Transcript

and I'll be chairing this evening's meeting. Please note that we're not expecting a fire alarm test this evening, so if the alarm is sounded, please follow my instructions and we'll evacuate the building. I'm going to start by asking my fellow members and the officers to introduce themselves. I'll start with members on my right. Councillor Martin Klute, St Peter's Ward. Councillor Trisha Clark, Tiflund Park Ward. Councillor Cheyenne Underhill-Rise Ward. Councillor Flyham Dash, Highbury Ward. Catherine Holness, Planning Officer. Siobhan McCool, Planning Applications Team Manager. Matt Baker, Assistant Director, Development Management. Sandra Chiffero, Planning Officer. Taylor Clark, Committee. Laura Avery, Legal Advisor. Thank you very much. Can I ask if we've had any apologies for absence? None. And therefore no declarations of substitute members? Any declarations of interest? None. Thank you. In which case we move on to the order of business. As chair, I've got the discretion to bring forward items or to vary the order of the agenda where there's a lot of public interest. So if there are many objections to an application, I'll request that you keep it concise and time in order to ensure it's fair for everyone who wants to be able to speak. So in order to determine the order of business, I'm going to ask for a show of hands to see who is here for each item. So if you are here, because you are interested in a particular item, I'll ask you to indicate. So first of all, can I ask who's here for the land at the rear of number 49, Richmond Avenue? Okay, thank you very much. And who is here for the land at the rear of 4 and 6, Shaftesbury Avenue? Thank you very much. Okay, well I think in that case we will follow the order as it is in the published papers, which is to take the Richmond Avenue application first. Before we move to that, item A6, which are the minutes of our last meeting, can I ask if the committee agrees to the minutes of the previous meeting? Thank you very much indeed. Before we move on to the substantive agenda, I'd ask people to note that this is not a public meeting, it's a meeting of the committee which is held in public. So all remarks need to come through me as the chair, and we will ask people to keep to time so that we are treating all parties equally. Just to explain the procedure, each item will be introduced by a planning officer. Committee members then may ask any questions of the officer. Then objectors will be invited to speak, followed, where applicable, by councillors and by the applicant. Normally objectors and the applicants are allowed to speak for no more than three minutes. But after the objectors have spoken, or indeed if there are members of the public who wish to speak and support, the applicants will have the same length of time to reply. The committee will then discuss the application. Only those invited to speak at this stage will be allowed to do so. Then when the committee has finished its deliberations, I shall read out the officer recommendations, and the committee will proceed to a vote. Once the vote's been taken, there can be no further discussion of the item. So we'll move on to item B1, land at the rear of number 49 Richmond Avenue. And please can the planning officer introduce this item. Thank you, Chair. I hope you can hear me okay. Right, so item B1, as you said, it relates to the land at the rear of number 49 Richmond Avenue. The application site is situated in the gap between the flank walls of the four-story linked villa at number 44 Hemingford Road and the rear gardens of the four-story terrace properties at numbers 49A, 49B and 51 and 51B, Richmond Avenue. This is just an area of view of the site, just showing where the site is located, where the hours are, in context of the terraces on Hemingford Road and Richmond Avenue. Right, so the site is currently occupied by a single-story garage. That can be seen in the photographs. The existing garage is not listed, but the application site is situated within the Barnesbury conservation area. Right, so this is just an existing plan, showing where the garage is situated currently. As you can see from that plan, the front is aligned with the main building line of the terrace on Hemingford Road, and it's set back from the pavement. Right, so this is just an elevation of the existing garage in context of the existing terrace and the boundary wall of the rear of the properties on Richmond Avenue. Right, so the proposal is for the demolition of the existing single-story garage and construction of a two-story, one-bedroom dwelling house over basement with a roof terrace and a setback, second-floor access, roof extension, and some wind air source heat pump also situated at roof level. Right, so this is just a side elevation, showing where just the second-floor extension, which is set back from the front building line. Right, the front-west facade, front elevation, will replicate the original details of their drainage property at number 44, Hemingford Road, and including the angled parapet, rendered walls, entrance door, and the pattern of these 6x6 sash windows. And the proposed dwelling will also match the wider terrace in terms of height and floor alignment. At basement level, the front will incorporate modern insulated French doors. A single-story basement will be formed under the footprint of the dwelling, and the proposed dwelling and will partially extend further under the main entrance. So this is just a section which shows the basement. And so the new basement will also feature lightwell access stairs and a cycle store, as you can see on this low ground floor plan. So I'll just now go through the proposed floor plan, starting from the bottom with this low ground floor. As you can see, at low ground floor, there is the master bedroom, which is the only bedroom within the scheme, with a shower and wet room. And also, at basement level, there is, to the front of the mission, the bike store. Bike store, so it will also be used for furniture, storage, the private patio, and there will also be a plant bed located, and there will be stairs leading from the ground, from the street level. On the upper ground floor, where the main entrance is, where the ground floor is, there will be a dining room and a kitchen and storage, a toilet at the entrance level, and to the front garden, there's a plant bed to the side of the main entrance, and there will also be bins located to the front garden. And so the property will be accessed via, you know, a set of staircases. I think it's about, approximately, about five of them. And then there will be level access into the property itself. Right. At first floor, there will be the living room, just the living room, and then stairs leading up to the roof, so it's stairs leading up to the roof terrace. And so the roof terrace will also be used for drying out clothes, and that's where the extension to access the roof terrace would also be located. I'll just go through the other drawings that were submitted with the application. This is the site plan, just showing, you know, in context of the 18-metre wall, as indicated on there, the distance between the application site and neighbouring properties. There's no overlooking of that. And there were also illustrations of the sand path into the properties, so into the floor level, starting from the lower ground floor and the upper ground floor. So apologies that there's a type of it that was meant to be first, second, and the upper terrace, this is lower ground. Right. So the application was requested to be considered by the Planning Subcommittee by two councillors on the basis of weighing of the provision of new dwelling towards the housing delivery targets and the planning balance, and weighing in the balance of the sustainability aspects of the scheme. So officers considered these to be reasonable grounds for the request. There were also 12 recommendations received in relation to the proposal. The concerns raised were related to overdevelopment, unacceptable design and appearance, impact on the historic terrace and surrounding area, foundations and potential impact on the water table. Loss of privacy, loss of life, overshadowing, impact on trees and knock-on effect on the environment and neighbouring amenity. Construction impact, noise and security during building works consultation. And there were also concerns raised about the peer pressure from the applicant to sign a petition. And so these concerns were addressed in the committee report. And there is also a signed petition and responses in support of the application. Right. So the residential use is acceptable in principle at this predominantly residential location. And the proposal is also not considered to prejudice the residential amenities to neighbouring properties. The proposed basement is also considered to be proportionate in the context of the overall site and is to comply with the Isntown Basement SPD. The agricultural report submitted gives advice on tree protection measures in line with policy and is also considered to mitigate the neighbour concerns raised regarding impact on trees and the subsequent effects on the environment, air quality and neighbouring amenity due to the loss of trees. The scheme is also car-free which is, you know, something that's supported by the council. However, the scheme is considered and acceptable in terms of design and conservation, the quality of accommodation, inclusive design, sustainability, fire safety. So I'll go through these points. Right. So in terms of design and conservation, the design attempts to match the remainder of the terrace from the front elevation, but given its significantly reduced depth and sheer narrowness and lack of depth of the overall plot which does not match the remainder of the terrace, this results in an incongruous and confused design to the adjoining, uniformed, locally listed terrace on Hemingford Road. So I'll just go back to slide 6 which shows the frontalisation of the proposed building and then when you look at that from the side, it's a lot smaller. So it's potentially the front, the front is a house but the overall bulk and scale of the building raises a side extension rather than a continuation of the terrace. So as a result, the design of the building appears pastish. So the narrative of the building would be highly identifiable within the public sight lines from both Hemingford Road and Richmond Avenue to the south and west of the side. And it's considered that the building would therefore appear as a large form of development which would lack visual and architectural integrity due to its limited depth, again shown in this section. It's noted that an architectural design of the dwelling reflects the difficult nature of the site itself that it's a very small, tight site. The urban design guide talks about two approaches that can satisfactorily respond to the character of Victorian-age wedding terraces, streets. So, you know, first let's say that the building that is designed, it can be designed to appear as part of the front wall that connects the two terraces or the full height which the scheme attempts to do so it follows the existing scale proportions through flight and the building line of the adjacent street frontage. There was an appeal at the site. There was a previous application that was refused which proposed a much lower scheme and I think there are some visuals in the report. This is set behind the front boundary wall. This was unsuccessful in design terms and the refusal was upheld on appeal. So both approaches and officers' views are, you know, they've proven that, you know, to be problematic in design and visual terms. So it's important to note that the site duties contains is not appropriate for the spiritual development and the scale