Agenda item

Two storey roof extension to the existing building to create additional office space (B1a Use Class) along with associated refurbishment and external alterations.

(Planning application number: P2018/3191/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·         The Planning Officer reminded the meeting that following Committee’s consideration of the item at its meeting in September, a decision was taken to defer the item in order to allow officers and the applicant to have further discussions with TFL and consult with neighbouring residents on seeking revised delivery and servicing arrangements in consultation with TfL and neighbouring residents.

·         Members were informed that following the meeting on 24 September 2019, the applicant met residents, subsequently sent emails and completed a letter drop to invite neighbouring residents and ward councillors to discuss their main concerns. In addition, planning and highway officers undertook a site visit with TfL representatives to observe existing operations and discuss potential alternative options for deliveries and servicing.

·         The Planning Officer acknowledge that revised plans for both the ground floor of the building and transport statement had been submitted by the applicant which addressed amenity concerns raised by objectors at the September meeting.

·         In response to the delivery and servicing arrangements around the scheme, the TfL representative present advised that considering it is a red bus route, creating a loading bay on Holloway road would impact on bus operations in terms of bus journey time, raise issues of highway safety as buses would need to travel out of the designated bus lanes, which effectively introduces a number of additional hazards.

·         The TfL representative informed members that loading bays in that area would be difficult to enforce by TfL as it was considered highly likely that it would also be used for both drop off and pickups associated with the nearby station, and other local activities, with the result that the bay would potentially not be available to commercial vehicles legitimately attempting to service the building. Members were reminded that with this particular location, siting a loading bay in that vicinity would be challenging especially, with the additional attraction of being in close proximity to Upper Holloway Station.

·         On the suggestion of possible relocation of the bus stop on Holloway Road during construction work, members were reminded that considering this is a lesser scheme than the previous two applications, TfL would not agree to the temporary closure of the bus stop.

·         TFL also highlighted the number of bus journeys which take place every day on this stretch of road and contrasted it with the number of deliveries expected to the premises in question.

·         On the possibility of restricting personal deliveries to the occupants of the office development especially with online shopping and deliveries, the agent advised that although this would be difficult to enforce, the applicant would be willing to work with officers if an exact wording of the restriction, to be included as an informative.

·         The Planning Officer informed that the delivery and service management plan to be finalised through condition stipulates hours of operation and that the refuse and recycling collections will align with the collection day of the neighbouring residential properties on Fairbridge Road to secure highway safety, local residential amenity and mitigate the impact of the development.

·         Members heard representations from 3 objectors who were concerned with the delivery and refuse collections from Fairbridge Road with its subsequent impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. Members were reminded that the scheme is contrary to the recent Council motion about climate emergency and its policy on healthier streets. Residents were concerned that the applicant had not robustly consulted with TfL since the item was deferred at the meeting in September.

·         In response to the objectors concerns, the agent apologised for not consulting residents at the onset as it naively believed that this was a relatively small scheme, however since the item was deferred in September it had met residents to discuss their concerns, facilitated a site meeting with TFL representatives and Highway Officers to consider alternative options.

·         The applicant’s agent noted that despite detailed discussion with TfL, the position had not changed, that deliveries and servicing should not operate from Holloway Road. In addition Members were advised that the scheme would not impact the Play Streets arrangements which is held once a month on Sunday from 11am to 1pm as there is a condition with the planning permission which restricts deliveries and servicing to between Monday to Friday only.

·         In response to objectors concerns that the applicant had not robustly engaged with TfL, the applicant’s agent informed the meeting that the applicant had employed specialist consultants working on the project from the onset and a 54 page document produced and had discussions with TFL, however TfL were not prepared to change their position.

·         Members were also advised following the meeting in September and concerns about noise and disturbance to neighbouring residents, the proposed refuse and recycling enclosure has been relocated deeper within the building so that it is no longer directly below a residential unit at 2A Fairbridge Road.

·         In response to concerns that TfL had not made any concession about the scheme, its lack of flexibility and its refusal to budge, the transport officer acknowledged the possibility of temporarily closure of the bus stop on Holloway Road so that construction vehicles could operate from Holloway Road rather than Fairbridge Road.

·         Members were reminded that at present the servicing arrangements still exist and could operate on Fairbridge Road for the existing B8 use and Holloway Road is owned and managed by TfL, and that if the owner of the building chose to continue to operate it unaltered, there would be no bar to servicing from Fairbridge Road continuing as it had done prior to the building falling out of use.  The chair observed that under these circumstances any changes to servicing arrangements that moved deliveries onto Holloway Road would be a “nice-to-have” rather than a planning requirement.

·         During deliberation, it was suggested   that further discussion with TFL should be explored. The TfL representative reminded members that it was not likely that TfL will change its stance as it strategically is very inflexible with their red routes.

·         The Service Director for Planning for planning was invited to comment, and suggested that she thought there may be further scope for discussions with TFL.

·         The Chair advised members of the two available options: to grant planning permission and leave the issue of contention to be resolved between the agent and TfL, and the option to defer the item for the applicant to continue their discussion on resolving the delivery and servicing arrangements with the involvement of planning officers.

Councillor Klute proposed a motion to Defer. This was seconded by Councillor Clarke and carried.

The Chair reminded members that if and when the item is brought back to Committee it would only consider the single issue around the servicing and deliveries and not the other considerations.

RESOLVED:

That consideration of the application be deferred for the reasons outlined above.