Demolition of existing single storey workshop and the construction of a three
storey building compromising
(Class B1) floorspace at the lower
ground/basement level and part of ground and first floor levels,
with the creation of 3 x 2 bedroom
residential apartments over the remaining ground, first and second
(Planning application number: P2016/2659/FUL)
In the discussion the following points were
· The Planning Officer reported that 2 additional responses had been received by the Council but that no new issues were raised in those that hadn’t already been reported previously.
The Planning Officer reported that the drawing showing the
comparative section of the proposed scheme, together with the
existing building and the previously refused scheme, shown on page
187 was incorrect (drawing no. 025). He advised that the profile of
the previous scheme was shown incorrectly on that drawing. The
correct drawing is no. 025/Rev.A.
The Planning Officer also advised that the height of 6.3m on the
previous scheme referred to the brick parapet, and did not include
the roof structures (page 178, paragraph 6.6) that measured a
further 1.8m above the parapet. The previous scheme therefore was a
total height of 8.1m.
· The Planning Officer informed Committee that issues relating to the installation of louvres and obscure glazing on the first floor rear elevation could be resolved with a condition.
· In the discussion Members advised that the scheme appeared to represent an overdevelopment with an intense living environment, with many exhausts extending over the rear of the development site. The front of the site faces the alleyway (St Albans Place) where intense commercial activity (servicing and refuse collection) takes place hard up against the ground floor of the application site. This has a significant potential for noise (such as bottle collections and movement of refuse bins) and disturbance in extremely close proximity to the proposed residential units (in particular at ground floor level). These issues were raised by the Inspector in their decision notice (paragraph 13) and Members did not consider these concerns to be addressed by the proposal.
It was also commented on by Members that a site visit to the site
revealed that the site sits on a very tight alleyway that the area
is intensely commercial and difficult in terms of achieving high
· Concerns were raised that issues identified in the Inspector’s letter relating to inadequate outlook from the proposed residential units and therefore the resulting poor quality living environment had not been sufficiently addressed and that reasons for refusal be delegated to officers and the Chair of the Committee.
Councillor Klute proposed a motion to agree reasons for refusal and was seconded by Councillor Nicholls.
That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out above, the wording of which is to be delegated to Planning officers and the Chair of Planning sub Committee to agree.
REASON 1: The proposed development will provide a substandard level of accommodation to the detriment of the amenity for future occupiers, by reason of poor outlook to the principle living spaces, and to the rooms with more extensive outlook there is a significant amount of unsightly visual clutter associated with the mechanical services of the adjoining commercial premises, which would also impact negatively on the quality of the living environment, contrary to policies DM2.1 and DM3.4 of Islington's Development Management Policies (2013), and Policy CS12 of the Core Strategy (2011).
REASON 2: Access to the development would be via a heavily used commercial service alleyway which is also used for refuse storage, resulting in a substandard level of visual amenity and safety when accessing the property. There would also be unacceptable levels of noise at unsocial hours from both deliveries and collections of refuse and empty bottles, and also human activity around the adjoining emergency exits relating to a number of commercial premises accessing the alleyway, resulting in a very poor level of amenity for occupants within the properties with the potential to prejudice the operation of adjoining land. In this regard the proposals are considered to be contrary to policy CS12 of the Islington Core Strategy (2011) and policies DM2.1, DM3.4 and DM3.7 of Islington's Development Management Policies (2013).