of the current development has not taken that fact on board. There were other design concerns raised in relation to the lift overrun which, you know, stepping, so this reform, essentially it further adds to the incongruous design, you know, to this homogenous terrace riftscape and there are also concerns in terms of the Victorian awnings and the trellis that's proposed that can be seen here which appears as visual clutter in the current context of the wider terrace with no examples of awnings to the front facade nor large-scale visually prominent trellises at such a high level. In terms of the quality of accommodation the level changes to access each habitable room they're not considered to be practical. The ground floor would have a limited dual aspect and the single aspect basement bedroom would have poor outlook and, yeah, so it would have fought out when it was heavily enclosed by the basement patio. So the floor to ceiling height would be 2.36 metres and this would fail to meet the minimum standards of the 2.5 and 2.6 metres as required by policy D6 and policy H4 respectively. It's noted that the submission includes illustrations of the London sandparks where ceiling is light. However, a detailed analysis and a daylight report is considered necessary to detail that the basement will receive adequate light and comply with the BRE guidelines. Overall, the development would fail to provide a satisfactory layout with good circulation and outlook and provision of functional, usable and comfortable space for prospective occupiers. Right, so in terms of inclusive design, a scheme is, you know, it's not just step-free access. There's no steps-free access to the dwelling main entrance and the amenity space. So the presence of excessive internal steps and level changes within the one bedroom unit and lack of, you know, future lift location of it or a knock-on panel that can be adaptable just results in the accommodation failing to provide equitable and usable living environment for all potential residents, thereby failing to align with the principles of inclusive design and accessibility. Right, the proposal is also unacceptable in sustainability terms. So, the sustainability design and construction statement that was submitted as the application doesn't adequately address several sustainability areas. So those areas are the BRE home quality mark pre-assessment was not included with the application and policy S4, so the proposal also fails to compare to policy S4 which requires, you know, developments to demonstrate refraction of at least 19% in regulated on-site emissions against Part L 2013. The submission still, you know, so there were details that were provided with the application but the submission was considered to still fail to consider the cooling measures in line with the cooling hierarchy and so further information was also required in terms of the G values of the glazing whether internal blinds would be used on all windows to provide and how heat can be managed without building through imposed internal thermal mass and high ceilings. The submission failed to freely address each stage of the London drainage plan and the drainage hierarchy and it was recommended that sustainable drainage measures should be considered. So the policy also, so the scheme also failed to provide, to meet part of the operational requirement of building regulation. The scheme failed to specify the types of any water efficiency fittings and appliances which would be used in line with policy S9 part K and apart from the timber the sustainable design and construction statement didn't detail whether any other materials would be reused or recycled at the end of the building's lifespan plan and if any specific fixtures would be used to aid disassembly and to enable reuse as required by policy S10. So consequently the proposed scheme is deemed unacceptable in sustainability terms and doesn't comply with the sustainability policies within the land run plan and the local plan. So any design alterations required to meet sustainability standards could further erode the quality of the building and the integrity of the building. So moving on to planning fire safety which is one of the concerns that was raised. The scheme didn't include a planning safety strategy. The proposal failed to demonstrate that the proposed scheme would adequately address any fire safety at the initial planning and design stage. This is something that's required by policy D12 of the London plan. We consulted with the building controls that they raised concerns in relation to no escape route to the roof terrace and the first floor level. So further concerns were raised regarding circulation and the layout of the rooms from a building control perspective. The staircase leads into rooms without lobby areas. While planning assessments do not review planning building compliance, the layouts do not show how these requirements could be met without compromising the quality of the interior. There are also concerns that if these various revisions are made, the already compact layout would be compromised and impacting on the quality of the internal space. The building controls also raised concerns regarding the lack of level access to the new building. So in planning terms, any design alterations required to make building control standards could also further impact on the architectural integrity of the building. housing. So just moving on to affordable housing, as noted in the report, the self-made of the scheme is for occupation by the applicants, as it would be exempt from the 50,000 affordable housing contributions. A new planning application, SVD, were committed to force last week on the 30th of April. So this requires 50,000 contributions to be payable if the property is sold within seven years, previously it was ten years, but now ten years rather than ten years noted in the commission report. So this would fall away if the property is not sold after seven years. Had the application been recommended for approval, officers would have sought to secure this via a unilateral agreement undertaking. So on Tuesday, the 6th of May, amended plans were received after the committee report had been published. So these drawings, they show recycling being omitted. So maybe I could actually show that drawing. Right, so they show the recycling being omitted and recycling boxes now proposed to the northern side of the entrance and additional planting at front ground level where the recycling being was. proposed and so it's also noted that the extra slack bike storage that was located where we addressed concerns about having to carry the bikes down the stairs, that's not required. So a single bike store or foldable bike storage would now be located at ground floor level. and the amended drawings also annotated that there will be a 2.6 metre ceiling with a roof light but this only appears to be a small section covered by the roof light so the entire floor level would still fail to meet the minimum standards. The opaque gates that we face concerns about at front boundary, that's now being replaced with a wooden gate but there's no elevations or any further details provided in relation to that. The amended drawings have also been annotated that a fire escape of the upper levels would be met with a sprinkler system. Again, if this has come at the late stage, that's not being assessed and there's no fire strategy to support it or for us to be able to discuss further or for building control to comment any further. So generally the amendments are not considered to go far enough and there hasn't been enough time to fully access what's been provided. I'm just going to go back to one of my slides. Right. So while the provision of the new dwelling would add to the number of dwellings within the borough, it's essential that new housing addresses relevant policies that seek to ensure the delivery of high-quality housing in appropriate locations. For the reasons set out in the committee report and within this presentation, the proposed dwelling would be harmful and would not present an appropriate quality of accommodation. So given this, it's considered that the delivery of a single private dwelling would not represent significant planning benefit that would outweigh the identified harm of the proposal. So the application is therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons set out in appendix one of the committee report and that's the end of my presentation. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Firstly, can I ask if any members of the committee have got questions of the office? Councillor Clute. Thank you, Chair. On the question of quality of accommodation, there do seem to be an awful lot of stairs in this house and as you pointed out, you can't, the only way of getting from one room to another is up and down stairs all the time. I would have thought that was pretty annoying actually, but what I'm struggling with is to try and get my head around in terms of the actual quality of the accommodation issue. Do we have anything in policy terms that actually helps us come to a view about that? Because I feel like I'm rather using my own judgement about it a little bit too much. I'm just trying to think how you would quantify that particular issue in terms of policy. So our policies don't have anything specifically on stairs. We have to take a balanced view looking at the whole of it. I mean, one element that is clearly stated in policy is the amount of area of the property with a clear floor ceiling height at appropriate level which it fails. So if we're looking at a technical sort of breach of the policy, that would be one of them. We also have requirements on dual aspect and those sort of things, but we have to take a balanced view and look at the whole property and see if it has an appropriate layout. Now that is a qualitative assessment, so our assessment is it's not acceptable, but the committee can look at that and take a view. That really is the sort of slightly up the subjective end of the scale of judgments on that particular point. Yeah, thank you. Another question. You said something about that drawing that showed the sun parts. Did you say that that's somehow different from the sort of analysis you'd expect to justify that? Yeah, generally you'd expect to see diagrams supported with a report, which then you can then analyse, you know, it would have specific figures that would say like this complies and we would expect to comply with the BRE guide. So yeah, normally you'd be looking at things sort of vertical sky component and daylight distribution and no skyline rather than just a sun path. Okay, and one last question. You say that building control particularly raised issues with the question of escape routes, the lack of lobbies and the lack of level access to the property. Sorry, the escape routes and the lobbies were all fire safety issues. Sorry, my question was mainly about fire safety. And I gather there isn't a fire safety report to support the scheme. If building control had raised these kinds of issues presumably the scheme would have to be significantly redesigned to address these kinds of issues. And if lobbying the staircase is a requirement, presumably at that point the scheme that currently just scrapes it on room areas would probably become deficient if you were to lobby the staircases as building control so you think you would. So that does sound like a bit of a showstopper to me in terms of deficient information. Am I right in thinking that the fire safety report effectively goes sufficiently to the heart of the application that we really can't consider it without that report? Yeah, I mean just at a point of clarity and I know the committee are aware of this but just bear with me one minute. Obviously we can't