Agenda item

Proposed erection of infill block side extension over the yard entrance to 11-13 Benwell and 2 storey roof extension to create six new residential units plus associated internal alterations and provision of a new communal entrance, lift core, cycle parking facilities and PV panels.

(Planning application number: P2019/3070/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

·       The Planning Officer informed the meeting that although site is not within a Conservation Area, the rear of the building lies in close proximity to part of the long eastern edge of the St Mary Magdalene Conservation Area.

·       Members were advised that the proposal involves extending and altering the existing building at 15-21 Benwell Road, improving the existing communal residential facilities and increasing the number of residential units by six. The Planning Officer advised that this would require the existing building to be extended by 2 storeys at roof level resulting in an additional height of approximately 6m, consisting of a fourth floor level (2.95m in height) and fifth floor level (3m in height).

·       Members were advised of the infill extension between the application site and 9 Benwell Road to the south which would infill the space for a width of 5m, depth of 14.5m and height of 9.8m, allowing a headroom height of 3,5m below to allow retention to the access yard at 11-13 Benwell Road to the rear of the site.

·       In addition, the scheme proposes improvements to the front appearance, which involves ground floor alterations, the inclusion of a new canopy, glass blocks and metal doors. Internally at ground floor a new part M compliant lift would be provided, bicycle storage space, mobility storage, new dedicated residential entrance and separate refuse and recycling store.

·       Members were advised that in assessing the scheme, officers had taken into consideration the land use policy, accessibility, impact of the scheme on neighbour amenity and the quality of accommodation and residential mix.

·       In terms of design, layout, scale and massing of the proposed development, the Planning Officer advised that the Council’s Design and Conservation Team were consulted and were satisfied that the proposed external alterations would preserve the character and appearance of the host building and the adjacent conservation area.

·       Members were reminded that the site and surrounding area is in context predominantly residential in character, with some commercial uses along Holloway Road and sections of Benwell Road; the Emirate Stadium is located at the north end of the road. 

·       Members were advised that the site comprises a building that is in mixed use with residential units on the upper floors and commercial units on the ground floor.

·       Also Members were advised that although the proposed residential use above the yard entrance of 11-13 Benwell Road is not in conflict with the Site Allocation policies, it is important that the infill development being proposed does not materially affect or prejudice the use of or operation of the adjoining site at 11-13 Benwell Road and any potential redevelopment opportunities in the future.

·       In response to concerns about the loss of commercial floorspace, and the proposed intensification of the residential use of the site, the meeting was advised that the scheme is not considered to hinder the operation nor the vitality of the commercial use on the ground floor unit nor have an adverse impact on the local area.

·       Members were advised that the elevational treatment and the selected materials to both the front and rear of the host building is an acceptable design response to the building within this particular mixed context.

·       With regards to concerns about construction vehicles in the area designated for emergency vehicles and the recognition that there is only one access into the site, the agent informed the meeting of the Construction Management Plan which will be clear in identifying the type of construction vehicles into the site and it will be monitored.

·       The agent also assured Members that the proposed infill part of the site will retain the vehicular and pedestrian access and in light of health and safety legislation there will be no safety concerns with pedestrians accessing the workshops and businesses to Benwell Yard which is at the rear of the application site.

·       Members were advised that the proposed extensions are considered to be of an appropriate scale and not considered to prejudice the adjacent commercial properties and residential amenity of neighbouring properties in so far as loss of sunlight and daylight, increased sense of enclosure, overlooking, overshadowing or loss of privacy and noise and disturbance.

·       Objections to the scheme included overlooking and a sense of enclosure. Loss of privacy and impact of noise levels as a result of construction on their businesses were raised. An objector was also concerned with the scale, massing and height of the scheme as it would result in loss of sunlight and daylight which was vital for the operations of his business with the result that he would have to do it somewhere else, an additional cost to his business.

·       Members were advised of safety concerns to pedestrians during and after construction, reminding the Committee of the only access into site which had not been taken into consideration during the designing of the scheme. An objector reminded that in light of the present pandemic, it is important that the well being of both present and future occupiers be taken into consideration.

·       A resident was disappointed that their feedback had not been taken into consideration, especially with officers pre-application comments, that the proposal should not hinder the operation or the vitality of existing businesses.

·       Members were informed by a resident that a key consideration for choosing the site for their business was its space, its privacy and the natural light available to the building, ideal for their filming operations without any need for artificial lighting and that the scheme by virtue of its height, shape and proximity would have an adverse impact on its operations. The dwellings would overlook into offices and the studios limiting natural light. The additional storey would result in an overdevelopment of the site and impact the amenity of neighbouring residents. Objector requested that the scheme be refused planning permission.

·       The agent acknowledged objectors concerns, advising the meeting that the project team had worked closely with adjoining neighbouring occupants and that a previous scheme had been withdrawn last year to ensure consultation took place. He noted the sensitivity of economic uses adjoining the site and has worked to produce a Construction Management Plan so as to minimise any impact during construction activities and reassuring residents and members that this disruption would be temporary.

·       With regards to the impact of the scheme on the amenity of the present business occupiers, the meeting was informed that although the scheme has been designed with a view of ensuring there is no impact, assessment of residential amenity is different from that of commercial premises.

·       The agent also informed the meeting that the scheme has an extension and an infill would not stop the overhead light still penetrating the building and therefore impacting the lighting of the building. 

·       On the differences between commercial and residential amenity in particular with privacy and loss of light, the legal officer advised that in general amenity for both residential and business occupiers is a planning consideration, however different weights are attached. In addition, the planning officer acknowledged that the BRE Daylight and Sunlight Guidelines predominantly relate to residential uses and in some cases other sensitive uses, and as such less weight was attached to daylight and sun,ight assessments for commercial uses. .

·                In response to concerns that the larger 3 bed units upon the 3^rd and 4^th floors would not comply with the space standards for amenity space, the Planning Officer acknowledged that the proposal is a flatted development above existing flats that seeks to utilise the width and footprint of the existing building, without prejudging the design of the building and extensions themselves by supporting an amenity space of 30sq.m. He also noted that officers were of the view that the site is in walking distance of Highbury Fields if there is a need to utilise a much larger open green space and that the oversized internal space would also contribute to the quality of the residential accomodation.

·       On clarifying what mitigation measures of the Construction Management Plan, the agent advised that the condition will have to be agreed before work commences and it will include hours of work, maximum noise levels permitted, identifying where the vibration is occurring, dust suppression and washing down of construction vehicles as they leave the site.

·       On the privacy situation in relation to Jamie Oliver’s site unit and the glass, the Planning Officers advised that residential units in the infill extension will have clear glass as the separation distance is 27m and no overlooking concerns.

·       A suggestion on the possibility of the Construction Management Plan be agreed in conjunction with the residents was stated.

·       The Chair in summary recognised the need to protect independent businesses especially during these times from any construction noise, saying that the committee would like to see some stronger measures in the Construction Management Plan, stating that the applicant be aware that if they make things difficult for residents that the council would not hesitate to get involved.

·       Members agreed that condition 4 be amended to include stronger measures sensitive to businesses nearby. It was also suggested that the Construction Management Plan be more specific stating that when the studio is carrying out voice overs or recording that there be restrictions on noise disturbance.

Councillor Woolf proposed a motion to grant Planning subject to condition 4 be amended. This was seconded by Councillor Poyser and carried.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation 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 the amended condition 4 outlined above; 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