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:
- Item B3 Parkhurst Rd 21 July, item 193. PDF 11 MB
- Item B3 Appendix 3 Parkhurst Rd 21 July, item 193. PDF 246 KB
- Map P2020-0648-FUL Former Territorial Army Centre, 65-69 Parkhurst Road, London, N7 0LR, item 193. PDF 258 KB