Agenda item

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions, Unilateral Undertaking, no issues arising from consultation with the Health and Safety Executive, and referral to the Greater London Authority.

5.1  PROPOSALS; All works associated with site clearance of six sites and erection of five buildings of six storeys and a four storey row of ten terraced houses, to provide 189 mixed tenure residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and 593m2 of non-residential space (Use Class E); landscaping to include residential courtyards, public realm, tree planting, the provision of play space, reorganisation of existing car parking and all associated Infrastructure.

POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

? Ground floor footprint reduced on corner of Downham Road and Southgate Road;

? Internal revisions to allow amended fire strategy;

? Trees retained on Downham Road;

? Pillar removed on Hertford Road;

? Development description amended to refer to 593m2 non-residential space, following amended Design and Access statement.

These amendments are sufficiently minor that it has been considered unnecessary to carry out a further consultation on the application.

5.2   The Council’s Planning Service’s Senior Planner, Major Projects, introduced the planning application as set out in the published report. During the course of the presentation reference was made to the addendum and the following amendments to the application report:

·  The Borough’s Streetscene team have requested that references to ‘road safety audit’ be replaced with ‘safety audit’. As such, paragraph 6.5.26 should be amended;

·  Accordingly, condition 44 would be amended to add further details as to what is expected by the condition;

·  The Greater London Authority had requested an additional condition.

5.3   The Committee heard from a local ward Councillor who raised objections on behalf of local residents. Local residents had raised a number of concerns including; the proposed development’s impact on the character of the area, the impact on daylight, sunlight, outlook and the sense of enclosure at neighbouring properties and the loss of green space on the corner of Southgate and Downham Roads. There were also concerns raised including the loss of existing mature trees, too little open space was proposed for the new residents, more bicycle storage should be provided for existing residents, the impact on existing residents during the construction period and the Downham Road East buildings would narrow the pavement at the corner of Downham and De Beauvoir road making them unsafe for pedestrians.

5.4  The Committee heard from a ward Councillor in support of the application. The Councillor spoke of the benefits of the proposed scheme and would provide genuine affordable housing. The Committee noted that on the De Beauvoir Estate there was a real need to provide homes for many families. The housing that was to be created was of a high quality and the public space that was proposed would be well lit for the community to use.

5.5  The Committee briefly heard from the Council’s Head of Housing Supply Programme, who concurred with the ward Councillor that the proposals would provide much needed high quality housing for local families in need. The applicant had provided at the meeting sample materials and an architectural model. The Committee members briefly examined the materials and the model.

5.6   The meeting entered the discussion phase where the following points were raised;

·  The tenure mix was policy compliant; the outright sale homes sale would pay for the affordable homes element of the development. There was not more affordable housing provided in the scheme because of

·  the lack of government funding available to pay for affordable housing;

·  The majority of the blocks in the development were of a mixed tenure but the Balmes Road block was different reflecting an early commitment to local residents that the block would contain socially rented accommodation;

·  In terms of massing, the majority of the proposed blocks were six storeys, which was consistent with other blocks across the estate, which was keeping with the massing across in the estate. With the Downham Road West block, because it was on a corner there was an expectation that it would be taller. While the proposed blocks would be slightly taller than the existing blocks. The proposed blocks were of a similar architectural design they would stand out and be modern but also would respect the existing architectural in the area;

·  On Sustainability, the application had been examined by the Council’s external consultants and it had been determined that it was above the 35% net zero target. The Planning Service was of the view that to this end the scheme was acceptable and was also going beyond what was expected of the blocks that were proposed. The external consultants were satisfied with the proposals and did not see anything of concern regarding sustainability. Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHPs) were to be used they were selected as the most energy efficient option. The applicant had produced an overheating strategy and no issues had been identified. It was recognised that some of the homes to the north would have issues with noise and therefore would have to close their windows. In the case of these buildings trim heating would be applied with a small amount of air being pumped into the building to keep it air cooled. This was not consecutive to air conditioning it was just help to

·  regulate the building to an appropriate level;

