Agenda item

The construction of 13 new dwelling units comprising 2 x 1B2P units, 3 x 2B3P units, 2 x 2B4P units, 3 x 3B4P units, 2 x 3B5P units and 1 x 3B6P units with associated amenity space, provided in three new residential blocks ranging from 1 to 4 storeys in height, along with provision of bicycle storage and refuse and recycling facilities, improvements to access, landscape, and public realm, and the demolition of external storage facilities.

(Planning application number: P2022/4295/FU )

In the discussion the following points were made:

·       Planning Officer advised that one representation was received since agenda was published however no further issues had been raised that the report had not covered.

·       Site comprises of two adjacent plots, the larger plot located within the grounds of the Lindsey Mews Estate and the smaller plot sits between 142 and 128 Elmore Street. The Estate comprises 18 parking spaces and shared amenity spaces consisting of a grassed area and paved open spaces, alongside storage facilities.

·       Site has no listed buildings, not within a conservation area although site is bound by the East Canonbury Conservation Area.

·       Meeting was advised that proposal is a council owned application by the New Build Team, that issues taken into consideration include land use, its design & Conservation; landscaping, the quality of accommodation, impact on neighbouring amenity; transport and highways and energy & sustainability

·       With regards to land use policy meeting was advised that the scheme will result in a 62% provision of affordable housing, that the housing size mix is broadly in line with the priorities set out in local policy

·       Members were advised that the scheme will result in loss of estate open spaces, that there will be a decrease in hardscaping and an increase in soft landscaping and an increase in building footprint

·       In terms of landscaping of the scheme, the Planning Officer stated that there will be a provision of 96sqm playable features and a play space of 27sqm, a total of 123sqm play provision which is to be welcomed. It was also noted that 2 Category C trees and 1 Category U tree is to be removed, however 10 new trees are to be planted.

·       In terms of inclusive design, meeting was advised that two units in Building C do not meet M(2) accessibility requirements, however this is considered acceptable on balance when weighed against benefits of providing two additional family sized units.

·       With regards to the impact of the scheme on neighbouring amenity ,the planning officer advised that the scheme is sufficiently set away from neighbouring residential properties so no overlooking and privacy concerns and that subject to conditions requiring overlooking mitigation on key elevations.

·       Noise mitigation measures have been considered acceptable subject to conditions, that in terms of daylight VSC,10 windows see reductions beyond BRE and NSL, 11 rooms see reductions beyond BRE.

·       Meeting was advised that adequate provision for cycle parking has been provided on site for occupiers.

·       In terms of energy and sustainability, the proposal will result in a reduction in regulated CO2 emissions and 57% reduction in total emissions; Carbon Offset contribution of £7,912 for remaining 8.6 tonnes.

·       In terms of Planning Balance , Planning officer acknowledged that although there is a degree of conflict with local policies DM2.1 and DM3.4, relating to amenity impacts and accessibility however the Planning benefits outweigh the negative such as the provision of 13 much need new homes, including 8 affordable units; enhancements to the shared amenity space at Lindsey Mews with an uplift in biodiversity and a strong urban greening score, the introduction of an improved site layout which would reduce opportunities for anti-social behaviour, improvements to the streetscape along Elmore Street.

·       In response to a question on why the scheme had not made provision for solar panels on the sloping and flat roofs and for not harvesting the use of grey water, the meeting was advised that the scheme is policy complaint, that if members are minded condition can be included for applicants to explore the use of these measures.

·       A resident in Northchurch objected to the scheme on grounds of the size of the buildings as it is significantly taller than existing buildings, that it had a domineering effect and was out of character of the surrounding area.  In addition he had concerns about loss of light to his dwelling referring members to officers report acknowledging that some rooms fell short of BRE guidelines especially in habitable rooms. Objector had concerns about loss of privacy, with the proposed balcony at the rear of building C and the potential noise especially when in use.

·       The applicant advised that windows in building C have been assessed in detail and that mitigation measures are proposed, that in areas where there is loss of light, these are designated for commercial purposes and not relevant for assessment which would have been the case if it is designated for residential use.

·       With regards the provision of cycle hangar storage on site and in particular if it would be accessible to existing residents, the applicant acknowledged that there are council owned hangers provided within the vicinity of the site, however if there are spaces available on site, existing residents will be allowed to apply.

·       On the lack of solar panels on the flat roof, applicant informed the meeting that the scheme has delivered sustainable homes and the flat roofs of the existing buildings do not fall within the red line boundary so there is limited scope to provide this as part of this development. Confirmed they would discuss matter with the Council’s housing team.

·       The Chair in summary welcomed the scheme noting the constrained nature of the site and recognising the need for affordable homes. He also noted the significant challenges of the scheme in terms of its impact on neighbouring amenity but also welcomed the mitigation measures, that in terms of planning balance the benefits outweigh any impact.

·       A Member noted the development of housing on brownfields, that although not perfect, the use of car parking spaces is to be welcomed.

·       Councillor Clarke moved a motion to include a condition for applicant to explore the possibility of solar energy supply for existing residents and the harvesting of grey water. Councillor North seconded the motion.

·       Chair suggested that officers and applicant look at the balustrade and screening option around the balcony at the rear of building C so as to address privacy concerns.

·       Councillor Hamdache proposed a motion to grant planning permission. This was seconded by Councillor North 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 additional condition outlined above; and subject to the prior completion of a Directors’ Agreement securing the head of terms set out in Appendix 1