Agenda item

Addition of 2 mezzanine floors in units 1B and 1C at 423 Caledonian Road to provide 651 sqm (GIA) of additional B1 (business) space and change of use of unit 1A from A1 (retail) to B1 business; Change of use of units 8A and 9A at 435 Caledonian Road from B1 (business) to D2 (gym).

(Planning application number: P2019/1424/FULL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·       The Planning Officer highlighted corrections to the committee report.  Paragraph 6.2 of the report on page 13 which refers to B1(a) office floorspace should be amended to read B1 Business floorspace. Paragraph 6.5 on page 14 regarding B1 floor space should be amended to read 464 sqm and not 454sqm. Finally, page 19 of the report, paragraph 11.3 should be corrected to read 651sqm and not 65sqm.

·       The Planning Officer informed members that an additional condition is recommended to secure the delivery of the mezzanine floor space prior to the occupation of the gym.  Furthermore, an additional Head of Term is recommended to be incorporated into the deed of variation to the Section 106 agreement.  The Head of Term would update a separate requirement under the original Section 106 agreement for the developer to implement a scheme to mitigate the impacts of the residential development on the Haywards Adventure Playground.  The updated obligation would secure a minimum payment of £315,000 for the Council to implement a scheme of mitigation. Details of the wording to be delegated to officers.

·       The planning officer advised the meeting that planning permission was granted in August 2016 for a mixed use redevelopment on the site which is located within the Vale Royal/Brewery Road Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS).

·       Members were advised that the introduction of gym use within the LSIS would conflict with policy DM5.3(d) and accordingly would represent a departure from the Development Plan.  However, in this case it should be noted that the site has been the subject of a mixed use redevelopment which represented a departure from the Development Plan and which included a substantial quantum of non-business floorspace including 252 residential units.  The site is also distinguished from the remainder of the LSIS on the basis that the flexible B1 use floorspace is suitable for office (B1a) and research and development (B1b), uses as well as the B1(c) use which policy DM5.3 seeks to protect.  It was acknowledged that the planning service is now taking a more stringent approach in relation to sites coming forward for redevelopment in the LSIS.  However, in this case regard should be had to the fallback position (2016 planning permission for residential led mixed use development) which offers the potential for unfettered office floorspace within the B1 units.  Members were advised that the proposed gym use was considered acceptable having regard to the location and characteristics of the site, including its mix of uses, which now represents a clear distinction from the remainder of the LSIS.

·       The Planning Officer advised committee that if members were minded to grant planning permission, unit 1c (440sqm GIA) would be secured as alternative affordable work space provision to the 394sqm GIA unit which was secured under the original planning permission (representing a betterment). Members were advised that Council’s Inclusive Economy officers had visited the unit during construction and considered that unit 1c would provide superior affordable workspace accommodation.

·       The Committee were advised that a Market Report submitted with the application detailed a number of justifications for the proposed change of use from B1 to D2 at paragraph 6.9 (page 15) of the report. These included a lack of natural daylight to the units, less straightforward access arrangements and an inefficient layout which present challenges in letting the units as offices.  

·       A member was concerned that when consent was granted in 2016, it was based on an understanding by the applicant that there was demand for a range of B1 uses.  It was noted that the applicant has argued a lack of demand for office (B1a) use but had presented no evidence of a lack of demand for other B1 uses.   

·       In response to questions about unit uptake, members were informed that some of the units had been let to Terence Higgins Trust and Real Media whilst there have been enquiries and interest from architects and creative businesses who are interested in locating at the development, in particular as rents at nearby Kings Cross are high.

·       In relation to a question about the loss of ground floor B use space arising from the gym use, officers acknowledged that there would be a reduced degree of loss through the re-provision of the B Use floorspace across both ground and mezzanine levels within units 1A-1C.

·       Members were advised that Unit 1A would be secured for B1(c) use only through recommended condition 7 which would represent a betterment in terms of securing the use of floorspace to support the primary economic function of the LSIS.  

·       During deliberation, the Chair requested members to note that circumstances had changed since consent was granted 4 years ago, including in relation to the Council’s approach to development proposals in the LSIS and the emerging policy framework.

·       In light of noise concerns raised by Environmental Health, the Chair suggested that conditions 3 and 4 be amended to secure measures to mitigate ‘noise and vibration’ resulting from the gym use, rather than just noise. Members agreed that conditions 3 and 4 to be amended to address potential noise and vibration from the use of the gym.

·       A member reminded the meeting that when scheme was granted permission 4 years ago, it was regarded then as a major departure from policy by allowing housing onto industrial site and members considered at the time that there should be no further concessions or deviations from the approved scheme. The member reiterated that the scheme would result in a net loss of ground floor space with no evidence of lack of demand for B1 uses other than offices, whilst the grant of planning permission would undermine future attempts to protect the primary economic function of the LSIS.  

·       Councillor Convery proposed a motion to refuse on the grounds stated above. This was seconded by Councillor Poyser which was defeated.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report and the additional condition outlined above, amended condition and additional S106 Head of Term; 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 as amended above, the wording of which was delegated to officers.


ADDITIONAL HEAD OF TERMS:

A payment of at least £315,000 to cover off-site mitigation measures to address the impacts of the development granted planning permission under application reference P2015/3989/FUL on the Haywards Adventure Playground.

ADDITIONAL CONDITION:
The use of the gym shall not commence until the construction of the mezzanine floors within Units 1b and 1c has been completed.

Reason – In order to ensure that there is no loss of Class B1 business floorspace as a result of the Class D2 gym use.