·  On the mass scaling, the Sub-Committee noted that to the North of the existing site there was a lot of broken down frontage with several aspects set back. With the proposals there was a more designed frontage which though slightly more forward than the existing buildings it helped Downham Road to be better defined. The Planning Service were satisfied with the scale change under the proposals;

·  The Council’s transport team were satisfied that under the proposals the pavements were wide enough and suitable for pedestrians;

·  With blocks with less than 30 units individual ASHP systems would be installed;

·  Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) was not normally a measurement used in the planning sector because the focus was more on the overall reduction of emissions from the development. There was an energy and sustainability statement, which outlined the proposed energy efficiency measures for the development and there was also provided a Carbon Offset payment;

·  On the building block on the canalside, during the design process a lot of re-design was required because of its location in a sensitive area;

·  On the commercial units on site, there would be class E units long Hertford Road. The Planning Service concluded that flexible use was best for the road. There was nothing along the road that the Planning Service would want to see, apart from that there were no flues proposed on the buildings. To that end there was a condition in place against primary cooking, which meant that a restaurant, for example, could not be sited on the road. Internal flues could not be installed as that would require use of more space, specifically upstairs. Also if there was no condition against primary cooking could result in a flue stuck to the outside of a building;

·  The applicant had adopted a flexible approach toward the ground floor commercial/non-residential units in order to attract small to medium businesses and to hopefully avoid any empty commercial spaces. However the applicant recognised at the same time it had to balance this out with ensuring the needs of the local residents making sure they were not disturbed;

·  The architect explained that in terms of the terrace houses that sit in front of St Laurence Court and adjacent to 81 Downham Road the line of the building set slightly back from the line of the larger blocks. They would be provided with a front garden which provided not only defensible space but also secured bicycle storage and bin storage;

·  The community space was provided through a small back garden and a terrace on the first floor;

·  It was noted that the Tenants Residents Association (TRA) building was not a community hall. The space was a single storey building. The community centre would be retained under the proposals;

·  Regarding concerns raised about single width doorways and the flow of people in and out of the blocks, the Planning Service had concluded that the lobbies for the development were will designed and the issue of the single doorways had not been raised as an issue;

·  The development did meet the requirements of the Council’s child-friendly play space requirements as set out in the Planning Document (SPD);

·  It was acknowledged that the development that on green space it did not meet the requirement LP48, however, it was also recognised that it was an Infill scheme. Therefore it was always going to be difficult to meet the standard of LP48. To respond to this there was a payment in lieu which could then be spent on open space in the vicinity. There was also a landscaping condition proposed, which the Planning Service was of the view was well done and on balance the proposals were acceptable;

·  Committee members were reminded that the phases of the overall master plan was not material planning issue and therefore was not relevant to discuss on the planning application before the Sub-Committee;

·  On the issue of Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) recent legal opinion to their legality was not a material planning issue;

·  Residents could currently park on site;

·  The Committee members were disappointed at the level of two tier cycle parking proposed. The applicant responded that they would always aim for 100% single tier cycle parking in all its schemes, however, they also wanted to meet London Plan requirements on the amount of cycle parking as well as the Hackney Plan’s requirements. In order to do that and achieve the proposed level of affordable housing then in this instance they had to go for two tier cycle parking. The applicant added that they were currently working on the specification s for the two tier cycle racks and were seeking a manufacturer to provide hydraulic mechanism for ease of use for local residents;

·  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) would be installed in the cycle parking areas. In relation to access to these areas, there was internal access and there were also some visitor spaces that were also internal. There was also an internal visitor space on 81 Downham Road. There was no area that did not have access via a gated area;

·  The applicant confirmed that Downham Road East and Hertford Road and Balmes Road provided long stay visitor (for residents) cycle parking within the footprint of the building behind locked doors. The entrance to the bicycle storage area was carefully positioned in such a way that they were internally facing away from the main roads.

Vote:

For:  Cllr Desmond, Cllr Krautwirt, Cllr Narcross, Cllr Sadek, Cllr Laudat-Scott, Cllr Race, Cllr Webb and Cllr Young.

Against:  None.

Abstention:  None.

RESOLVED:

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions, Unilateral Undertaking, no issues arising from consultation with the Health and Safety Executive, and referral to the Greater London Authority

Against:  None.

Abstention:  None.