Agenda item

Conversion of single family dwelling house into 3 self-contained residential units (1x3 bed, 1x studio and 1x 2 bed) plus the excavation of basement, front lightwell and rear courtyard erection of basement, ground and first floor rear extensions and roof extension, proposed bin and bicycle storage to the garden and associated alterations. 

(Planning application number: P2017/4766/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         Members were advised that item was deferred at the committee’s meeting of 19 June as the applicant was not available to respond to objectors questions or address issues on the ADF levels to the proposed basement rooms.

·         The Planning Officer advised that since the last meeting amendments to the previous proposal had been submitted. The proposed front lightwell had been enlarged and widened so as to create a larger outlook and open space for the proposed basement bedroom unit and a daylight and sunset study including ADF calculations had been submitted to address concerns about the outlook.

·         The Planning Officer advised that the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in land use, design and visual terms and would offer good quality accommodation without adversely affecting the amenity levels of adjoining occupiers.

·         On the issue of refuse storage facilities, Members were advised that a condition had been included to ensure appropriate refuse and recycling storage facilities are designed so as to prevent cluttering in front of properties. 

·         With regards to concerns about the impact of basement extension on the structural stability of adjoining buildings, the Planning Officer advised that a Structural Method Statement (SMS) must be submitted in line with the Basement SPD and a condition has been attached requiring that a certifed professional endorsing the scheme is retained for the duration of the construction works.

·         The Planning Officer acknowledged that although studio units are generally not supported unless thre are exceptional circuamstances, ,the proposal overall complies with the aim of reproviding a family unit in accordance with DM3.3 and so is acceptable in this instance especially in the context of the constraints of an existing building.

·         In response to questions about the roof extension, Members were advised that Islington’s Urban Design Guide accepts scope for introducing well designed decisions roofs outside of conservation areas. 

·         Notable objections include the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity; the quality of the proposed accommodation and concerns of structural damage to adjacent properties. In addition, the objector indicated that the proposed development would result in an overdevelopment of the site contrary to council policy and that issues raised regarding the lightwell had not been sufficiently addressed.

·         In response to objectors concerns, the meeting was advised by the applicant that the scheme had been revised to address the concerns raised at the previous meeting of the Committee and followed guidance and advice with the Council’s planning officer. The applicant informed members that the proposed development was consistent with the policies of the London Plan, the Islington Core Strategy and that a small off site affordable housing contribution of £100,000 will be provided.

·         Members were concerned with the quality of the accommodation especially with the studio unit and that in general it falls short of the Council’s standard. Members agreed that a redesign of the building layout would have resulted in two sufficiently family size dwellings instead of the 3 separate dwellings especially the amenity space of the prospective occupiers is compromised as a result of the design.

·         Members were concerned with the overdevelopment of the site, lack of amenity space, the quality of accommodation within the basement and the provision of a studio unit.

·         Councillor Convery proposed a motion to refuse planning permission on grounds stated above. This was seconded by Councillor Nathan and carried.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officers report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be refused for the reasons set out below, the wording of which was delegated to officers in conjunction with the chair.


REASON 01: The proposed studio unit is considered to provide sub-standard accommodation representing an overdevelopment of the site whilst directly undermining the quality of outlook to the basement unit, and there are no exceptional circumstances to justify this provision within the overall proposed housing mix,  contrary to Policy 3.5 (Quality and design of housing developments), 3.9 (mixed and balanced communities) of the London Plan 2016, The Housing SPD March 2016; policy CS12 (meeting the housing challenge) of Islington Council's Core Strategy 2011; policies DM2.1 (Design), DM3.1 (Mix of housing sizes) and DM3.4 (Housing standards) of  Development Management Policies 2013.

REASON 02: The proposed basement front bedroom is considered to provide a poor standard of accommodation due to compromised outlook and enclosure levels to this habitable room space. This would create a poor living environment for occupiers of the ground/basement residential unit contrary to CS policy 12 (meeting the housing challenge) and DM policies 3.3 (Residential conversions and extensions) & 3.4 (Housing standards), London Plan Policy 3.5 and the NPPF 2018.

REASON 03:  The proposed development fails to provide adequate and functional amenity space for each of the residential units thereby creating poor living environments for these units. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to CS policy 12 (meeting the housing challenge) and DM policy 3.5 (Private outdoor space), London Plan Policy 3.5 and the NPPF 2018.