assess something on the basis of building control. We have to do it on material planning consideration but exactly as you said councillor, our colleagues have looked at it from a fire perspective which we are able to look at under London plan policy D12 and consider that exactly what you've just said significant changes would be needed to meet building regulations. If we were for instance in a situation where hypothetically this was the only reason for refusal, I don't think it would be appropriate to condition the fire safety assessment because for the exact reasons you set out you'd need meaningful changes that could significantly change the scheme and not ever be able to be approved. Thank you very much. I've seen questions from all members of the committee. I think I saw councillor Hamdash first, councillor Plot, then councillor Nanda. Great, thank you. So just going back to the stairs, it would be good to understand how many stairs it is into the basement which I know is a material condition with the cycling storage and also how many stairs up it would be into the reception area which I think was also a material condition with accessibility of the property. Yes, so there'll be nine stairs leading into the basement and five stairs at the main entrance leading from the street to the property. Just to pull out, there are relevant points about the local plan in terms of access and cycle storage. Level access, from an inclusive design perspective, yes. Just a follow-up question, in terms of the streetscape, very conscious, there could be a lot of opinions about that. In terms of how much material condition, in terms of what's already there, I'm very conscious that if someone's going to build a garage that looked like that, it also wouldn't be seen as conducive to the city escape. So, in terms of a material condition of how much, how much is what's there a material condition versus what's proposed? In terms of the weighting of that, in terms of, we're not supportive of the current design, but bearing in mind there's very poor quality. That is a material consideration, but that can be demolished at any point, so you can consider that, but what I would say is something bad being there now wouldn't justify something that we don't consider to be appropriate coming forward, but you can consider it. Thank you, Chair. Just looking at the floor-to-ceiling heights, I mean, the planning committee has turned down an application using shipping containers before, and the height of this basement is actually lower than a shipping container height. So, it's very low, isn't it? It's very restrictive, and just the rest of the heights, the basic heights of the ceilings are 2.76 metres, which is just above the minimum floor-to-ceiling height that we ask for, and just wonder if you consider that the general heights of this floor-to-ceiling are acceptable. I mean, they're slightly above our minimum height, but what do you think? I think with the ones that do exceed the minimum, we couldn't raise objection to them because they meet the standards, so we're not objecting on those, but in terms of the basement where it doesn't meet, that's where we have got an issue. Obviously, we've had before the committee before schemes, which do have some floor-to-ceiling heights, but the policy only allows that where it's a conversion, and as this is a new build element and a basement, you know, you could potentially go lower, it is still a significant issue for us on this one. So, Councillor Clute, I think you've raised the point that some of the concerns that you raise are inherently difficult to meet given the size of the plot. Can you say anything about which conditions you think are possible to meet despite the size of the plot that haven't currently been met? That's an extremely difficult question. Obviously, the committee have to consider what's before them in terms of the application, and we're not allowed to assess hypotheticals, but I'll give it a go. Essentially, if you redesign the scheme, you could potentially address the design. I don't know how, but you could. But you would need fundamental changes to address quality of accommodation, inclusive design, fire safety, and most likely sustainability as well. So I think four of the reasons for refusal would require significant changes. Well, all of them would require significant changes, but the site constraints would be such that you might not be able to achieve them. Thank you. I think that's the end of questions at this stage for a member of the committee. Can I see if anyone from the public is here to object to the proposal? Okay, if not, can I see how many people who are not the applicant are here to support the proposal? So that's, sorry, one, two, three, four, five. I'll treat councillor Chavri separately as a councillor, so that's four people. Normally, we would ask you to get into a small group and perhaps agree three speakers amongst yourselves who would have up to three minutes each. You don't need to take all three minutes, but two of you. That's fine. That's lovely. And if I can ask you to use the microphones to make sure that everybody can hear. Thank you very much. Okay, my name's Tom Burns, and I'm speaking on behalf of four houses in Hemingford Road. All of our neighbours have looked at these plans carefully and have come to the conclusion that we'd like to strongly support it. There's a number of reasons. The obvious one that's already been mentioned is it would rid us of this dreadful eyesore. On the whole, Hemingford Road's a delightful place to live. It's got a couple of awful eyesores. This is probably the second worst. It attracts graffiti, fly-tipping, and it's obnoxious, and I can't see how it'll be changed unless you let something else be built there. But we're particularly attracted by the plan. To our eyes, the design fits well with the street. The street has a symmetry, it has a rhythm, but it's not a bath terrace. Every house has got some adjustments to it. They're not all the same, and this one seems to fit in well with the style and atmosphere of the house, so we like the look of it. We also believe, we're laymen, but we believe it's built to high ecological and sustainability standards, certainly far higher standards than the houses we live in, which are drafty, single-glazed, poorly insulated, and we're not allowed to put solar panels into. So we like the fact this is a house that is paying attention to climate change and sustainability, so that attracts us to this proposal. We also are attracted, and we hope the council will think carefully about this, to the fact that it's a small house. You've commented a lot about it being small. I think that's an asset. Places like Hemingford Road run the risk of becoming ghettos for the wealthy and elderly. This is a house that's small enough to be bought and lived in by a young family or a young couple, whereas most of the houses up where we live are out of the reach of anyone who's up there not in their dotage and bought their houses 50 years ago or very wealthy. So we think it's a contribution to the vigour of the environment of Hemingford Road. And lastly, we are attracted by the fact that it's come from a long-established Islington resident and isn't being imposed by some anonymous external profit-driven organisation. So we think it's carefully thought through, it's human in scale, it's human in style, it's attractive and quirky, and we think it would be a major asset to the road. So we could find nothing that we didn't like about it, and we're a bit shocked by just how much you found wrong with it. Thank you very much indeed. Would the second person like to switch on the mic? Thank you. Thank you. My name is Mark Austin, and I live in Hemingford Road, but further up the road at number 96. But I'm actually wanting to read out comments which have been made by Dr. Peter Willis, who is the immediate next-door neighbour of the proposed site at number 44, and I think therefore perhaps has more than anybody else the right to express their views on this. And he says, externally, the new proposal is very similar to the original one, which I supported. I strongly support the new application. As a next-door neighbour, there will eventually be some benefits for us by way of insulation to our end of terrace, non-cavity wall, and tidying up a derelict area prone to fly-tipping. In the short term, the works will cause inconvenience, but one day this site will be developed by somebody, and the disruption could be even worse. At least we have come to know the person making the present proposal. I think this is a clever and attractive proposal, which seems to tick every positive box ecologically. Thank you very much, indeed. I believe there were two councillors who indicated they'd like to speak. If it's all right, I'll take Councillor Russell, then Councillor Shelby. Thank you. And really good to hear what the people living around this application have had to say. I've got some points to make from a heritage consultant who has a design council expert and a former chair of the IHBC, of the Historic Towns Forum, and a former chair of the Board of the National Planning Forum, and author of parts BS7913 of Historic Buildings. Now, he has said in his letter that he understands that officers have stated that one small dwelling is not considered to be any meaningful public benefit. Now, this, he says, is somewhat at odds with recent changes to national policy and permitted development rights, which aim to support individual or small numbers of homes. Paragraph 7 of the MPPS states, the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of homes. He wants to highlight the need for smaller dwellings and notes that the gross floor area meets space standards. He also understands the concerns that have been raised over the design of the proposal, but the scheme involves an extension to an existing terrace. The ends of the terraces from the period have often been extended over time, and he reckons that such additions sometimes reflect the scale and massing of the original terrace, but are often smaller in scale, including height and depth. So, he reckons that the scheme complements the terrace stylistically, and within the Barnsby Conservation Area, he thinks that a consideration of significance under Chapter 16 of the MPPS would relate to the special architectural or historical interest and character or appearance of the area. The scheme would, he thinks, would reinforce the existing townscape character. So, he said that, obviously, the finish would need to reflect the original terrace, and he thinks this has been carefully considered. He thinks the scheme would have no negative impact on the significance of the conservation area, and he thinks that the scheme should be supported, and this letter is in full in the, I understand, with the application. I just think we have a real need for homes. We've got someone here trying to do something innovative. It would be a shame to turn it down. If there's any possibilities that the committee can come to, to conclusions the committee can come to, that allow them to keep trying to get this right, that would be much appreciated. Thank you very much, Councillor Russell. Councillor Chowdhury. Thank you, Chair. I just, I'm here to stop putting my consequence, because this is going to need more house, especially Bansbury, yeah, where there were enough, and I think my consequence did a really good job to build something there, and we should support this application. I'm here. I think Councillor Russell already described the point of the development and other thing, but for me, I'm here with my other colleagues also, they're supporting this application, because this is a good application, this is good for the very resident. