Agenda item

Partial demolition/reconfiguration of the external terrace relating to the existing public house and the redevelopment of the adjacent hardstanding car park for the construction of five (3 x 3 bed and 2 x 2-bed) self-contained dwellinghouses (C3 use) and associated alterations.

REASON FOR RECONSULTATION: Revised drawings, Revised Daylight/Sunlight Report, Additional Land use information for car park, Fire Safety Information (including Fire Statement, Fire Strategy, Approved Inspector Letter), Response to objections,

(Planning application number: P2022/1599/FUL)

In the discussion the following points were made:

• In response to a member’s question, the planning officer confirmed that the pub could have tables and chairs at the terrace at the front of the property as well as at the terrace to the south of the site.
• The Committee considered recent planning issues on the wider site.
• In response to a member’s question, the planning officer advised that handmade bricks had been used in the surrounding area. Although not in the proposal this could be included as a condition if the committee was so minded.
• It was noted that the buildings were higher than the fence at the rear of the carpark however mitigation such as a sloped, green roof had been proposed to soften the impact of the building.
• The objectors raised concerns regarding the accuracy and completeness of materials and analysis related to the application; the protection of pubs in the Local Plan and the lack of an independent assessment related to the viability of the pub; the failure to assess harm to heritage assets and the conservation area; that the Conservation Area Design Guidance prohibited the proposed alterations to original features; the mass and scale of the proposed building and the limited provision of measurements; loss of light and overshadowing and a lack of independent assessment; noise from construction and the constructions impact on wildlife; lack of consultation and reply from the applicant; the impact on the wall at the rear of the carpark and its effect on their gardens and trees at the boundary and issues such as the size and management of a gap between a second wall proposed by the applicant; the impact on protected wildlife; the management of trees; how a bus stop servicing two schools would be managed and the children’s safety and, that the quality, style, mass and design did not match the local area or historic views.
• The applicant’s representatives highlighted to the Committee that the development company was design conscious, sustainably led and aimed to positively affect the built environment for future generations. They had acquired the carpark and the terrace from the pub, who had provided a letter of support for the application and were currently leasing the terrace.  Since the refusal of the previous scheme it had been carefully reviewed and significant revisions had been. They posited that the current site was underutilised and detracted from the setting of the conservation area; the proposals addressed previous concerns and provided a much enhanced outlook when compared to the existing outlook of the site; Historic England and the Council’s Heritage and Design Officer did not raise an objection to the application but commended its high quality design, which complimented the nature and scale of the street; removing part of the pub’s terrace would not cause substantial harm to the setting of the building; it would offer high quality housing on a brownfield site; a £250,000 contribution would be made for the delivery of offsite affordable housing and a CIL contribution of £197,000; thorough research had been done into the site’s history and surroundings, which informed the design; inspiration was taken from the local Victorian features and the design was supported by the design and conservation officer; the number of units had been reduced from six to five; the massing had been reduced; neighbouring amenity was not raised in the previous refusal however changes to the mass and scale had reduced any potential harm to adjacent properties; the units were set back from the street and so maintained privacy, had adequate separation from neighbours and quality outdoor space; there was a mix of two and three bedroom units in line with the priority housing needs of the Council; the scheme exceeded minimum space standards for floor areas and private amenity space; all units were dual aspect with step free access to ensure inclusivity; the trade and profit potential of the pub had been evaluated and the pub could continue to operate effectively; the BRE Guidelines 2022 stated that alterations to daylight of less than 20% would be unnoticeable and the largest alteration to the neighbours was 7%, sunlight alterations were also considered unnoticeable; regarding overshadowing the BRE Guidelines 2022 said an amenity space should receive 50% direct sunlight and all the neighbours receive at least 90% direct sunlight;
• The Chair highlighted that one of the objectors had said only the four closest heritage assets had been considered when trying to make the application architecturally consistent. The applicant said there was further details available in the design and access statement and the heritage statement provided by an outside consultant who addressed the overall heritage of the conservation area.
• The Chair asked about the objectors comment regarding the bus stop. It was explained that TfL was a statutory consultant and conditions had been applied regarding a construction management plan and the maintenance of the bus stop during construction.
• The Chair asked the Council’s legal advisor for their view on potential legal challenges raised by the objectors. It was explained that the matters raised were covered in the officer’s report.
• A member asked about the applicant’s engagement with residents. The residents felt they had not been engaged and incorrect measurements in the report could have affected the daylight and sunlight modelling as no one had been to their gardens. It was explained by the applicant that as part of their consultation they had spoken to the Highgate Society and the Highgate Conservation Area Action Committee. They had attempted to engage with residents on site but this had been unsuccessful. There had been no other consultation with residents. The Planning Officer explained that they would encourage applicants to speak to residents but there were no statutory requirements for consultation for minor developments.
• It was confirmed that granting planning permission would result in the loss of a part of the pub’s terrace.
• A member asked about the boundary wall. It was explained that a full boundary wall survey had been undertaken. It was likely to be a concrete frame retaining the wall, but a fully detailed plan would be part of the phase four process, following planning permission.
• A member highlighted that although there was no statutory requirement for the consultation of neighbours, they would expect residents to be included in the planning process. It was also considered that the design and conservation officer had been integral to this proposal.
• The Chair stated that the report stated there was no daylight/sunlight impact on the neighbours; the lack of consultation with residents was disappointing; the loss of the carpark was not an issue as it was in the centre of town and  car travel was discouraged; the loss of part of the terrace was not ideal as outside space was valuable however the case to maintain it was not strong and the design and conservation officer considered the design to be acceptable.

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.