Skip to content

Agenda item

640-648 and 650 Holloway Road, London, N19 3NU

Minutes:

Demolition of the existing buildings and erection of a five storey building (plus basement) fronting Holloway Road (Block 1) comprising retail space (Class A1) at ground floor, gym (Class D2) at basement level, 20 residential units (Class C3) on the upper floors; a four storey building to the rear of 660-652 Holloway Road (Block 2) comprising 11 residential units (Class C3); four storey building to the rear of 636-634 Holloway Road (Block 3) comprising 9 residential units (Class C3); and associated landscaping and play space.

 

The amendments to the scheme comprise:

1. Window positions/proportions revised in Block 2.

2. Reduction in height of Block 2.

3. Revision to the western elevation of Block 2 in-line to simplify the elevation.

4. Proposed reduction of existing boundary wall from approximately 6m to 2.1m.

5. Communal amenity/children’s play space landscaping re-arranged.

6. Revisions to the forecourt/urban realm frontage including material treatment, seating, tree planting and low level planting.

7. Re-location of plant room to basement with maintenance access from the ground floor.

8. Revision to Block 3 to incorporate a projecting bay window to mitigate overlooking between Block 1 and Block 3).

 

(Planning application number: P2014/3494/FUL)

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The planning officer reported that TfL had commented on the application and Condition 16 should be amended to require a booking system and vehicles to access from the north and exit from the south of the service bay at the front of the site.

·         The planning officer stated that Heads of Term 14 - SUDS management, should be removed. The wording of Condition 20 should be updated to require the ongoing management of onsite SUDs.

·         The size of the retail space and the relevant policies were considered. It had been reduced from 766sqm to 332sqm.

·         The residents of both blocks would be entitled to use the communal space.

·         The bedrooms of the units in Block 1 would be located at the back of the block to protect the amenity of the future occupiers from noise disturbance.

·         The loss of the petrol filling station and the charges for petrol at this station were scrutinised in the viability study.

·         If the retail unit was occupied by a supermarket, the cooling equipment would be located at basement level. There were conditions proposed to control noise and odour.

·         The Heads of Terms offered employment for local people during construction.

·         Delivery times were considered.

·         Members welcomed the level of affordable housing in the scheme.

 

Councillor Rupert Perry proposed a motion to add a condition that residents be advised that they could all use the communal space. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.

 

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to amend Condition 35 to remove the permitted development rights on the site from retail (A1) to residential (C3). This was seconded by Councillor Rupert Perry and carried.

 

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to amend Condition 3 to require the applicant to use high quality solid London stock bricks and include details of the reveal depth, balconies and galvanised handrails in the submitted details. This was seconded by Councillor Poyser and carried.

 

Councillor Nicholls proposed an amendment to condition 28 (hours of servicing) to limit the delivery and servicing times to no later than 10pm Monday to Friday and from 8am-8pm on Saturdays. This was seconded by Councillor Poyser and carried.

 

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 agreement in order to secure the planning obligations set out in the case officer’s report to the satisfaction of the Head of Law and Public Services and the Service Director, Planning and Development/Head of Service – Development Management or, in their absence, the Team Leader, Major Applications and subject to the conditions and informatives in the officer’s report as amended above, the wording of which was delegated to officers.

Supporting documents: