Agenda item

Granted planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and additional condition detailed within the supplementary report to restrict access to the sedum roof above ground floor level.

PROPOSAL

Proposed demolition of existing garages and erection of two residential units with landscaping, private, and communal amenity areas, cycle and refuse storages and associated works.

RECOMMENDATION

(1)        That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report, and additional condition detailed within the supplementary report to restrict access to the sedum roof above ground floor level.

(2)        That the Head of Planning is delegated authority to make changes to the wording of the committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions, informatives, planning obligations or reasons for the decision) prior to the decision being actioned, provided that the Head of Planning is satisfied that any such changes could not reasonably be regarded as deviating from the overall principle of the decision reached by the committee nor that such change(s) could reasonably have led to a different decision having been reached by the committee.

(3)        That the Committee confirms that adequate provision has been made, by the imposition of conditions, for the preservation or planting of trees as required by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Mahya Fatemi (Planning Officer) introduced the report, with the development proposal involving thedemolition of 19 existing garages and erection of two three-bedroom family sized residential homes with landscaping, private and communal amenity areas, cycle and refuse storages and associated works.  The Committee’s attention was also drawn to the supplementary report, which included details of an additional comment received in objection to the proposals since publication of the main committee report along with the recommended inclusion of an additional condition to restrict access to the sedum roof above ground floor level.  Subject to inclusion of the additional condition alongside those outlined within the main report officers advised that the recommendation remained to grant planning permission.

Clarifying questions were raised around the significance of the shortfall in the separation distance between the development and the habitable room windows of neighbouring properties on Wrentham Avenue, which comments raised in objection had highlighted was only 13.8 metres and less than the minimum 18 metres required by SPD1.  In response, officers advised that this requirement related to directly facing habitable room windows with the ground level of the application site generally set below the rear gardens of Wrentham Road and the proposed dwellings maintaining a height and volume that sat below a 45-degree line from the rear edge of the gardens on Wrentham Avenue.  In addition, the rear habitable windows of Wrentham Avenue were positioned more than 14 meters away from the boundary, with the massing and height therefore felt to have complied with SPD1 guidance and the bulk of the proposed buildings not considered to create a detrimental impact in terms of the sense of enclosure or outlook of nearby occupiers and the 45 degree compliance also mitigating against any overshadowing on the gardens of nearby dwellings.

The Chair thanked Mahya Fatemi for introducing the report and then invited John Keutgen (who had registered to speak in objection to the application) to address the Committee.

The following key points were highlighted:

·             As a starting point, it was felt that the supplementary report had failed to address most of the objections and issues raised in response to the main committee report.

·             It was pointed out that the garages were not used solely for storage, with at least 15 in use as workshops and art studios, and it noted that there had been a shortage of, and demand for, such facilities in the area.

·             With reference to the distance of only 13.8 metres from the rearmost habitable room windows of neighbouring properties on Wrentham Avenue, it was felt that the 18 metres required by SPD1 Principle 5.2 had been breached with it pointed out that the drawing showing compliance with the 45 degree angle in Principle 5.1 appeared flawed, as it had indicated that the garden level was 1.8 metres above the site level, whereas it was only 0.43 metres, and at that level the 45 degree requirement would not have been met. Additionally, it was felt that the height of the boundary wall had also been incorrect.

·             In terms of concerns regarding loss of light, it was pointed out some gardens only received direct sunlight in the early morning, and it was felt that the structure would completely block that light.  Concerns were also raised in relation to loss of outlook.

·             In noting that the Design & Access Statement had referred to the development being car-free, given the presence of three stations and seven bus routes within a 10-minute walk, it was pointed out that only half of the flats comprising 88-98 Wrentham Avenue had off-street parking with on-street parking therefore limited.  It was also felt that the parking survey conducted had overestimated the available parking on Tiverton Road with the reasons for the development to be car-free therefore unclear.  The opportunity was also taken to highlight that the stair lift on the plans appeared only to be able to accommodate a Class 1 wheelchair, excluding those with Class 2 or 3 mobility scooters from accessing the site.

·             Regarding the noise and vibration report, it was pointed out this had been based on a study undertaken over four days at a single location and only in dry conditions.  On this basis it was not felt to have complied with the Professional Practice Guidance on Planning and Noise.  Based on previous longer term studies it was noted that approximately 70 diesel-hauled freight trains operating 24/7 had produced high levels of vibration and noise. Additionally, there had been 318 passenger trains each day from 6 am to 1 am with freight trains also frequently held idling at the signal opposite the site.  This had resulted in levels of 100dB(A) or more having been measured at the site with the propagation and levels of vibration also dependant on climatic conditions.

·             In relation to air quality, concerns were also expressed that the LAEI map indicated the railway as a pollution corridor, with nitrogen dioxide levels bordering on the legal annual mean limit due to diesel locomotives, which also emitted substantial levels of particulates. Further to this, it was noted that passenger trains emitted particulates from brakes and wheels.

·             Concerns were also raised in relation to soil stability, with previous analysis at various depths having demonstrated the subsoil in the area to be highly susceptible to volumetric changes related to moisture content. Tree T1 and others were considered responsible for the desiccation of the subsoil, while the unpredictable levels of annual rainfall might not suffice to rehydrate the soil. Live roots of tree T1 had been found at 11 metres, and experts had attributed damage to the boundary wall and the garage at 88 Wrentham Avenue to those roots.

·             Given the concerns highlighted the suitability of the site for the type of development proposed was therefore questioned although confirmation was provided that whilst significant objections remained in relation to the first-floor elements of the scheme should members be minded to grant permission a single-storey development would be deemed more acceptable.