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor Chowdhury. I'm just double checking, my calculations were that that was a total of nine minutes, so in which case the applicant has as long as has already been had, so the applicant now has nine minutes. It would be helpful if you could address the issues that have been raised in the presentation and by members. Thank you. Hello. I'm the applicant, Graeme McBride, and have been a member of the Island community for the past 13 years. The purpose of this scheme is a self-built, affordable, entry-level, one-bedroom home for my daughter. I think we all recognise the crisis-facing young people trying to enter the housing market. Firstly, plan a report rests on the viewpoint of the house as an over-development of a constrained site. In reality, the internal space exceeds the boundary plan minimum standards. Also, the outdoor space exceeds minimum standards. The internal scheme provides clearly defined usage areas over three levels, sleeping, kitchen, dining and sitting. No difference to terraces anywhere else where we all live, where most of a lot of people live in in Washington. The number of internal steps are similar to that in local terraces in this street. It's only three steps more than the house I live in. The scheme is an unobtrusive design, a quiet addition to the way of terraces and does not interrupt any external site lines. Secondly, the report raises concerns about the dwelling not making a positive contribution to the local character and having an unsympathetic design. Let me address this. The report itself acknowledges that under the urban design guide, it's satisfactory response to the character of Victorian terraces houses. And the lower ground floor responds to local character and history, where it's where basement floor levels aligned with existing examples along with all floor levels. And it reinforces a sense of enclosure and definition in the street, seen as a small enhancement in townscape terms. The white rendered facade blends with the terrace and the fact it is narrow is not therefore obvious. The fact it is shallower cannot be identified by any position in the public realm. It adds a practical solution to an unsafe, derelict garage site highly prone to fly tipping. The cohesive frontage will be a net gain to the terrace where a lot of historical features have been lost or damaged. Removes pedestrian safety hazard where high walls hide a car across the pavement. Closes potential security risk of entry to back gardens as noted by locals. In an area desperate for new and affordable homes. In an area desperate for new and affordable homes, we contend this is a viable house offering a range of optional future uses. For starter couples, for single people, a carer, a student, members of local family enabling generational connectiveness. The proposal is a comprehensive, sustainable, essentially a passive house, quite designed for a house. It is not relying on fossil fuel and has low running costs. We asked the committee to approve or refer back this scheme except the there may be issues to resolve by design conditions. There is much to commend this. Right. And I'm the architect and I'll continue on in the nine minutes we had. My name is Chris Proctor and we've been working on this a while now. And I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present this. I will address the five summary reasons for refusal in some detail. And you have to bear with me because it's quite technical. And there are a lot of people. And there are a lot of things that I would say need another way of looking at them. You've heard a lot of negative things, but actually that may not be the best way to view it. Design conservation. Graham has addressed at least seven positive contributions and those were mentioned in the report themselves. Without an overall positive benefit versus negative harm analysis, which isn't really provided, we had trouble finding the negative points. We only found three specific points that proved conservation harm in the report, whereas there were all these positive things. So point one concern that the visibility of reduced building depth would cause harm is the big one about the depth of the building. Dave Chetland, the highly qualified national conservation expert who you heard Caroline read, state, quote, the scheme would have no negative impact on significance and, quote, should be supported from conservation point of view. And that's because the site line geometries, we did a site line geometry drawing we submitted in the report, which is not shown in this, we submitted, is not shown in the report. It shows even without any trees, there is no public site line visibility of the depth difference between the smaller house and the existing terrace. On the angle of sight from anywhere on the road, you cannot see, perceive any difference. That's without the trees. That's without the trees. Now the trees are very mature trees on this site. And we were a little concerned that the report uses image nine, a historic photo, which shows trees that are half the size of the actual trees. And that seems to be a bit misleading because those trees completely block any view of the roof extension or most of the side of that building. And those are evergreen trees. And those trees are protected by the Arbor Culturalist Report and will be carefully preserved. Point two, the report makes comments about negative future facade changes. And this is kind of coming from a building control person. But these are speculative. And the report goes on to say they are not a planning consideration. Speculation over changes to the building would never be a planning consideration. Any change would have to go through an amendment. So point three, an undisclosed, unrelated pre-app is also used to support refusal. Regardless of a prior email to us stating, quote, the previous pre-application inquiry has no bearing on the current submission. Despite this, in the report, there are four unverified design details, disclosed only now, which do not relate to the proposal, are used as evidence of harm. And that, we were told, was not relevant. So item two, quality of the accommodation. There's been a lot talked about quality of the accommodation. Ceiling heights were designed to align with conservation neighbors. And they meet the London plan because only 18% of the basement bedroom is lower ceiling. And that's well within the London plan tolerance of 25% of the property having a lower ceiling. So there's a calculation there. And some of it has to do with the skylight. The skylight in the bedroom was not calculated. Two, a dual aspect house. I don't understand why this comes up. Because every level in the house and every room in the house is dual aspect. Every room has light from two sides and ventilation from two sides. And drawings 12 and 13 are missing from the report. Number three, terrace homes with multiple floors can address mobility concerns with stair chair lifts. It can be addressed. Number four, room layouts are functional, usable, and comfortable as per plans with the furniture. All of the plans show furniture that make it work very well. Number five, all rooms have great outlook. The drawing 10 outlook views, which you saw on the screen, wasn't in the report. And that shows that from the front and the back, you look at gardens, across gardens. And the front, you look across a very wide road. Number three, inclusive design. This proposal is fully M41 required. Fully compliant with M41, which was required by UK building regs. And it's adaptive to Islington M42. Drawing 11 checklists you have not seen. It was not in the report and was not submitted now on the screen, which goes through all of the points to meet M42. And then we have sustainability. Uninformed sustainability. The project is a robust, sustainable proposal. Drawings 12 and 13 show the sunlight. Sunlight. And we were showing in those sunlight diagrams that four hours of sunlight were meeting into the bedroom room. It's 21st of March for the sun angles. Because it's a very good wide street with west light. And the sustainable statement that we produced in the DNA shows a BRE assessment, energy use calculations, cooling calculations, and sustainable suds drainage, which has been overlooked by the reports. Any outstanding issues can easily be accommodated with conditions and a bit further tweaking of the design. Last one, item five, fire safety. This is the first time a fire safety report has been mentioned. Islington Validation Requirements 2024 show no fire statement is needed unless the building is more than two dwellings. And the fire suppression system will easily solve this issue as planned for building control approval later. That's all. Thank you very much. Can I ask if members of the committee have got any questions for the applicant or if there were any other issues they would now like to check with officers? Councillor Clark. Councillor Clark. Councillor Clark. Councillor Clark. Councillor Clark. There are objections to the scheme. There are objections to the scheme. And some of them are from the 49 A and B. And they're neighbours to the scheme. And 50, I think 50 and 51. So what I'd like to ask is, they're mentioning overlooking and loss of sunlight. And how have you dealt with these objections for the applicant? I can answer. This house is to the north of those terraces you mentioned. So there's no effect on sunlight. This house is just due north. And there's no overlooking. There's big trees. Each of those houses have big trees. So they have this high green wall already there. So there's no window facing them. The only windows are facing the back. And the trellis is there to obscure the angle so that you don't look at the back of the terraces. You just look across the end of the gardens. So I would say, and I think the planning officer would also submit, that there's no overlooking or overshading from this property to those particular terraces. But there is a roof terrace. There is a roof terrace. And I think that could be a source of overlooking. Well, you have the trees in front of it. A lot. Sorry? There's a deep planting scheme. Well, there's a deep planting on one side. There are big trees on the other side. So that could be tweaked. I mean, there could be things that could be done with that. But I would say that, you know, you're not going to be able to look down through the dense greenery of the scheme. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Hamdash. Great. Thank you. I guess two points are made in terms of stairs on the entry level and then into the basement. So one issue is raised about the long-term accessibility of the flat and another one is a house. Sorry. And another one is made about cycle storage. I wondered whether any thought had gone into like a flat entry on that, and what kind of considerations you have in terms of long-term accessibility of the building? So this is a proposal by my father. Every other terrace on the street has the steps up to it. I think if you made a building that had a flat entrance, it would noticeably stand out. I mean, I think we have a lot of support and awareness for accessibility. It's super important. I think it's particularly important in multi-occupancy dwellings or commercial buildings. This is one home. We've endeavoured to make it as good as possible in terms of, you know, sustainability and awareness of how things could hopefully be adapted for accessibility. However, this is a small house for, you know, one person, small people, which you can't find in Islington. This may not be an appropriate house for someone with significant accessibility needs. But it's something that we will try and, you know, address as much as possible. We're so willing to collaborate and work through these things. I'll just follow that up quickly. We actually met the front steps. There are five steps that have been designed to be very low. They're very shallow steps. And they're pulled away. And you could conceive of them as the approach to the house. And the sustainability talks about pathways and approach to the house. And we actually met 2.11 of the M42 requirements for those five steps as sort of an alternative entrance. But the other thing is you could put a chairlift on those steps so that there's no accessibility. You could have a chairlift that go up those five steps. But that's about adaptation. And these chairlifts and these things are... You have to show ability to be adapted. And there is an ability to put a chairlift there. As well as there's ability to put a chairlift on the internal stairs of the building. So you can have a level of access all the way in from the street, basically. Can I ask a question of officers? Yes. It would be good in terms of, you know, goals in terms of the London Local Plan, in terms of accessibility. How much adaptability with the chairlifts is a matter or, you know, is it not relevant? Well, we require level access to all new dwellings. Whether that's via ramp or just street level access. I think in terms of... The applicant's exactly right. You can, under building regulations, have adaptable elements to a property. But our inclusive design approach is to make them inclusive from the start, rather than having to retrofit something that may not be considered inclusive. Actually, I also have a question for the applicant, which is about the fire safety aspects. And in particular, the lack of lobby areas and the fire escape from the terrace. Because it does seem to me, one of the things that we have to consider is how safe as well as how accessible buildings are. I know you mentioned the sprinkler system, but if you were on the roof terrace and needed to escape, it's not clear to me how that would necessarily provide that roof. Okay. This house is very unusual in that it's a combustion-free house. There's no fossil fuel burning in the house. So that takes away one of the big risks of fire in properties. And as a passive house with mechanical ventilation, you wouldn't have candles, you wouldn't burn things in the house. Because you have a limited control of air in and air out. So that makes it more safe as a building anyway. The other thing is that there are numerous suppression systems. And we didn't get into the technical detail of that. And we could investigate that. One of them is not a traditional sprinkler, but a mist system. And a mist system provides water vapor into the air as soon as the smoke detector detects there's an issue. And that is a much more effective system than a sprinkler system. But the key to safety is basically in the bedroom is where you have the most concern. So we don't, like in other houses, we don't have the bedroom at the top. The bedroom's at the bottom and the bedroom has two means of escape. Through the stairs in the house and outside through the front courtyard. So if there's a fire and you're asleep, you have time to escape out. If you're in the rest of the building, you know, if there's a fire, you're awake and you're up and you're aware and you're there. And the system would come on and it would allow you to get out in time. It's really bedrooms where you have more of the issue of having a longer time to be notified before you have to leave. So in some sense, we've tackled that. But we were not aware that we had to because three validation periods didn't tell us that we had to do all this. And, you know, the Islington validation requirements, the document listed that this is only for two or more buildings. So we've been confused and we would love to work with this a bit more with the officers. Thank you very much. And I've got a final question to officers, if I may, which is about the statement that was made that only 18% of the basement level is below the required roof ceiling to floor height. And that the plan provides for up to 25% to be less. Could you just comment on that? Thank you. Thank you. I'm just going to go back to the third page, bear with me one second. So, unless there were any other sections that show, and so the sections that we have on, you know, with the submission, they don't show that. They only show where the staircases and the light were that might be above, you know, 2.36 metres. So, if it's not clearly shown under some indisputation. Thank you. Councillor Fluke, then Councillor Clark. To officers, the designers assertion that the fire safety report is only required for two or more buildings, but where are we with that? So, if that's correct that the local validation list does say for two or more dwellings. The London plan policy says all applications, so we have to take a sort of pragmatic view on when it's appropriate, and we normally apply it to all applications for new dwellings. We have been doing recently. In fairness, we do need to update our local validation list. Thank you. Oh, yes, thanks, Chair. So, one of the objectors mentions that this, I'd like to ask the applicant. One of the objectors mentions that the original intention for this garage was to be a single-storey artist studio, and I just wondered if that was the applicant's intention when they bought the garage. Yes. Yeah. Hello. Yes. It was originally to be that, not to be a garage, but the change of circumstances in my family, and we talked it. We would... You can say one. Yeah. My mum died. So, that's the change of circumstances. So, we changed the side. We'd build a sustainable house, a small house, for my daughter and a partner. So, there was a procedural change. There was a reason to change the intended use. So, we thought it would be better use now rather than a painting studio to become a place of residence. Yes. So, it could become a home for me and my fiancé to live near my father. Thank you. Sorry to hear that. Thank you. Are there any further questions? Oh, yeah. Not a question. It's not for me to ask questions, but I just wanted to clarify one point that I think has been picked up on a number of occasions by officers and members of the public and the applicant and councillors. So, I want to be very clear on the housing delivery test. Islington has a five-year housing land supply, which is what the test requires. We're not on a tilted balance. We passed the test in the last few years. We have a strategic housing land assessment that absolutely, as noted, does have a significant proportion of houses to be delivered, such as these small sites, as we call them. The issue here is what officers are saying is the delivery of a home that doesn't meet acceptable standards and isn't what we consider to be appropriate in terms of sustainability, fire or accessibility wouldn't be a positive contributor to a 100,000 delivery test. Thank you for that clarification. Councillor Twelk. Chair, can I ask the officers a question? Yeah, I'd just like to ask, if it was an application for a single-storey artist studio, would it get through? I'm going to have to remind the committee that you have to assess what's before you and I can't assess something that is not before me, but we would absolutely consider that. As we said, the current garage is not exactly a positive contributor. We would consider something positive to be good, but I couldn't say if we would accept it or not. Thank you. No, I'm afraid, unless there's a direct question to the applicant. I said, if there's no more questions, we move to deliberations. Councillor Hamdash. Great, thank you. So, you know, I am very minded that this is a very unattractive garage in a site of interesting conservation. And I appreciate perhaps the creativity to come up with an interesting solution for new housing. You know, I have at times disagreed and agreed with our planning officers in terms of the cityscape. And I also think there's a big role for small developers to contribute towards the housing need. You know, I don't think solely big developments are the way forward in terms of meeting the housing need. Lots of these little plots were also an interesting idea. I did used to live in a 60s block that was five rooms over ten mezzanines. It was a very interesting building and I was very fit via all the stairs. It wasn't a huge annoyance. But there were two things that I found very difficult about that property. I found it embarrassing to not be able to have a visitor who was disabled or found it difficult to enter a property like that. And I also had a nightmare story on my bike. And I do understand what our local plan is trying to do in terms of delivering accessible properties that are ready for whatever, come what, the future. I'm also very conscious that there's a number of outstanding issues when it comes to the planning committee in terms of fire safety, in terms of documentation that, you know, I hope might be resolvable. So I would like to propose that we defer this and give planners the opportunity to meet with developers and try and iron out some of these issues and talk through them. So my proposal would be that we defer this. Councillor Felt, then Councillor Nanda. Well, I just wanted to say that if it had been a single story artist studio, I think it would be more acceptable than cramming a very small dwelling into this space. And I find that, you know, I really, you know, I applaud the sustainability aspects of this dwelling. I just think that it's, you know, as I said earlier, you know, we did turn back applications with using shipping containers. And this basement especially does seem to match that sort of size, you know, really cramped. So I just, I think that I would like to see us on this committee really approving very, very, you know, decent housing, really. That's what I would like to see. I don't think this, I think this doesn't match that. I just wanted to say I was moved by the comments made around meeting the need for more housing, improving upon the existing use of the site, encouraging more small sites to come forward, allowing a long-time Miss Lincoln resident to stay near her family and provide housing more within reach for a young and personal family. So I'd be more minded to go for either deferral to help the applicant work through some of those issues or some sort of appraisal of them. Councillor Klute. Thank you, Chair. This does seem to me a very jumbled proposition that you have in front of us. There are so many things that aren't quite right and seem to need work. And I don't know, it just seems a bit odd that we're sitting here in planning committees, almost having a design workshop on the scheme because there are so many things that need fixing. But there are sort of three tiers of issues, I think, with this scheme. Having sort of listened to all the discussion debate, there is clearly quite a lot of missing information of one sort or another. Some of it, if it came forward, might well clear some of the concerns about the scheme. For example, if there was a proper sunlight analysis, that might show that it's absolutely fine. But we have got that, so we'd be having to take it on trust that the little picture of sun coming in through the window was told us what we needed to know. But then there are some very odd things about the design of the building. In particular, the way that the strange overrun of the staircase that pops out the top of the roof looks very incongruous. And this whole question of there being so many stairs and having to go up and down stairs all the time to get from one room to another. They're all rather odd and discomforting, I think. But then, to my mind, there's also some showstoppers here as well. And the main one, to my mind, is the fire safety issue. And I alluded to that earlier on with my question about the impact that the potential redesign of the building that might be required to achieve fire safety would knock it back on the space standard. And then there's the whole cooling strategy as well. And if it's not properly insulated at the moment, then the only way you could insulate the building further would be to add insulation to the inside of the walls, which would reduce the floor area and then we wouldn't be hitting the space standards again. So, overall, I find it very hard to believe that this could be bent and pulled and moved around to get it to work. And there's just so much that seems to be wrong with this at the moment. I just don't think that – personally, I don't think the deferral's going to help with this. And if you look at the data and the application as well, it's been in the system for two years now, you would have thought that the problems of this sort could have been ironed out by now. I think a fresh start and possibly a different kind of scheme, as Councillor Flott has alluded to, might well be the way forwards to remove the blight of the impact that the disused site currently has on the area. So, I'd be following the officers' recommendation to refuse. Thank you. Yes, I'm concerned at the number of reasons put forward for refusal, but to my mind, the concerns around fire, the work that would need to be done to address that would then mean that the scheme would almost certainly be around to fail on size. And we do have a duty to balance, when we're considering schemes, any benefits versus policy breaches, but this proposal has a whole number of policy breaches, which does, to my mind, weigh quite heavily. We did have a proposal from Councillor Hamdash. I don't know if there was a seconder for that. Okay, so there is a seconder for that. I suggest that we take a vote on that, and then if that fails, we then take a vote for refusal or acceptance. All those in favour of Councillor Hamdash's proposal? Okay, that does not have a majority. I've had a proposal for refusal, which I think was seconded by your comments, Councillor Flott. All those in favour of refusal? Thank you. Okay, so the scheme is refused. Thank you. I'd like to thank everybody for their time this evening, and I do appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, and we are all on the way up in Planning Balance a whole number of factors, and to ensure that schemes build to the standards of the plans. Thank you. We move now to the second application. If people would like to move forward. We will follow the same procedure. So we will have a presentation from the officer. Then there'll be questions from members. time for any objectives then time for the applicant to respond I'll just give a couple of minutes for people to rearrange themselves thank you if you're ready we'll move on to the second item which is on the land rear of 4 and 6 Shaftesbury Road thank you I'm presenting item B2 which is a proposed new two storey dwelling at the land at the rear of 4 and 6 Shaftesbury Road before I start the presentation there's two updates to the conditions of the officer report number 16 which relates to landscaping details that incorrectly mentioned that there should be 12 new trees planted on site but that's not correct in the submitted tree protection plan there's actually just the retention of the surrounding trees at the site there's no loss of trees but the proposal doesn't include planting new trees in the proposal and then also in condition 11 this was an inclusive design compliance condition but we've actually requested that details be submitted in the future for that that's in relation to adaptable homes compliance with M4 too so this is a site location plan you can see the site outlined in red it's to the north of the borough close to Archway and very close to Elthorne Park it's a backland site accessed only from Shaftesbury Road to the north of the site there and it's surrounded by other residential properties of two or three storeys there's Pegasus Court which are two storey dwellings to the west of the site there's Lantern Road dwellings to the south which are three storey dwellings and their rear gardens and then there's Shaftesbury Road properties either side of the entrance so it's not particularly visible from the street scene only through the entrance gap between numbers 4 and 6 this is that entrance between 4 and 6 Shaftesbury Road you can see there's a setback like gated entrance where the grey gate was and there's a dropped curb into the site so that's pretty much the only visibility from the street and these are just some aerial shots of the site you can see the building with a yellow grey roof in the centre of both those images that's the existing building and that's got a pitched roof form with a small roof like a dormer almost roof projection and an adjoining single storey flat roof addition it takes up the majority of the main part of the space of the site towards the rear and that's proposed to be demolished this is the existing building these photos show the current state of the building is quite dilapidated at the moment it's been vacant for quite some years originally it's thought to be a B2 industrial use although that would have been quite some considerable time ago in past applications on the site this has been considered as an acceptable loss due to the amount of time it being vacant considered acceptable and the same is thought to apply here in this application so this is the proposed block plan of the two storey dwelling you can see the main bulk of the dwelling is concentrated to the south east corner there's an enclosed courtyard to the west side and an adjoining single storey lower addition towards the north side and a smaller kitchen garden just north of that and again the same access is proposed to be used from the north from Shaftesbury Road only so these are the proposed elevations of the new dwelling it's a two storey building with a pitched roof form and again a smaller single storey flat roof section which is I like the shape of the existing building on the site you can see through the next few elevations there's a red line building line annotated that's the existing building line so you can see here it's reaching a similar height and a similar roof shape as well this shows a bit more clearly from the north west elevation the existing building outlined in red so there's quite significant reduction in mass from the west direction and you can see it's quite faint but you can see the red line also has the existing sort of like dormer projection from the roof of a similar shape and size this is the south east elevation which again shows the red outline of the existing building which is quite considerably bigger and this is looking from lantern road direction you can see the existing boundary wall between the two areas as it is retained and this is the north east elevation which again demonstrates it's quite similar in size and scale to the existing building follows a similar shape but the single storey element is much lower now in the proposal and that's below the boundary wall now whereas before it's a lot a lot higher and also just generally more visible so this is the proposed ground floor plan which is all one level it has a large open plan kitchen, living, dining area and a bathroom and utility and the first level bedroom within the single storey element you can see there's thin storage close to the front door which is enclosed you can also see to the bottom of the image is the enclosed private courtyard area and then the kitchen garden at the top which is as you come in and then the first floor plan it's a little bit more faint but this has a central staircase and that leads up to two more double bedrooms a separate storage area and another bathroom you can also see there's a setback at first floor in the south east corner and that's to allow for a roof light to reach the kitchen below and you can also see there's the green roof of the single storey element there's some important planning history on the site these are the two most relevant applications which were both previously refused and later dismissed appeal there was one in 2021 and one in 2018 and subsequent appeals both of these proposals proposed two dwellings on the site whereas now there's only one being proposed and the 2018-19 application was refused on various factors which impacted the standard of accommodation such as light outlook sense of enclosure and then the more recent which I would consider more relevant application was refused on siting scale bulk massing height and additionally outlook and sense of enclosure so you can see on the next slides how these issues have been addressed in the current proposal this diagram demonstrates the previous refusals and appeals you can see there the yellow demonstrates the 2021 application which is quite considerably higher and more bulky and then also the 2018 application in blue is just generally more bulkier but lower and set into the ground more also you can see the red outline which is the existing building which is slightly higher than the current proposal in the dark grey and yeah so it's just below that in height but generally quite similar in scale and then this is just another section of the site with those other applications compared the 2021 application in yellow again is a lot higher and just generally bigger in scale and you can see in all three of the other comparisons the proposed building to be demolished and both applications extend much further to the west of the site that's about 4.6 metres that it's been reduced from the west side in terms of massing yeah so again this is a comparison to the most recent 2021 refusal this is the two block plans next to each other so there was two dwellings proposed previously but you can see the general footprint has been reduced quite significantly it follows a similar shape but both the single storey and the two storey elements are much smaller but again the pitched roof has continued throughout yeah also just one other point on that is the immunity areas are a lot bigger now in this current proposal which were mentioned before in standard of accommodation so on to the quality of accommodation it's a two storey three bedroom dwelling which could potentially house six occupants the requirements for that in terms of floor areas 102 square metres and here we're providing 131 so it's over providing floor space it's also over providing on storage so it's 2.7 square metres where it's the minimum required is 2.5 and again in terms of amenity spaces in total these should be 35 square metres and the courtyard alone the private courtyard is 39.1 and then there's addition of a kitchen garden which is over 20 square metres so the site becomes quite spacious and less cramped and also the ceiling height is meeting the minimum percentage for the floor area over 2.5 metres internally on to the neighbouring and the area ares just represent the approximate distance to neighbouring windows Shaftesbury Road on the left Pegasus Court to the south of this drawing to the west and Lambton Road which is on the right of this drawing there's also screening details requested through a condition at the first level towards Lambton Road where the setback is there's frosted glass included on the design towards Pegasus Court the angles are slightly oblique but that's to ensure there's no overlooking and that's up to a height of 1.7 metres on the large arch windows and there's no vertical windows facing towards Shaftesbury Road and where there's a brown floor window in this direction it's also screened so Pegasus Court the mass is quite reduced from the existing building and then also screened and fans and wall there is retained as well these are just some images from the daylight and sunlight report which are quite helpful to show the