ensure that tenants having been fully assessed would be able to live independently and still interact with the community.

·         The meeting was also informed that accessibility to shops and close proximity to transport modes was welcomed and that Adult Social Services would be responsible for the allocation of rooms in accordance with the standard procedure and it remains in Council ownership in perpetuity.

·         Members were advised that the scheme had been revised prior to the formal submission of the planning application, to take into consideration concerns raised by neighbouring residents. The building had been moved further back from the boundary of the residents of Packington Street and the height of the scheme had been reduced to address overlooking concerns. Also the number of units had now been reduced from 14 to 11 with the result that additional facilities such as communal space had been able to be incorporated into the design to meet the request from the client user and Family Carers Reference Group.

·         In response to concerns raised by the objector the applicant informed Members that the revised scheme was as a result of extensive consultation with members of the local community and a number of meetings had been facilitated with local residents. Members were advised that resident’s input had informed the design process of the proposals and if planning permission was granted, consultation with residents of Packington street would still continue in order to resolve any issues.

·         Members acknowledged the pressing demand for this type of accommodation in the borough especially as most of the Council’s residents were being accommodated outside the borough. Members noted the arguments around the application of social care policy and discussions on the best solutions of  housing people with learning disabilities, however noted that this was not a matter for planning committee as Members of the Committee were guided solely on planning matters and policy.

·         Members welcomed Officers reassurances that any provider of the services would have to be registered with the Care Quality Commission.

·         Members acknowledged the objectors concerns around sunlight, daylight, density and scale of the scheme, but noted that with any scheme sited within a dense setting, this scheme appears to be a modest application in terms of any breaches such as sunlight/daylight loss and overlooking.

·         The Chair noted the sensitivity of this application and that this would require a balancing act between future residents being able to live in appropriate accommodation and possible impact of those that would potentially be affected. Members noted the slight breaches in terms of daylight and sunlight, the overlooking concerns but considered the separation distances of over 18 metres between the scheme and windows of residents in Packington Street as sufficient and that any loss of privacy was minimal.

·         Members agreed that in planning terms, the scheme was policy compliant, was set within a community and in close proximity to transport modes, that the design of the building would provide sufficient amenity space for residents it serves and have minimal impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and benefit the area in terms of its attractiveness.

·         A suggestion to include as a condition for a contamination survey to be undertaken to identify whether there were any contaminants on the site which would need to be treated, was agreed.  

Councillor Convery proposed a motion to address site contamination issues raised by the Objector. This was seconded by Councillor Picknell and carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report plus the amendments above and the additional condition outlined above relating to contamination concerns and conditional upon the prior completion of a Directors’ Agreement securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.