Whilst there were no clarifying questions from members, the Chair advised that he welcomed the clarification which had been provided in relation to a single storey development being more acceptable as a development concept and then proceeded to invite Jonathan Ellis (who had registered to speak as a representative of the applicant) to address the Committee.

The following key points were highlighted:

·             The record of the development company who had submitted the application in delivering housing schemes across North and East London, including several developments within the Borough.

·             The work undertaken with planning officers through the pre-application and into the detailed design process to produce a scheme in line with local and national planning policy.  This had also included engagement with ward councillors and local area action groups including the Aylestone Park Residents and Tenants Association.

·             It was pointed out that the proposals were for the redevelopment of an underutilised brownfield site, originally designed solely for garaging but which was now prohibitive for most modern vehicles.  Transport consultants had also confirmed that the removal of the garages would significantly improve highway safety, particularly as there was no opportunity to exit the site within a forward gear and the proposals also involving the full reinstatement of the existing dropped kerb.

·             The proposals were fully compliant with local planning policies and all BRE guidelines regarding distances from boundaries and the necessary angles required. Confirmation was also provided that through the detailed design process there would be no overlooking at first floor level to the houses on Wrentham Avenue and no roof terrace.

·             The careful design of the proposals in collaboration with arboriculturists and tree officers within the Council, along with support and advice from Structural Engineers to confirm the limited impacts on trees.

·             Numerous ecological surveys, both daytime and evening, had been undertaken as requested by officers, confirming compliance with all local and national requirements.

·             It was noted that the site was not situated within a priority employment area. While a few local businesses may use the premises for storage, there were numerous alternative facilities available within the Borough's designated employment areas, rather than in residential zones.

·             The significant under supply of housing across the country was acknowledged and it was emphasised that the NPPF fully supported infill development opportunities, such as the proposed development with the need for well-designed family housing within the Borough also highlighted.

·             On the basis of the comments and issue highlighted, the Committee were therefore encouraged to support the officer recommendations and approve the planning application.

The Chair thanked Jonathan Ellis for addressing the Committee and with no clarifying questions raised then moved straight on to offer the Committee the opportunity to ask officers any remaining questions or points of clarity in relation to the application, with the following key points covered:

·             Given the location of the site adjacent to a conservation area clarification was requested on the potential impact of the development in relation to preserving the character of the Queens Park Conservation Area (QPCA) located to the south of the site. In response, it was highlighted that, given the constraints of the site a majority of the development would not be visible from the Conservation Area or street scene and would occupy the footprint of the existing garages. The first-floor elements would be constructed using lightweight materials which would ensure the development maintained a minor volume presence within the area.  The limited views of the scheme and use of lightweight timber for the first floor would ensure minimal visual impact with officers of the view that the development was therefore considered to preserve the character and appearance of the adjacent conservation area.

As further detail, given the boundary of the conservation area at the south of the site was the boundary of the railway and the properties on Tiverton Road it was considered that the siting of the scheme would limit views from within the Conservation Area and whilst there were some views from the gardens and properties on Wrentham Avenue, the developments lower elevation significantly mitigated the impact on public visibility.  The materials employed were also intentionally designed to avoid appearing overly prominent or dominant from a distance, thereby ensuring a more neutral impact.  As a result, officers had determined that the overall impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area would be neutral and not adversely affect its character or appearance.  This assessment had been supported by the Council’s Heritage Officer who had taken the view that there would be a neutral impact and did not consider it to cause harm to the heritage asset of the conservation area.

·             Further details were sought on the assessment undertaken in relation to the development not adhering to traditional building styles and impact of its design and appearance on the overall character and appearance of the surrounding area.  In response the Committee was advised that there had been no specific requirement for the proposed build to possess a traditional appearance with another building in the surrounding area also providing a different appearance from the more traditional buildings in the vicinity. Although the building had not been designed to mirror neighbouring properties in terms of material selection, its distinctiveness was encouraged as innovation and new designs were valued. Similarly, the design, materials, and overall appearance of the proposed site on Wrentham Avenue were deemed acceptable and appropriate by officers with the proposals considered to represent a good standard of contemporary design within the infill site.

·             Further clarification was sought, following the concerns raised as part of the objections to the application in relation to loss of light and outlook, on the proposals impact in relation to residential amenity.  Officer advised that based on their assessment of the proposals these were not expected to result in a harmful impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of noise and disturbance, daylight and sunlight or overlooking to any immediate adjoining properties having regard to the provision in SPD1.  It was further stated that, in accordance with the small site policy, officers had determined that optimising the use of the site was an appropriate design-led approach to deliver two family-sized homes on an underutilised site.

·             Regarding the impact of vibrations and noise, members were keen to seek details on the measures being taken to address the concerns identified, with members advised that the applicant had submitted a noise and vibrations assessment, reviewed by environmental officers.  It was noted that a condition attached to the application included external detailing of the façade and double glazing, which would prevent any noise and vibration for the future occupants and ensure that the construction as well as the build was suitable and met recommended internal and external noise levels. Assurance was also provided that Network Rail had been consulted with a number of conditions included as a result to ensuree the proposal was not likely to result in any harmful increase in noise from the railway.

·             As a final issue, members sought clarity on whether there would be any CIL contributions regarding the Wrentham Avenue development to which the response confirmed there would be.

As there were no further questions from Members, the Chair then moved on to the vote.

DECISION

RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report, and additional condition detailed within the supplementary report to restrict access to the sedum roof above ground floor level.

(Voting on the above decision was as follows: Unanimous in favour)

Given the interest declared by Councillor Kelcher at the start of the meeting on the following item he withdrew from the meeting at this stage in proceedings and Councillor S.Butt (as Vice Chair) took over as Chair for the remainder of the meeting.