neighbouring windows the bottom left is showing facing towards Lambton Road and the top right one is facing towards the back of Shaftesbury Road properties so submitted before concluded that all windows with the requirement for daylight pass the vertical sky component test and also pass the daylight distribution test where the room layouts are known and all windows with a requirement for sunlight pass both the total annual sunlight hours test and the winter sunlight hours test and sunlight to amenity spaces is shown here on this diagram all neighbouring amenity areas were shown to pass the BRE overshadowing to gardens and open spaces test there's a very small area in G4 which is the garden floor number 10 Shaftesbury Road which fails the test but it wasn't considered by the assessors to be detrimental because it's very small and it's right up against the boundary line so overall these were all considered to pass the test and then on to the compliance with M4 2 the adaptable homes requirements this is the ground floor plan which shows the adaptable features in green and includes the turning circles and the door width which meet the requirements and then it also includes two ramps up to the front entrance door which start close to where the bike storage is this is because there's a ground level difference between these two points of 0.7 meters and the inclusive design officer has assessed these as acceptable but we've required further details on these because there is a more compliant arrangement which would be to include a staircase alongside the ramps and a handrail but it's not necessarily the best option for the site because it's quite narrow and these ramps are quite functional as they are but those details are requested so that can be assessed further and then moving on to the tree protection plan as I said earlier there's no overall loss of trees on the site there would be there's several overhanging branches that are recommended to be crown reduced which are S5 T6 and T7 which is along the east side boundary and the root protection is also proposed for them which is the orange labels on there it's thought by the agriculturalists that these roots are probably more protected this is a worst case scenario drawing because the existing building might protect the roots more than we can see at the moment so there's no new planting of trees on site but there is increased greening through the soft landscaping at the entrance and in the two amenity areas there is one goat willow plant which is in red which is on the entrance way but that's a group of self seeded plants which isn't considered a value so that will be removed and this is just a slide showing the proposed materials and some CGI images the materials are need to require details to be submitted but these are the proposed materials at the moment they're slate effects photo voltaic panels on the main roof and a yellow stock brick for the main part of the building with some render details and a green roof to the single storey element and corrugated cladding to the single storey element but yeah these will be submitted with further details later on so on that basis the recommendation is to grant the new dwelling with a unilateral undertaking with the standard carbon offset contribution of £1,500 and the affordable housing small rights contribution of £50,000 for one new dwelling thank you thank you very much are there any questions from members Councillor Clute am I right from looking at your presentation that the proposed building actually sits entirely within the envelope of the existing building in fact the footprint doesn't can you hear me yeah the footprint doesn't but the it doesn't go any higher than the existing the heights are within the existing yeah yeah that was something that came up in the previous refusals and it's now been brought down to below the height matching or below yeah okay that's helpful to know the other thing was the slide you put up showing distances to adjoining buildings that appeared to show that there are fairly serious overlooking issues with all three elevations of the building what can you elaborate a bit on what that slide is supposed to be showing us yep so there are the distances yep so you can't see Pegasus Court that that is the correct distance but you can't quite see where the window is yes so these are showing the distances to the neighbouring windows to Pegasus Court that's quite an oblique angle but yeah you're right they're all below the 18 metre distance absolutely but that's why screening is proposed in all these cases so what do you mean by screening so there's details requested for screening of the first floor towards Lambton Road so that would be probably frosted glass or similar or sorry but yeah I didn't understand your use of the word screening that screen is normally a solid object yeah or it can be that it's sort of that the details of that are to be submitted but in terms of towards Pegasus Court the screening is in the form of frosted glass up to 1.7 metres so that diagram tends to suggest that all of the first floor windows will actually end up with some kind of frosted on them potentially yeah there's no first floor windows towards Shaftesbury Road but there's two angles where that would be necessary I can't see that there's another way of dealing with it is there no that would be yeah okay thank you yeah yeah is it possible possible to go to the slide where the bike storage is going to be please yeah I think you can see it there it's on the left hand side yeah but there might be an image sorry sorry sorry there top left yeah window for six Shaftesbury six it's to the left of that so I don't know where the best image is there you can see at the top of the drawing there and so the bike store's adjacent to it next to the window yeah so in terms of bike storage that can be changed in the conditions details of that can be submitted later if we don't think that's acceptable there's lots of options of where the bike storage could go as there's available immunity space so yeah that can be moved if necessary and could you show me the slide where the black corrugated roof is yeah that's yeah that's here that's on the projecting dormer and the walls of the single storey element so there's inspiration taken there from the existing building which is corrugated and that's cladding but again these are materials that are proposed at the moment but not agreed and would require details being submitted so are there if there are no more questions okay could how many people are here to object so you could each have up to three minutes each and then the applicant would have up to nine minutes depending how long the objectives have taken yes if you just press the button then you should get a red light okay hi thank you we support the idea of bringing this site back into use especially for genuinely affordable and accessible housing however this revised proposal fails to meet key policy tests and we are concerned about the lasting impact on both future occupants and immediate neighbours many of the objections were raised in our June representation and they have still not been addressed and the planning officers report overlooks critical issues on design and materials the application consistently refers to the pitch roof as being clad in slate effect solar PV tiles yet worryingly the report often refers to the pitch roof being clad in solar panels and even states this in condition number 14 there is a world of difference between PV tiles and PV panels both from an aesthetic design point of view in the context of this enclosed backland development and from an amenity point of view due to the well documented likelihood of glare and glint to immediate neighbours facing the panels even on pitched roofs we request that the condition is amended to stipulate state effect solar PV tiles as originally appears in the applicant's submitted plans on inclusive design the report states of paragraph 9.36 that the proposal provides a policy compliant ramp up to the front door entrance and that it would meet M42 standards however this is factually incorrect the plans show two steep 1 in 12 flights descending to the lower dwelling from the street each flight is significantly longer than the 2 metres that are maximum permitted for such gradients under approved document M42 I have to emphasise and this is not a minor point and despite the requests we sent earlier the planning officer has not clarified this factual error which I was told would happen it is not acceptable to condition M42 compliance where the submitted plans do not feasibly allow it as they will need to be substantially altered to effect it on quality of accommodation and amenity inside we still believe the dwelling office is a poor standard of accommodation all rooms are almost entirely single aspect with outlook only to the west directly onto the two storey wall just a few metres away limited windows on all other vertical planes are either elevated obscured or screened as they are all much closer than the 18 metre distance required this will increase the sense of enclosure and lack of outlook plus the reduction in available sunlight daylight which has not been factored into the daylight and sunlight report as we have repeatedly pointed out when the planning inspector turned down the previous planning appeal with similar problems she highlighted this by stating the need to utilise obscured glazing in most of the windows to overcome privacy issues would compound the sense of enclosure for the users of those rooms this problem extends to the gloomy and enclosed small courtyard garden we appreciate it to be made slightly larger but this is the only amenity area where children can play unattended as the kitchen garden is effectively isolated and obscured from the main dwelling the DNS report states that it will receive only 21% sunlight on March 21st and does the committee believe this is acceptable for the health and welfare of the future occupants and their children in fact the kitchen garden the isolated kitchen garden is the same as in the previous application that was turned down by the planning inspector on appeal she concluded that this similar external amenity space within the proximity of neighbouring development would result in a generally poor outlook for future occupiers I would just say you've gone over your time so otherwise I'll have to deduct time from your colleagues thank you very much on privacy and overlooking an effect on no-brain immunity we've repeatedly pointed out that the surrounding properties are taller than this proposal so not only can the occupancy into the existing habitable rooms but from our upper floors we can see directly into theirs we note that a screen is conditioned for the window to the south east bedroom but there is no explanation of what this screen will be designed to stop and also how this screen will compromise outlook and light in that room the report notes that the window would introduce only some minor harm to the privacy of the rear of the properties to Lambton Road frankly any harm is harm and unacceptable especially given this window looks directly into bedrooms and bathrooms sorry next page the report notes too that the windows on all sides are located at considerably less than the required minimum distances but has not factored noise as well as outlook into the detrimental impacts of this shortcoming on just a point we want to add to the quality of accommodation as the roof line of the development needs to be maintained at its existing height and pitch it means the ceiling height is lower than acceptable on the first floor this is noted in the report which argues that despite not meeting the heights required for Islington's local policies at upper floor level the oversized floor area