Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to S106 Agreement and conditions

WARD:  Winchmore Hill

NOTED

1.    Introduction by the Head of Development Management, clarifying the proposal.

2.    Receipt of three further representations, with the following concerns:

- Cycle store is unnecessarily obtrusive, unsympathetic to surroundings and will spoil the amenity of the front garden at Raymond House.

- No design specification has been provided concerning the cycle store.

- A 27 cycle space facility would not fit in the suggested location.

- Why does cycle store have to be securely housed?

- If planning permission is granted, a planning condition should be included that seeks to locate an appropriate location for the cycle store.

- There is inadequate external lighting to the access road and to the rear of Old Park House.

- Viability of more car parking has not been considered in the officer report.

- Structural competency of building to sustain additional loading from proposed development.

- The maintenance and servicing strategy currently fails to provide safe and satisfactory conditions for the residents of Old Park House.

- Inadequacy of current refuse storage arrangements.

3.    One further planning condition was recommended by Traffic and Transportation relating to securing adequately dimensioned parking spaces for the additional three units.

4.    Condition 10 in respect of revised siting of cycle storage was highlighted.

5.    The deputation of Mr Oliver Burns, including the following points:

a. He was a leaseholder in Old Park House and was speaking on behalf of all the residents who were against this proposal.

b. The dormers would spoil the lines and the architectural integrity of the building’s classic 1930s design. This was unfair because leaseholders had purchased homes there because of the design.

c. It was particularly unfair on those who had top floor flats and would now have people living above in the roof space. Sitting rooms would be located above main bedrooms. New additions could not maintain the soundproofing.

d. The development phase would create dust, pollution, heavy vehicle access and a dangerous environment.

e. Floor to ceiling ratios in the new flats were inadequate to be habitable.

f. The wellbeing of existing residents and enjoyment of their homes counted for nothing. There would be a negative impact on the value of their properties. There were already maintenance and servicing concerns.

6.    The response of Mr Phil Waind, architect and agent for the applicant, including the following points:

a. He was also the architect for Raymond House, which was viewed for an architectural award.

b. The plans for Old Park House considered its character and the interface below, and there had been extensive negotiation with officers.

c. The development would be sympathetic, in keeping, and maintain the rhythm of the building elevations, and there would be sufficient light.

d. A management plan would be conditioned.

e. The development would need to meet building regulations.

f. Quality accommodation would be provided. Ceiling height would rise to 3.2m in the centre of the room, which would be striking and dramatic. Much needed housing would be provided without any detrimental impact.

g. The bike store would be a 21 cycle unit and would not be sited in front of Raymond House.

7.    The statement of Mr Dennis Stacey, Chairman, Conservation Advisory Group (CAG), advising that the Group had been split in its view regarding acceptability of this scheme but he personally thought it acceptable.

8.    Debate and questions from Members, including the following:

a. Officers’ confirmation that the cycle store’s position had not been confirmed, but it would not be as shown on the plans.

b. Members’ concerns relating to changes on the road-facing frontage and officers’ advice that views were broken by trees, and that CAG considered the regularity of the dormer roof lights to be key.

c. Elements considered unacceptable in the previous scheme had been removed.

d. Sympathy for leaseholders, emphasis of the importance of adhering to the plan, but support for new homes.

9.    The support of the majority of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation: 14 votes for and 1 vote against.

AGREED that subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement to secure the matters outlined in the report, planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the report and the additional condition below, for the reasons set out in the report.

Additional Condition

The development shall not commence until details of the proposed parallel parking spaces complying with the parking standards adopted by the Local Planning Authority have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details before the development is occupied and shall be maintained for this purpose.

Reason: To ensure that the development complies with adopted Policy and does not prejudice conditions of safety or traffic flow on adjoining highways.