Skip to content

Agenda item

Former Territorial Army Centre, 65-69 Parkhurst Road, London N7 0LR

Minutes:

Redevelopment of site to provide 118 residential units in buildings ranging from 3 to 6 storeys in height, accessible car parking, cycle parking, landscaping and other associated development

 

(Planning application number: P2020/0648/FUL)

 

In the discussion the following points were made:

·           The Planning Officer informed the meeting that site comprises a three storey former Territorial Army (TA) Centre facing Parkhurst Road, has a number of one and two storey ancillary buildings with extensive areas of hardstanding.

·           Site has remained vacant since 2013, identified in the site allocations document as residential, not within a Conservation Area, but abuts Mercers Road/Tavistock Conservation Area and the Hillmarton Conservation Area borders the site to the north and west.

·           In terms of updates, Planning Officer advised that officers would no longer seek to include a preventing wasted housing supply clause in the S106 agreement.

·            The presenting Officer informed the meeting that applicant had submitted a revised plan with correct numbers in condition 2 for approval if planning permission is granted.

·            An objection was received from a Moriatry Close resident raising concerns about construction impact, loss of light, issues which are addressed in the officers report.

·           The Planning Officer reminded members of the long and complex history to the site, that a first application was submitted in 2013 which proposed 112 units but only offered 14% as affordable housing. The application was refused planning permission by committee as members had concerns about height and massing, construction impacts and the amenity concerns on neighbouring occupiers. Applicant appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Planning Inspector.

·           The Planning Officer advised that another application was submitted in 2016 to address Inspectors concerns about design and amenity. This resulted in the overall height of the scheme being reduced, however the number of homes provided was reduced to 96, and the applicant argued that the reduced number of  units would not make the scheme viable to provide affordable housing. Members were reminded that although the applicant had addressed the inspector’s concerns in all other respects, it refused the proposal on grounds that it had not provided affordable housing in line with Council policy. This decision was subsequently challenged by the applicant at the High court.  However, the appeal was lost as the judge found that the scheme was expected to comply with the Council’s development policy.

·           With regards the present scheme, members were advised that the current application is similar to the 2016 scheme in terms of height, location and footprint but where the previous scheme only provided 96 units looking over the site, the present application now offers 118 within a similar envelope.

·           In addition, Members were informed that half of the proposed units (59) would be affordable, and that the affordable offer would be split approximately 70/30 between social rent and shared ownership, with 41 being available for social rent which complies with housing policy.

·           In terms of design, the Planning Officer advised that it has changed slightly with additional windows incorporated, and some of the upper floor setbacks being removed to accommodate the additional units.

·           The Planning Officer reiterated that the key issue with the scheme over the years is the long standing issue of not providing affordable housing and the impact of the scheme on the amenity of adjoining occupiers.

·           Meeting was informed that local residents have objected to the impact of the scheme on their amenity but officers consider that the scheme would have limited impact in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of daylight and sunlight as appropriate screening will be provided on balconies to address these issues and a condition has been recommended for screening details to be submitted for approval before occupation.  It was also clarified to the meeting that the decision on the acceptability of the screening details, once submitted for the discharge of condition, rests with officers

·           The meeting was informed that the applicant submitted a daylight sunlight report which assessed daylight to windows and rooms to surrounding properties were assessed for the impact of the proposal on daylight. The report suggests that the proposal would have a minimal impact on neighbouring residents in terms of daylight as the losses are relatively small and that this had to be balanced against the benefits of the proposal and the planning history.

·           Meeting was informed that parent of children attending the Willows Children Centre have raised concerns about loss of daylight into some of the rooms and loss of privacy.

·           In response, the Officer advised that results show that the larger windows under canopies would be affected in terms of VSC, but all rooms would continue to benefit from good daylight distribution. In addition, the Planning Officer advised that both Rooms 1 and 2 have multiple windows and would continue to receive good daylight from high level windows to the north and south elevations above the canopies

·           Members were reminded that the impact of development on the children’s centre was considered in the two previous applications, that with the 2013 proposal existing VSC levels were higher and despite the proposal being taller, impacts were limited. Similarly the daylight sunlight report for the second scheme in 2016, similar in terms of height and massing to the current proposal, recorded much lower existing VSC levels and greater reductions, similar to the current proposal.

·           The Planning Officer informed that the 2016 scheme was not refused on amenity grounds and the Inspector did not consider the amenity impacts of the proposal as being a matter of concern in his decision.

·           Members were reminded that the daylight sunlight report shows that without the obstructions, VSC levels for the worst affected windows would be broadly complaint.

·           A resident from Moriaty Close, speaking on behalf of residents  congratulated the Council for being able to obtain the affordable housing requirement, however had concerns that the Inspectors comment about the difficulty of addressing overlooking impact to 61 and 62 Moriatry Close had not been addressed. The resident questioned description of the skylight in the report and had doubts about the results of the sunlight daylight assessment.

·           In response to safeguarding concerns raised by users of the Centre, the Planning Officer advised that south facing windows of the nursery were more than 18 away from the closest windows of the new development and that the closest windows on the west facing elevation are less, 13m away but would not face the development directly. Furthermore, the combination of the canopies and the increasing height of the proposed development mean there would not be any direct overlooking to the children’s centre’s rooms.

·           Members were advised that to alleviate concerns of the users of the Centre, the applicant convened a public meeting where the privacy of the nursery was raised and the submitted application included screening to balconies at 1st – 4th floor levels on the north west elevation to prevent overlooking of the outdoor space of the nursery. Following representation from users of the nursery the applicant has included screening to the balconies on the north east corner as well.

·           With regards to overlooking concerns, meeting was advised that it is not considered that the windows to the north west elevation would overlook the amenity space as majority of windows are to bedrooms and located in the corners of the rooms, and the elevation is angled away from the children’s centre so there would be no view of the outdoor space from the centre of the rooms and views from the windows would look across the south west corner of the play space. Members were advised that a condition to require details of privacy measures to be installed on the new building to prevent undue overlooking is recommended and details should be discussed with the children’s centre.

·           In terms of construction impacts, the Planning Officer informed the meeting that in the event that planning permission is granted, this would be subject to a condition requiring a Construction and Environmental Management Plan which covers noise and dust to be submitted and approved in writing to the local planning authority before works commence and would require liaison with the Children Centre.

·           The Planning Officer highlighted the benefits of the scheme as it would provide an additional 118 new housing, 59 of which would be affordable and 12 of which would be wheel chair accessible. Members noted the concerns raised by residents and were also mindful of the planning history of the site, measures to mitigate the impact and the benefits of the proposal.

·           In response, the agent reiterated the history of the scheme and the whole process of producing a development which proposes a mix of high quality residential accommodation, including family-sized homes, by making optimum use of previously developed land.

·           In summary the agent indicated that the proposal would provide good quality accommodation for future residents with all units exceeding the national floorspace requirements and having good access to natural daylight and sunlight. The scheme would ensure that majority of units would also have private amenity space in the form of gardens, terraces or balconies, along with of communal amenity space, and of public realm, including dedicated children’s play space.

·           In response to a suggestion to amend condition 23 in the planning permission to ensure that the playspaces is made available to all users, meeting was advised that this will be discussed with legal officers on whether this could be incorporated and tightened in the S106 agreement.

·           The proposal’s housing density and dwelling mix is considered acceptable and in line with the London Plan and he Council’s own policies. The proposed housing is considered to be of a high quality in terms of unit sizes, amenity space, natural lighting, floor-to-ceiling heights, storage provision and access to refuse, recycling and bicycle storage facilities.

·           Councillor Klute proposed a motion to grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor Clarke 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 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: