Agenda item
196-228 York Way, London, N7 9AX
Minutes:
Demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of a part 3 to part 5 storey building plus double basement to provide for a total of 8,268sqm (GIA) of self-storage floorspace (Use Class B8) and 687sqm (GIA) of flexible office floorspace (Use Class B1a) along with associated access arrangements, car and cycle parking, servicing and plant area, refuse storage and ancillary works.
(Planning application number: P2019/3410/FUL)
In the discussion the following points were made:
·
Application site is a corner plot located to the
east side of York Way and the north side of Vale Royal which has a variety of buildings with
different occupiers. The site is designated within the Vale Royal
and Brewery Road Industrial site (LSIS) and is not within or
adjacent to conservation area or heritage assets.
·
Members were advised that
during the course of the application the scheme had been revised by
reducing the height, bulk, scale and massing of the building to
address concerns raised by representations about the design and
impact on neighbouring amenity.
·
The proposal has been
assessed taking into consideration its planning history,
land use, design and the impact of neighbouring amenity, transport
and energy.
·
An application for both the site and neighbouring 22
-23 Tileyard was refused and dismissed
at appeal where two reasons for refusal were
upheld. The first on grounds of its height, scale and design
as the building was considered to be
overbearing and its failure to respect and positively
respond to the neighbouring existing buildings and the street
scape. The second reason for refusal was the impact of the scheme
on neighbouring amenity as it was
considered to have an undue negative impact in terms of its
reduction of daylight.
·
In land use terms, the proposed industrial led B8
(self-storage) development is supported given the site’s
location within the Vale Royal/Brewery Road Locally Significant
Industrial Site (‘LSIS’).
The proposed B1(a) (office) floorspace would total only 7.7% of the
development’s GIA, ensuring that the site is predominantly in
industrial use, in accordance with all the pertinent land use
policies with the London Plan and Islington Development
Plan.
· The Planning Officer noted that although there is some adverse impact in terms of reduction of daylight to neighbouring properties this was at the lower end of the scale and that the provision of additional industrial floor space within the LSIS, improvement to the public realm and improved energy sustainability measures and planning obligations secured though s106 legal agreement outweigh concerns about the scheme.
·
Since the scheme has been
revised, Members were informed that no further concerns had
been raised about the neighbouring amenity in terms of overlooking
or loss of outlook, nor has the scheme any significant impact on
traffic and parking. In addition members
were advised that delivery and servicing will be able to take place
safely within a dedicated on-site service yard and the level of
cycle storage is considered by officers as sufficient for this type
of B8 use.
·
In response to a question about landscaping details
and how this could be enforced, the Planning Officer reminded
members of condition 6 in the report,
which ensures that landscaping details are to be submitted to the
Local Planning Authority and its agreement prior to occupation of
the premises. A request that an informative be included if
permission is granted to emphasise Members acknowledgement that it
notes the Tree Officer concerns was noted by the
Committee.
·
In terms of the impact of the amenity of
neighbouring properties, the Planning Officer acknowledged that
although transgressions still remain which weigh against the
scheme, members were reminded that the weight afforded to its
impact is however limited by the fact that the transgressions in
this instance are at a lower end of the scale.
·
In terms of VSC, the Planning officer advised that
in comparison to the refused scheme where there were 150
transgressions, the revised proposal has
49. On the NSL and daylight distribution, members were advised that
whilst the refused scheme saw 42 rooms fail, there was 30 transgressions in this revised
proposal.
·
With regard to Camden council’s objections
that the scheme was not sympathetic to neighbouring properties,
meeting was advised that objections were not received from
Islington Council’s Design Officers and that the proposed
brick work and its finishing is in line with both the Fitzpatrick
building and the Tileyard building
north of the site. Members were informed
that no further comments had been received by Camden since the
revised scheme had been fully re-consulted.
·
In terms of TFL
objections to the number of car parking spaces being proposed for
the site, the Planning Officer advised that this was due to TFL
applying the general parking standards for B8 uses strictly, which
does not take into consideration the nature of a self-storage
facility where customers will be expected to drive in to the site
to store their goods or tradesmen storing their tools and that this
is not a warehouse distribution centre type of
business. The number of car
parking spaces being proposed will
ensure that it minimises cars waiting to enter the site to offload
their personal goods, idling and the potential of users parking on
local roads and then walking with their goods into the storage
facility.
·
In response to a question about the proposed brick
being used for the scheme, the Planning
Officer acknowledged that solid brick was being used and not brick
slip.
·
On the sustainability of the scheme, the Planning
officer referred members to the drawings submitted with the
application that shows approximately 50% of the building roof will
have solar panels installed, and the Council’s Energy
Services Officer accepted the submitted Energy Strategy.
·
With regards to the
amount of floor space being proposed and concerns in particular of
the potential of increasing the floor space from 8,268sqm to
15,769sqm by erecting other floors described as ‘demountable
mezzanines’ and its impact on vehicular movement, the
Planning Officer advised that the scheme had been tested in terms
of vehicle generations and its modelling exercise had taken into
consideration the two different scenarios, i.e. the minimum and the
maximum floor space and that officers were satisfied with the
servicing arrangements of the facility.
·
The Planning Officer requested that if members are
minded to grant planning permission, the wording of condition 24
will need to be strengthened to ensure
that only self-storage within the B8 use class is permitted and not
to allow amalgamated uses; that the use for self-storage; and
office space cannot be changed through permitted development
rights.
·
The Legal Officer in
clarifying the legal position of the scheme, advised that the
applicant is able to apply for the amount of floor space as
advertised in the report within planning rules, knowing that in
future there may well be an option to increase the amount of floor
space, reminding members that committee can only consider what is
before them. In addition to the above
advice, the legal officer reiterated to members that the scheme had
been assessed on the basis of the
greater amount of floor space potentially available in the
future.
·
The Legal Officer reminded members that additional
floors in terms of mezzanines is regarded as permitted development which does not require further
consent.
·
In response to members concerns about the
alley way to the rear, the agent
indicated that this is a fire escape route and benefits the
building and the adjoining 22-23 Tileyard Road and they will continue to be have a
right to the egress.
·
On the operation of the actual floor space, the
agent advised that it is a similar arrangement with its 83
self-storage facility around the country describing it as the most
efficient way for the business and importantly energy efficient.
Members were reminded of the unusual
nature of the building with its basement level and different floors
and that the erection of mezzanine provides opportunity for future
uses and internal layout. Members
were advised that the dismountable
mezzanines could be removed if not required and that having solid
floors alone renders the business unsuitable.
·
The transport consultant explained to the meeting
that a survey was carried at its other
storage facilities, studying vehicular movements and number of
parking spaces occupied at different times of the day, confirming
that the proposal would prevent waiting, idling and the avoidance
of parking on the local roads.
·
The agent acknowledged that the Community Levy
Infrastructure will be based on the
proposal for 8268sqm instead of 15,678sqm and that the demountable
mezzanine was an element of future use for the building.
·
During deliberation, members welcomed the solar
panels, that trees will be protected and the
proposed landscape and the public realm
improvement.
·
A request to the
applicant on the possibility of installing electric charging points
in the car parking spaces was agreed by the
agent. The Chair requested that an
additional recommendation be included as a condition in the
planning permission, wording to be
delegated to officers. Also that
condition 3 ensures that solid bricks is to be used in the
scheme.
· Councillor Clarke proposed a motion to include an informative which addresses the landscaping concerns raised by the Council Tree Officer. This was seconded by Councillor Klute and carried.
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 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:
- B1 - Report, item 202. PDF 11 MB
- APPENDIX 3 - Appeal Decision, item 202. PDF 310 KB
- Map P2019-3410-FUL, 196-228 York Way, London, N7 9AX, item 202. PDF 93 KB