Agenda item

Demolition of buildings and redevelopment of the land to provide 16 dwellings and 2215sqm of commercial floorspace together with landscaping, service yards, cycle storage, bin storage and associated works across two sites. The north site (500-502 Hornsey Road) would provide 490sqm of B1 (business) floorspace at ground floor and 16 dwellings above (2x1 beds, 11x2 beds and 3x3 beds, Use Class C3) within a 3-4 storey building. The south site (Grenville Works, 2a Grenville Road) would provide 1725sqm of B1 floorspace within a 4-storey building.

 

(Planning application number: P2017/3242/FUL)

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer reported that:

-       The applicant should be JPA and not Dominus

-       The first line of condition 14 in Appendix 1 of the officer report should state “At least 1725sqm (GIA) of B1(c) floorspace shall be provided.”

-       Under paragraph 6.3 of the officer report, the policy team had now provided their  response to the consultation and they had no comments.

-       Paragraph 7.28 of the officer report should be amended to state that it was only the building to the north that had been reduced by one storey.

-       Paragraph 161 of the officer report incorrectly stated that there were 7 objections. There had been 11 objections from 10 addresses but some had not been logged when there was a change of officer. Four objectors had had notifications sent on 4 July 2018 instead of 27 June 2018. Some of their points had been covered in the officer report in paragraph 6.2 as they were made by other objectors or had not been made by others but had been included in the officer report in the assessment. The officer addressed the remaining points in the presentation. These included – overbearing/oppressive impact; overshadowing; lack of contextual information; noise from users; cumulative impacts with other developments; light pollution and lack of consultation by the developer.

-       Additional information had been submitted by the applicant covering daylight/sunlight impacts on the adjacent garden and clarifying why additional tests had not been carried out on windows.

-       The officer advised that the following conditions should be added to the list of those in the officer report:

 

o   DELIVERY AND SERVICING PLAN

CONDITION: The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the DeliveryandServicingplan hereby approved.

 

  REASON:Toensure thattheproposeddevelopmentdoesnothave

  anadverse impactonneighbouringresidential amenity.

 

o   DELIVERIES, COLLECTION AND LOADING

  CONDITION: Deliveries,collections,unloading and loadingassociated

with the B1 commercial usesshallonlybebetweenthefollowinghours:

 

MondaytoSaturday- (08:00- 20:00)

Sundays/Bank Holidays- notatall

 

REASON:Toensurethattheresultingservicingarrangementsare

satisfactoryin termsoftheirimpact on highwaysafetyand thefree-

flowoftraffic

 

o   HOURS OF OPERATION

CONDITION: The B1 commercial floorspace herebyapprovedshall

notoperate outsidethehoursof 07:30- 21:00

 

REASON:To ensure thattheproposeddevelopmentdoes not

haveanadverse impactonneighbouringresidential amenity.

 

o   REMOVAL OF PD RIGHTS

CONDITION: Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes C, D, G, J or

M of Part 3 or Class D, E of Part 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended by any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order, no change of use of the B1 floorspace shall be carried out without the grant of planning permission having first been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

 

REASON: To safeguard the amenities of the adjoining premises and

the area generally in accordance with the requirements of policy CS 14 of the Islington Core Strategy (2011), policies DM4.1, DM4.2, DM4.3, DM4.4, DM4.12 of the Development Management Policies (2013) and Policies BC3 and BC8 of the Finsbury Local Plan. (2013)

 

o   NO OBSCURING OF SHOPFRONTS

CONDITION: The window glass of all ground floor commercial units shall not be painted, tinted or otherwise obscured and no furniture or fixings which may obscure visibility above a height of 1.4m above finished floor level be placed within 2.0m of the inside of the window glass.

 

REASON:  In the interest of securing passive surveillance of the street, an appropriate street frontage appearance and preventing the creation of dead/inactive frontages.

 

o   PLANT NOISE AND FIXED PLANT

CONDITION: The designandinstallationofnew itemsof fixedplantshallbesuch thatwhenoperatingthecumulativenoiselevelLAeq Tr  arisingfromtheproposed plant, measuredor predictedat 1m fromthe facadeofthenearestnoisesensitive premises,shallbea ratinglevelofatleast5dB(A)belowthebackgroundnoise levelLAF90 Tbg.  The measurementand/orpredictionofthenoiseshouldbecarried out in accordancewith themethodologycontainedwithinBS 4142: 1997.

 

The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the scheme so approved prior to first occupation, shall be maintained as such thereafter, and no change therefrom shall take place without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

 

REASON:To secureanappropriateinternalresidential environment.

 

·         Concerns were raised about the differing costs shown within the viability assessments. The BPS representative stated that one figure was an electronic calculation created by the toolkit and the other figure was calculated by the applicant following the submission of a number of documents including the cost plan.  BPS had run their own cost appraisal and concluded that the costs would be £8.2 million, similar to the applicant’s figure and this would result in a deficit.

·         In response to a question about the policy team comments, the planning officer advised that they were happy that the commercial floorspace was being maximised and considered the quality of the floorspace to be good.

·         The relationship between the south side proposed development and the adjoining house was considered.

·         In response to a member’s question as to why there were no affordable housing contributions, the BPS representative advised that the site was deemed not to be viable. If this changed in the future, the Section 106 would induce an advanced stage viability review.

·         Concerns were raised by residents regarding:

-       The impact on the adjacent property;

-       That the scheme was putting all the existing commercial floorspace on the south site and creating residential units on the north site;

-       Not all the DRP comments had been taken into account and the scheme was a bland design

-       There were existing parking issues and the scheme did not secure adequate parking controls or deliveries/servicing and it was not clear how this would be managed or enforced, taking into account the existing weight restriction on Grenville Road. Road narrowing should be required.

·         Following a request from a member the applicants confirmed that they would be willing to provide the affordable workspace at a peppercorn rent for 10 years.

·         A member raised concern that the applicant was unable to provide clarification on the viability figures.

·         A member asked whether the current owners who had been on the site for 40 years had any outstanding mortgages or loans on the land. The applicant responded that there were no outstanding mortgages or loans on the land.

·         In response to questions from members the applicant confirmed that 28 people were employed across the two sites. Each of the tenants had been offered new accommodation on site.

·         In response to a request from a member that the applicants provide the affordable workspace in perpetuity, the applicants stated that the current offer of 5% exceeded the council’s guidance.

·         Concerns were raised about the lack of affordable housing based on a viability assessment that lacked clarity and where the applicant would be making a profit as well as benefitting from an Existing Use Value.

·         A member commented that on other sites in the borough applicants had changed their architect and planning consultant team in order to produce a more suitable scheme.

·         A member noted that the applicant’s commitment to providing affordable workspace rather than SME workspace should be secured with this or any future applications.

·         A member raised concern about whether the development would optimise the use of the land in this locality. It was added that it might be more beneficial to have the commercial development on the northern site and the housing site on the southern site as the land use around the southern site was residential.

·         Concerns were raised about design and the lack of community engagement.

 

Councillor Chapman proposed a motion to refuse planning permission due to concerns about viability, design and servicing. This was seconded by Councillor Khondoker and carried.

 

RESOLVED:

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