At a meeting of the Islington Planning Sub-Committee A, councillors refused an application to build a roof terrace at 2-3 Hanover Yard following concerns about noise and the impact on the conservation area¹. Councillors approved a separate application to demolish a commercial garage and erect a mixed-use building at 3 Middleton Mews, which will include residential and office space, after revisions were made to address previous concerns.

Hanover Yard Roof Terrace Refused

Councillors refused planning permission for a roof terrace at 2-3 Hanover Yard, London, N1 8BE, citing detrimental impact to the amenity of neighbouring residents by reason of noise disturbance and overbearing scale, as well as unacceptable height, scale and harm to the conservation area and setting of listed buildings.

The application sought permission for a roof terrace with timber screening and a biodiverse green roof. This was a resubmission of a previously refused scheme, which had also been dismissed on appeal².

Key points raised during the discussion:

• Objections from residents: Residents expressed concerns about noise, loss of privacy, and the visual impact of the proposed terrace. Thomas Calverley, representing neighbours from St Peter Street, Noel Road, and Burg Street, argued that the acoustic report was insufficient and relied on unrealistic assumptions. Sarah Ludford, of 70 St Peter Street, raised concerns about overlooking into her bathroom and the impact on her view. Clare Bell, of 66 St Peter Street, urged the committee to refuse the application on the same grounds as the previous one, highlighting the harm to the conservation area and neighbouring amenity. Andrea Osborne, of 6018 Peter Street, described existing issues with staff using the roof and overlooking their property.
• Applicant's response: Rory Kyle, the planning consultant for the applicant Homes Production, argued that the proposal had been significantly revised to address previous concerns and would provide much-needed outdoor space for employees. He stated that a noise impact assessment had been submitted and that a management plan would be in place to mitigate any potential disturbance.
• Committee concerns: Councillor Toby North, chair of the meeting, noted the objection from the design and conservation team and questioned whether the public benefits outweighed the harm caused by the proposals. Councillor Paul Convery said the scheme should be rejected, as it was too close to the back of terraced homes and would harm the conservation area. Councillor Flippton raised concerns about noise and the enforceability of the noise management plan. Councillor Klick highlighted the height of the terrace and fencing, and its proximity to neighbouring buildings.
• Design and Conservation team: The council's Design and Conservation team objected to the proposal, stating that there was insufficient public benefit to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the conservation area. They felt that the addition of a roof terrace, partly surrounded by a 1.8m tall wooden structure, would increase dominance, introduce an uncharacteristic addition to the roofscape and would adversely affect the setting of the listed buildings.

Middleton Mews Development Approved

Councillors approved planning permission for the demolition of a commercial garage/workshop and the erection of a mixed-use building at 3 Middleton Mews, London, N7 9LT, comprising seven residential units and office space.

The application sought permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of a three-storey building plus basement (Block A) comprising seven self-contained residential units, and a three-storey building plus basement (Block B) comprising 569sqm of office space.

Key points raised during the discussion:

• Officer presentation: A planning officer presented the proposal, highlighting that it was a follow-up to a previously refused scheme. The officer stated that the current scheme had addressed previous concerns regarding design and quality of accommodation.
• Affordable housing contribution: Councillor Martin Klute asked what the development would attract in terms of an affordable housing contribution. The planning officer confirmed that a contribution of £250,000 would be required, based on five additional units.
• Cycle parking: Councillor Fin Craig asked whether there was space for cargo bike parking. The planning officer responded that the assessment had been based on standard bicycles, but that a condition could be added to address cargo bike parking.
• Objections from residents: Nick Payton-Walsh, an objector, expressed concerns about subsidence and the need for basement flats and an office block. Deborah Isaacs, who lives in a block on Camden Road, raised concerns about the impact of the development on nearby trees and biodiversity.
• Applicant's response: Emma McBurney, the applicant's agent, stated that the application had been subject to six rounds of public consultation and that the scheme had been completely redesigned following the previous appeal decision. She added that the applicant was happy to accept a condition to ensure that the commercial element operated within use class E, G, parts one, two and three³.
• Committee discussion: Councillor Klute stated that the question of excavations and subsidence was properly dealt with by condition 26, and that the designs of the current elevation were far more appropriate. Councillor Convery supported the application, noting that the policy strongly favoured the retention of employment uses. Councillor Craig expressed concerns about subsidence and asked whether anything could be done to support local residents if they suffered from subsidence after the development was completed. Councillor Bush-Bancrasi asked for reassurances about the times that works would be taking place, to minimise disruption to residents.