Agenda item
5, 7-11& 13 Georges Road, London, N7 8HD
Minutes:
The demolition of the existing buildings and structures on the site and the erection of a building comprising an Office B1 unit and five residential dwellings (4 x three-bed and 1 x one-bed), with associated landscaping, cycle parking and refuse facilities, solar panels and roof terraces.
(Planning application number: P2019/1923/FUL)
In the discussion the following
points were made:
·
Members were informed that since the publication of
the agenda, additional information was received from objector
regarding the separation distances between their properties and the
proposed scheme.
·
The Planning Officer advised that site is in close
proximity to Holloway Road and although predominantly residential,
there are some mixed uses. The existing buildings on site are not
statutory listed but located within St Mary Magdalene Conservation
Area.
·
The Planning Officer informed members that the
application represents a resubmission of similar scheme which had
been refused planning permission by the committee on grounds of
design and scale; neighbouring amenity issues; poor quality
residential accommodation and failure to provide the necessary
financial contribution to affordable housing.
·
Meeting was informed that an appeal by the applicant
was subsequently dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate for reasons
such as poor quality outlook from the proposed ground floor level
rear facing windows; insufficient provision of defensible space to
the proposed front garden areas of the scheme and the resulting
unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of St
James House Flat no 1, overlooking from the roof top terrace of
flat no 5 and an increase sense of enclosure.
·
Members were advised that the revised scheme
incorporates a defensible space at the main entrance of each
proposed dwelling; omits the roof terrace from proposed House No. 5
in order to overcome looking and the primary living spaces are now
on the upper floor levels to address Planning Inspector’s
concerns about the poor quality outlook of the units.
·
Objectors raised concerns about the use of the flat
roof which has been described as ‘for maintenance only’
as a potential area for noise disturbances; overshadowing of St
James School flats; loss of privacy and the need for windows to be
obscure glazed to alleviate concerns about privacy and overlooking,
a sense of enclosure, loss of sunlight and daylight and lack of
consultation.
·
Members were reminded that although the reasons for
dismissal by the Inspector did not include design/conservation
issues, the applicant amended the proposals to ensure a high
quality design finish is accomplished, and that all dwellings have
been altered so that bedrooms are located at first floor and key
living areas at second floor.
·
Members heard evidence from neighbouring residents
about their concerns, which included proposal being too large and
tall, out of character with the street scene, overlooking and
overshadowing.
·
An objector was concerned that conditions stipulated
in the report would not mitigate overlooking concerns into the
first floor windows especially as the separation distance between
the properties and the proposed scheme was less than 18m which is
contrary to policy of DM2.1. An
objector requested that were the committee minded to grant planning
permission, a condition to have glazed windows to protect privacy
will be welcomed.
·
Members were advised that in addition to the
revisions, after negotiations between applicants and council
officers, the applicants has agreed financial contributions of
£200,000 towards affordable housing and £7,500 for
carbon offset if the scheme is approved.
·
In terms of the impact of the proposal on the
conservation and nearby historic buildings, meeting was informed
that officers having successfully negotiated amendments to the
scheme, securing high quality architectural design it is considered
that the scheme will demonstrably enhance the character of the St
Mary Magdalene conservation area and sympathetic to the surrounding
heritage assets whilst improving the living conditions of House No
5 and quality of office accommodation.
·
In response to objectors concerns raised above, the
applicant indicated that the roof terrace is not intended to be
used by residents, acknowledging the full height window. The agent
reiterated the number of revisions to the scheme reminding members
that concerns regarding the height of the scheme had been
considered by the Planning inspectorate and dismissed. The Agent
informed the meeting that this was a constrained site and it had to
be creative in addressing the amenity concerns.
·
The Planning Officer acknowledged that consideration
had been given to the impact of the scheme on overlooking and
privacy to the neighbouring property at Nos 4,8 and 10
Chillingworth Road, located at a distance of between 16m to 22m
away with the exception of the rear of No 6 Chillingworth Road
which has a rear extension resulting in a reduced distance to
windows of habitable rooms.
·
On the concerns about the outlook and sense of
enclosure, the meeting was informed that given the separation
distance, the height of the proposed dwellings, it is not
considered to have a harmful impact on the neighbouring residential
properties especially those on Chillingworth Road.
·
On the decision to depart from Council policy of 18m
separation distance, the meeting was reminded that as noted in the
appeal decision any overlooking or privacy concerns could be
addressed with conditions relating to the windows of the new
scheme.
·
With regards to overlooking concerns into windows
between the scheme and neighbouring residents flat, the Planning
Officer clarified that in planning terms the 18 separation distance
only applies with direct overlooking and not where the angle is
oblique.
·
In response to consultation concerns raised by the
objectors, the applicant acknowledged that letters had been sent
out and a public meeting which was convened to discuss the scheme
only attracted between 7-8 people.
Councillor Ward, the ward councillor noted that the last time any
consultation was carried out was in 2015.
·
In response to a suggestion on possible amendments
to the scheme, to mitigate its impact on the neighbouring
residents, the applicant reiterated that most of the objectors
concerns had been addressed in the revised scheme. The meeting was
informed that House 5 was amended to allow a larger outdoor amenity
area to the rear, that all dwellings have been altered so that
bedrooms are now located at first floor and key living room at
second floor.
·
During deliberations members acknowledged the
narrowness of the site, the revisions to the scheme, financial
contributions towards affordable housing and carbon offsetting,
acknowledging that in light of the Planning Inspectors comments
conditions could be imposed to mitigate against the amenity
concerns.
·
Members agreed that the rewording of a condition to
replace the door with a window leading to the roof terrace be
delegated to the Planning Officer and the Chair.
·
Members agreed that
applicant to submit further details to prevent direct views of
Chillingworth Road to Houses 1 and 2.
· Councillor Graham requested that his vote against the application be recorded.
RESOLVED:
That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentations to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.
Supporting documents:
- 5 to 13 georges road final, item 101. PDF 6 MB
- Map P2019-1923-FUL 5, 7-11 & 13 Georges Road, London, N7 8HD, item 101. PDF 120 KB