Agenda item - P12-02858PLA - 1-5 LYNTON COURT, 80-98 BOWES ROAD, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ADJACENT TO 80 BOWES ROAD (SITE 6a, b, c BOWES ROAD), LONDON, N13 4NP

Agenda item

P12-02858PLA - 1-5 LYNTON COURT, 80-98 BOWES ROAD, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ADJACENT TO 80 BOWES ROAD (SITE 6a, b, c BOWES ROAD), LONDON, N13 4NP

RECOMMENDATION:  Approval subject to S106 Agreement and conditions

WARD:  Southgate Green

Minutes:

NOTED

 

1.    Introduction by the Senior Planning Officer, clarifying the proposals.

2.    Correction to the proposal on page 55 of the officers’ report: fourth line should read 38 units and not 40.

3.    Para 2.15 should read 118 cycle parking spaces.

4.    Para 4.2.1 should state 33 units as opposed to 35 units.

5.    Para 6.8.3 should state 88 units as opposed to 90 units.

6.    Receipt of two additional objections raising concerns about the density of the proposed developments.

7.    Additional Highways comments:

a. Since publication of the report, Transport for London (TfL) had provided additional comments pertaining to the exit from Broomfield Road and had requested that the safety of this access be re-assessed. This had been discussed by Highways officers and TfL and agreed that an additional pre-commencement Grampian condition requesting further analysis of this access/junction be carried out.

b. As noted in para 6.8.19, the Council’s Highways department raised concerns about the lack of parking surveys on the surrounding streets. Additional comments had now been provided in relation to additional parking survey information submitted, assessing parking conditions on Westminster Drive and Broomfield Road. This survey concluded that there was no parking capacity on Westminster Drive, with the highest parking pressure on Broomfield Road at 79% capacity. However the parking survey did not take into account the existing approximately 12 parking spaces that would be lost as a result of this development, although these spaces were on private land owned by the applicant. Nevertheless, taking into account the benefits of the scheme providing additional housing, particularly family housing and the high levels of affordable homes and the relative good accessibility to public transport, it was considered that on balance the scheme remained acceptable and that any refusal on parking grounds would be difficult to uphold. Taking into account the tenure mix, Traffic & Transportation has confirmed that this site would result in lower levels of car ownership and that the parking ratio put forward remained policy compliant. It had also been advised that the situation could be improved further by the imposition of a parking management plan.

8.    Additional Air Quality comments. An amended air quality assessment had been submitted which has been deemed acceptable by Environmental Health. Officers had confirmed that Enfield did not meet its nitrogen dioxide levels and that the objective for annual mean was exceeded along this section of the North Circular Road (NCR). There were properties within what was regarded as an exceedence area, which is generally regarded as 30 metres from the road. Environmental Health did not consider the proximity of the proposed buildings to the NCR warranted refusal, but had stated that measures would need to be introduced into the development such as mechanical ventilation to improve matters as these buildings were within the exceedence area.

9.    The deputation of Mr Simon Cliff, representing Broomfield Home Owners and Residents’ Association and Broomfield Road Residents’ Association, including the following points:

a. There were a number of concerns regarding the proposals, the main issues being scale and design, parking and traffic, and air quality.

b. The development would not be sympathetic to its surroundings in design or physical appearance.

c. Copies of photographs had been distributed to Members which showed the greenness of Broomfield Road, with many trees and plants, and characteristics which were worth preserving. The development would be within metres of the row of 150 year old cottages.

d. Copies of CGI images of the proposed developments had also been distributed to Members. The back of Block B would be visible directly from the western end of Broomfield Road. The modernistic development would be wholly inappropriate in context here.

e. Parking provision would be inadequate, and removal of most of the existing on-street parking on Broomfield Road would have a severe impact on existing residents.

f. Traffic would increase in and out of Broomfield Road and the access point between Blocks C and D. The junctions were difficult even now. The junction of Broomfield Road with NCR was a major concern.

g. The other issue of great concern was air quality. If there was a need to rely on measures like windows that did not open and mechanical air conditioning to provide decent air, this was not sustainable housing.

10.  The response of Mr Richard Pearce, Senior Project Manager, Notting Hill Housing, including the following points:

a. This proposal and application P12-02859PLA were part of the vision for the NCR for larger regeneration opportunities under the draft North Circular Road Area Action Plan and contributed to the target of providing 1300 new homes, and in particular affordable housing.

b. This proposal would provide 121 high quality houses and flats to meet the Council’s aspirations for the area and address local housing needs.

c. There had been extensive negotiation with the local community, including exhibitions and public meetings. Feedback received had been acted on. There had been a significant reduction in the height of blocks.

d. Officers had concluded that the development would not be overbearing, there would be adequate separation, and no shadowing effect, and relationships were satisfactory.

e. The CGI images shown by the deputee were out of date.

f. The frontage position on NCR was important, and was a sign of the regeneration of the area.

g. The trees were mostly of poor quality and condition, and there would be introduction of new trees and landscaping.

h. Numbers of car parking spaces were consistent with policies and the London Plan.

i. He was aware of concerns raised at the Member site visit regarding the right hand turn from Broomfield Road, and Notting Hill Housing were happy to work with the Council and residents to address these issues.

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

a. The advice of the Group Leader – Transportation Planning & Policy in respect of improvements to Broomfield Road.

b. Confirmation of changes in levels on the site.

c. Confirmation that properties in Broomfield Road were not listed, and advice in respect of the appearance of the development.

d. Members’ concerns regarding loss of trees and natural environment, and officers’ clarification of planting and screening.

e. Members’ concerns regarding the access and officers’ confirmation that detailed junction design was yet to be brought forward and the junction improvement would be subject to a road safety audit and TfL approval.

f. The Cabinet Member for Business and Regeneration emphasised the efforts made by the applicant and the borough’s need for affordable housing units.

12.  The support of the majority of the Committee for the officers’ recommendation: 12 votes for, 2 votes against and 1 abstention.

 

AGREED that subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement, and subject to an additional Grampian condition to ensure that development does not commence until details of the Broomfield Road/NCR junction have been submitted and approved, including the relevant safety audits, the Planning Decisions Manager / Head of Development Management be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the report, for the reasons set out in the report.

Supporting documents: