Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:  Refusal

WARD:  Southgate

NOTED

1.    Introduction by the Planning Decisions Manager.

2.    This application site comprises the multi-storey car park that serves Southgate office village. The office village comprises a series of 3 storey detached office blocks served off a cul-de-sac accessing to Chase Road. The car park is located at the end of the cul-de-sac and presents a frontage to Park Road.

3.    The application proposes the creation of a new floor of office accommodation and two floors residential accommodation above the existing top level of car parking. The present parking level would be retained and sit underneath the additional floors to be constructed. The village presently has access to 102 parking spaces and the proposal would result in the loss 5, leaving 97 to serve the existing floor space plus the new accommodation to be provided through this application. The application proposes 504sq.m of office floor space and 8 flats – 6 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed.

4.    The new accommodation is set away from the flank wall of No.20 Park Road by 11m for the office level and 14m for the residential levels. There are windows in the flank elevation and terraces facing towards No.20 Park Road serving the residential units. The majority of the windows face the blank wall of No.20 and those that extend beyond the rear elevation can be obscure glazed and this can be secured by condition. The terraces would have 1.8m high privacy screens enclosing, and again this could be secured by condition.

5.    The new office level of accommodation would align with the existing front wall of the car park and the residential accommodation would be set back by 2.2m. This gives a separation distance of 13.5m and 15.7m respectively from the ‘warehouse’ development on the opposite side of the street. However, it should be noted that the new development does not directly face this building, but is positioned slightly to the south of it.

6.    The application has been supported by a sunlight and daylight report. This assesses the impact of the proposed development on sunlight and daylight in accordance with the Building Research Establishment publication 2011 “Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight. A Guide to Good practise”. This concludes that there would be no demonstrable impact on sunlight and daylight to neighbouring properties as a consequence of the development.

7.    Members to note that the officer assessment of the application concludes that the development is acceptable in terms of its relationship to the street scene, neighbouring properties and car parking. However, policy seeks to ensure that all residential developments make a contribution towards affordable housing and that for schemes of less than 10 units, this is in the form of an off-site contribution. If a developer considers that a contribution cannot be paid, then this needs to be evidenced in the form of a viability assessment. A considerable amount of time has been spent by the Council’s independent consultant discussing the viability of this scheme. It is his view that the development can viably make a contribution of approx. £232k towards affordable housing, almost £25k towards education provision, monitoring fees and mayoral CIL. The applicant is proposing no contribution.

8.    The applicant has now lodged an appeal against the Council’s failure to determine the application within the statutory period. This means that the Council no longer has the authority to determine this application. However, the purpose of this report is to seek Members endorsement to a recommendation of refusal on the basis of the failure of the development to make the necessary contributions to affordable housing and education which we consider are viable. However, Members are free to consider whether they agree with this recommendation and/or whether there are other reasons for which they would have refused planning permission.

9.    One further objection from the occupier of Flat 17, The Warehouse, 7 Park Road:

·         Object to a 4 storey build requesting a car park and flats on the first to third floors. This will take the current level height restrictions above that of the house situated on park road. The planning should not go beyond this height.

·         This will have a detrimental effect of the current enjoyment of my flat, situated opposite the site.

·         I do not object to the building of the flats, but the development should be restricted to the 2^nd floor.

10. The deputation of Ms Sue Appell, neighbouring resident.

11. The response of Ms Caroline Apcar, Apcar Smith Planning, agents to the applicant.

12. Advice of the Planning Decisions Manager in respect of issues raised.

13. Following a debate, a vote was taken on whether Members agreed with the officers’ recommendation that the only issue with the application was the Section 106 agreement relating to housing and education provision, and this was unanimously approved. The LPA’s appeal statement would be drafted accordingly.

AGREED that, in the absence of the appeal against the Council’s failure to determine the application within the statutory period, had the Council been in a position to determine the application, it would have refused planning permission for the reason set out in the report.