counteracts some of the harm as this was discussed just now on the previous application we'd just like to draw a point to this and it's hard to see how overall floor space will compensate for lack of height I'd also just like to say that it's not been mentioned anywhere that this property is surrounded on three sides by high Victorian boundary wall which is I mean what at least nine six or something the high so and the property is going to have to be built down to maintain the height of the roof and the pitch of the existing building and so this wall is going to kind of be a looming presence around the garden and affect the outlook thank you yes if you'd like to sorry I think your microphone is still on sorry thank you oh good okay so I'm resident six Shaftesbury Road and one specific issue that I wanted to call out is the proposed bike shed which would sit directly next to the kitchen window so the kitchen diner is a sunken room so that window is at head height on the inside but opens up from ground level to the private courtyard passageway that's proposed now this window is the only source of natural light and ventilation into our kitchen which is obviously a central part of our home the height and proximity of the bike shed which would therefore block almost all light into that space which would seriously affect its usability in daily life what's also that's more concerning is that the planning report fails to address this there is no reference to the loss of light in our property from that window the daylight assessment appears to completely omit this window and it's an oversight which I think undermines the validity of the conclusions drawn which is just not looked at and is so important to our house what makes matters worse actually is that the proposal includes landscaping directly in front of that same window further reducing light and blocking an outlook and I know the planning officer said we can move it somewhere else I don't know where else you are putting that because there's just not enough space to put another bike shed in there other issues remain unresolved as well there is no mention within the structural method statement as to how the foundations of the 150 year old party wall will be secured and given that ground will be excavated and new walls are to be built up directly against it there is no access to the south and east sides so it's inaccessible for maintenance cleaning up gutters or anything there is also no mention of where the mvhr or solar battery is going to be located which could be bulky potentially noisy just not there there is no mention of where the downstairs bathroom will vent to like look at the plans it looks like it might vent into the garden of number eight but surely that can't be possible and these all together they're not trivial matters they directly affect both the long-term livability of that building and the impact on the neighbours in such a kind of enclosed space so in conclusion this proposal attempts to squeeze an oversized six person house into a space that might just support a two bedroom dwelling or bungalow and a reduced scale scheme could work really well here and offer benefit to the neighbours and to the people living there and we've often kind of reached out to try and discuss this with the developer but we'll not hear anything back so it shows four on amenity accessibility privacy and design so we respectfully ask the committee to refuse the application thank you for your time and I just wanted to hit the zero thank you very much we now have time to hear from the applicants and if you could address the points raised by the objectives that would be very helpful thank you thank you I had prepared a speech but I think I will just use this time to try and address some of the points which were made because I think I'm glad we all agree that obviously this current site is currently occupied by vacant derelict building and I'm happy we all think it would be nice if something was done I just wanted to make sure that our drawings are fully understood and looked at because there were a few points which were made which I think may come from a misunderstanding of what we are proposing so the I mean the first thing is this issue of overlooking of privacy which of course I understand it's of concern or it would be of concern but if you look at our sections during 301 and 300 you will see how it's not just a question of opaque glazing we are proposing opaque glazing frosted glass on one of up to 1.7 meters one of the windows only so the bedroom that faces west on the upper floor but on all other bedrooms and rooms we have used different ways of preventing overlooking such as on the ground floor bedroom the window is at high level but there is also second window that faces the other side where there is no overlooking on the upper bedroom bedroom number sorry I should find it so on the eastern bedroom of the upper floor what should actually be understood is that that that dormer window is doesn't have any windows facing the front of the dormer but it has windows on the two sides of it so when you are sitting in that bedroom you cannot look outside from the front face of the dormer but you look on the two on the one side and and the window on the opposite side on the east it's if you will see it's very well on section cc it's such that you only have long and screened views so you're not able to directly overlook but I also want to make clear that every window has more than one window so even though you have for example a high level window you would also have a skylight in the same room so we were trying to balance not impinging on your privacy on the neighbor's privacy but also giving good quality accommodation within these rooms on the matter of the lack of amenity I don't think that that's fair because when we talk about that courtyard or this garden space it's more than five or average five meters deep about 40 square meters area garden west facing which again I don't think it's fair to say it won't provide good level of amenity for children to play for example and I just want to touch base on the issue of accessibility the ground floor is thought to be and it's compliant with the approved document M4-2 and the approved document M4-2 allows ramps to be between 1 in 12 and 1 in 20 gradient and it allows ramp 1 in 13 if I don't go wrong I'm quoting this by heart but it's 1 in 13 is allowed to go as far as 3 meters 1 in 14 a bit longer so there is there is a scope 1 in 12 is the shallowest but there is there is it's a long site and there is scope to adjust that ramp and I you know I appreciate if we need to submit further details but it's not it's not a non adaptable dwelling it's not a non-compliant dwelling and in the it's about materials you were worried about tiles PV tiles which is what we are meant to put in and I'm sure we'll have there will be a condition stating they will have to submit details of material and samples of materials we'll make sure that that's done of course I think these are all the notes I made but if there are further questions happy to answer thank you very much indeed yes Councillor Hamder great thank you so we've heard those concerns about the cycling of the bike storage I wonder whether you had any thoughts on whether you're open to look at different locations absolutely and I was sketching as you were talking I think I mean of course I was thinking in front of the book will have to be looked into if we are allowed to submit further details but I think there is ample scope to put the bike storage in the what's called now the kitchen garden so the front patio there's space there to potentially provide a bike store which what doesn't have to be you know it just needs to be as high as tall as a bike because it's for a single family it's not you know a block of flats huge shelter so I think that there is hope for that in there Councillor Clark yeah thanks Jess so it's apparent that the and this is to the applicant it's apparent that you haven't really you know engaged with your neighbors and around surrounding this site and that your neighbors are open to developing this site they're keen to see it develop but it seems to me if you communicated with them there would have been a more more friendly development that would have suited everybody so I just wanted to make that point because it seems as if there's a large building being crammed into a space where it could have been a bit better designed what do you think can I disagree on the crammed development just purely refer you to I think page 17 of our design and access statement showing how compared to what's there at the moment this is a massive reduction in nothing and in terms of speaking with the neighbors and residents what can I say of course more dialogue generally in the planning system I can't say it wouldn't be beneficial but I wouldn't say that we have not when we design a scheme we don't do it just with our clients in mind we do do it with the townscape in mind with the residents in mind and if you look at all the little tweaks that we did how we crafted the building it's all there thought to comply with policy of course but we know the policy is there to protect the local residents so when we make certain decisions it's for the benefit of everyone it's for the benefit of the new residents of the existing residents and the context thank you chair I think it's quite reassuring that certainly the roof line is within the envelope of the previous building so that can give us a lot of confidence actually it's not going to be more impactful than what's there already I think the designer did quite a good job of answering my question about windows and overlooks out from side to side but which is obviously a much better strategy than frosty glass so I think she's nice and certainly put my mind to the rest about that aspect of the scheme clearly from the Navy's description of the arrangement of his kitchen window with it being too substantive to the condition but other than that looking at the previous scheme which did look like thank you councillor Clark yeah I just like to say that you know when the materials are put forward that they don't include black corrugated metal for are you posing a specific amendment or are you proposing to delegate to view no that it isn't black corrugated metal I don't I don't mean to I just want to be very clear before you go to a vote so we've got the motion which was seconded for an alternative material to be used instead of corrugated metal on condition three that's the materials we've got the cycle parking to require details to be submitted of an alternative location to that proposed officers had recommended that condition 11 on inclusive design we asked for some more details in terms of the ramp and officers also recommended condition 16 landscape can be updated as well so that's four conditions to be delegated to officers to amend as per the recommendations I just wanted to clarify that's the motion sorry sorry it might be if members are happy to take those as a block that would be I just wanted to also highlight the point that was made about the nature of the photovoltaic tiles rather than solar panels being clear in a condition lovely okay are you happy that we've that all of those are very clear can I see firstly everybody in favor of us introducing those additional conditions and the updates the officers have already recommended agreed lovely and then can I see those in favor of approving the scheme with those amended conditions lovely thank you very much indeed thank you everybody for coming along for your input moving on to item c there are no urgent non-exempt or exempt matters so I therefore declare the meeting closed and thank everyone for your attendance do you want to hear about that thank you very much