Agenda item

RECOMMENDATION:

1 That subject to the completion of a S106 to secure the matters covered in this report, the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

2 That Head of Planning & Building Control be granted delegated authority to finalise the wording of the S106 Agreement and the planning conditions listed below.

WARD: Palmers Green

Eloise Kiernan, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report, highlighting the key aspects of the application.

In response to Members’ queries regardingscale, officers advised that the application was for two buildings, block A ranging in height from 3 to 6 storeys and block B at 6 storeys. The applicant would not be able to vary the height, and had to comply with the drawings.

In response to Members’ questions and comments relating to transport, officers responded that a controlled parking zone (CPZ) would offset some of the parking issues in the surrounding area. Access provided by a turning head would allow for better servicing, and would be a shared surface with the cycle way; this improved/ rationalised amendment would make it a safer and more pleasant space for all. The only parking provision being provided by the development was three disabled spaces for the three accessible units, which was served by the undercroft. Although the process for implementing a CPZ is outside the planning process, officers would try to seek payment from the developer at the earliest opportunity to design and engage with residents over the CPZ, and have it in place as soon as possible.

In response to Members’ enquiries regarding distancing/ separations, officers replied that there was a frontage, with a planting buffer between the building and the North Circular Road. Residential units had been pulled back from the road, with no primary residential amenity on the ground floor sitting along it, and the buildings were angled so that all principal views did not overlook the North Circular. The distance to the neighbouring property 106, was said to be 1.6m to the common boundary and 3.5m to the building at the front, and tapering to just under 2m at the back. Concerns regarding overlooking at the north elevation in block A, were mitigated by them being non-habitable or secondary windows which could be conditioned to have obscure glass. In block B there was a separation of 15m, landscaping which created shielding, and the non-habitable windows could also be conditioned. Most of the windows affected by day/sun light loss served non-habitable rooms, and in the instance where a habitable room was affected there were other sources of light.

In response to Members’ questions relating to trees, officers advised that some category b trees had to be lost to allow for meaningful development, as they were located in the middle of the site, but they had done their best to maintain as much as possible and use the amenity space effectively. Eight trees would be replanted, and if there was space, officers would try to secure additional trees through condition in the landscaping scheme, but they wanted to ensure the trees had enough space to thrive.

The proposal having been put to the vote; Members AGREED:

1. That subject to the completion of a S106 to secure the matters covered in this report, the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.

2. That Head of Planning & Building Control be granted delegated authority to finalise the wording of the S106 Agreement and the planning conditions listed in the report.This includes the conditions discussed relating to: obscure windows, the landscaping plan, and to demarcate the shared turning head space if possible.