Skip to content

Agenda item

Land adjoining Collingwood House, Mercers Road, N19 4PJ


Proposed redevelopment of existing car park by constructing 6x two storey plus basement mews houses (3 x 2 bed, 4 person and 3 x 3 bed, 5 person units) together with landscaping, cycle parking, vehicle parking and associated works.


(Planning application number: P2021/2840/FUL)


The planning officer introduced the case and explained condition 24 (page 97 of the Agenda) should read: Notwithstanding the terrace areas approved and shown on the approved plans, all other flat roof areas of the dwellings shall not be used as a terrace or any other form of private amenity space into perpetuity.


In response to questions from the Sub-Committee the officer explained all drawings provided in the planning applications were to scale, using scale bars on each drawing. All plans are required to have a scale bar but there was no requirement to have measurements on plans. Therefore if, for example, the height was contested, it would be possible to go back and look at the drawing to scale this up properly. In response to questions surrounding the car park, the Officer explained there would also be restrictions on parking and this had been set out in the planning and transport statements provided, it would also go into a legal agreement along with any carbon offset contributions and affordable housing the scheme would need to provide. Councillors had queries on the basement bedrooms, the officer explained the light wells were increased to gain more daylight into these bedrooms.


Objectors raised concerns around the basement bedrooms stating these would not have been ideal for children and the basements were too extensive. The double sliding doors had also been surrounded by 3-metre-high walls. They also voiced worries that the first-floor dwellings compromised privacy and felt the proposal was poor and had been rushed with no real benefit to the Islington community and a lack of care for the conditions added. The objectors also spoke to environmental concerns and the carbon emissions building these dwellings would produce.


The Applicant explained they wanted to meet ambitions to create more housing on unused back land/brown field sites and this would have been a housing development with high standards of design. They further explained they had made the affordable housing contribution. This would have been a car-free development with energy efficient buildings. They wanted to benefit Islington by optimising and regenerating the area on what was currently an unsustainable car parking site. They also explained that they had adhered to all building and carbon regulations and if these were to change, they would adhere to the new building regulations.


In response to questions from the Sub-committee around access to the site, the applicant explained that while being a car-free site there would be access for emergency vehicles. They also further replied to concerns around basement rooms explaining there had been a long design process to ensure the quality of sunlight these received was good. They had also had tree officers to the site and all reasons for the removal of certain trees were justified in the report. The applicant explained they were open to exploring new materials with recycled content to mitigate more environmental impact.


Councillor Hayes proposed a condition relating to the feasibility of further improvements of the environmental impact of the project. Councillor Klute Seconded.



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, the planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 (page 89-98 of the Agenda) of the officer report and an addition of the further condition set out above.


Supporting documents: