LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET
CHIPPING BARNET AREA
PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE
8th February 2005
Agenda Item No. 8
Report of the Head of Planning
BACKGROUND PAPERS – GENERAL STATEMENT
The background papers to the reports contained in the agenda items which follow comprise the application and relevant planning history files, which may be identified by their reference numbers, and other documents where they are specified as a background paper in individual reports. These files and documents may be inspected at:
CHIPPING BARNET AREA OFFICE Barnet House 1255 High Road Whetstone London N20 0EJ
Contact Officer: Mrs V Bell, 020 8359 4672
1
CHIPPING BARNET AREA PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE
DATE:8th February 2005
INDEX TO THE REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING
______
N14412/04 Brunswick Park 6
109 Osidge Lane, London, N14 5DS.
Construction of vehicular access.
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
______
N07069E/04 Brunswick Park 10
85 Brunswick Avenue, London, N11 1HR.
Demolition of existing building and erection of two-storey live-work unit.
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
______
N00489BJ/04 Brunswick Park 15
Unit 12, Brunswick Industrial Park, Brunswick Way, London, N11 1JL.
Alterations to fenestration and installation of additional roller-shutter doors to facilitate the subdivision of existing unit into 3no. separate Class B8 units.
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
______
N13230J/04 Coppetts 20
Land Rear of Tesco Stores Ltd, Coppetts Centre, North Circular Road, London, N12 0SH.
Erection of industrial and/or warehouse units associated servicing parking and landscaping and new access road.
REFUSE
______
2 N14395A/04 Coppetts 28
234 Colney Hatch Lane, London, N10 1BD.
Demolition of existing building and erection of a 2-storey building (with rooms in roofspace and lower ground floor), to provide 3, 1-bedroom flats and 2, 2-bedroom flats with associated car parking.
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
______
N13230K/04 Coppetts
Tesco Store, Colney Hatch Lane, London, N12 0AG. 34
Demolition of vehicle servicing facility, extensions to Class A1 store, of 1,963.3 sqm, recladding of store, Demolition and redevelopment of petrol filling station. Alterations to existing access/Egress from Colney Hatch Lane, together with associated changes to car park, landscaping and servicing and ancillary plant and equipment.
REFUSE
______
N01779B/04 East Barnet 41
Rear of 1 Brookside, East Barnet, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN4 8TT.
Erection of a two-storey detached house.
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
______
N13042B/04 East Barnet 47
7 Cat Hill, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN4 8HG.
Variation of Condition 3 (opening hours) of planning permission N13042/02 dated 10/04/02 to open between 11:30am-11:00pm Monday to Saturday and between 11:30am and 10:30pm on Sundays.
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
______
N09566G/04 High Barnet 51
18 High Street, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN5 5RU.
Demolish existing portion of building & re-build with amendment to the access through the existing building. New portion of building to include two rear dormers conservation roof lights to front elevation. Change of use from office to a three bedroom flat.
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
3 ______
N05841A/04 High Barnet 55
HIGH CORNER, Arkley Drive, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN5 3LN.
Conversion of garage into habitable room. Single storey side extension incorporating attached garage. Two-storey rear extension and single storey front extension. Repositioning of front entrance.
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
______
N13214C/04 Oakleigh 60
BELFIELD HOUSE, Greenhill Park, New Barnet, Herts, EN5 1HG.
Change of use of house to a day nursery (class D1). Widening existing crossover and provision of 7 off-street parking spaces.
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
______
N00162Q/04 Oakleigh 66
Murco Petrol Station, 45 Russell Lane, London, N20 0BB.
Demolition of existing service station and erection of a four-storey building to provide a total of 26no. self-contained flats. Associated provision of off-street parking and new access road.
REFUSE
______
N07031D/04 Totteridge 74
20 Grange Avenue, London, N20 8AD.
Erection of two-storey extensions to both side elevations and erection of single storey front and rear extensions.
REFUSE
______
N02794W/04 Totteridge 92
32A Totteridge Common, London, N20 8NE.
Demolition of existing buildings on site including stables and riding school complex.
REFUSE
______
4
N02794V/04 Totteridge 96
32A Totteridge Common, London, N20 8NE.
Demolition of existing building and erection of a two-storey dwelling house, detached double garage and single storey staff lodge.
REFUSE
______
N09665J/04 Totteridge 101
Meadowside Care Home, Holden Road, London, N12 7DY.
Submission of details of Conditions 6, & and 10 (materials, means of enclosure and landscaping) pursuant to planning permission N09665E/03 dated 19/11/2003.
APPROVE
______
N09191E/04 Totteridge 105
1-6 Station Close, London, N12 7EG.
Demolition of existing block and erection of 4no. three/four-storey blocks to provide a total of 16no. self-contained flats. (OUTLINE).
REFUSE
______
N02493U/04 Underhill 112
17 High Street, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN5 5UJ.
Demolition of existing building and erection of new part three, part four-storey block to provide a total of 13 self-contained flats and 3 commercial units.
REFUSE
______
N01070CB/04 Underhill 117
Barnet General Hospital, Wellhouse Lane, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN5 3DJ.
Erection of part two, part three-storey mental health hospital to provide a total of 65no. beds, day hospitals and associated office space. Provision of new service roads, off-street parking and landscaping.
APPROVE SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENT
5 LOCATION: 109 Osidge Lane, London, N14 5DS.
REFERENCE: N14412/04 Received: 1 Oct 2004 Accepted: 13 Oct 2004 WARD: Brunswick Park Expiry: 8 Dec 2004 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Mr A Kantha Ruban
PROPOSAL: Construction of vehicular access.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
1. This development must be begun not later than five years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
2. An unobstructed visibility above the height of 1.05m must be maintained from the site access for vehicles at least 2.4m in both directions along the back edge of the footway.
Reason: To prevent danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway and the premises.
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Site Plan, Location Plan.
2. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows:
The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): T1.1, G1, M2.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): GBEnv1, D2, M14.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The application was deferred at the Chipping Barnet Area Sub-Committee on the 11th January 2005, to allow members to visit the site. The application is reported back to Committee recommended for approval.
The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: 6
Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies: Adopted UDP (1991): T1.1, G1, M2.1 Revised Deposit Draft UDP (2001): GBEnv1, D2, M14
Relevant Planning History: None
Consultations and views Expressed:
Neighbours Consulted: 4 Replies: 2
The objections can be summarised as follows: • Destruction of character and appearance of the terrace of properties in which the application site is positioned. • Safety concerns arising from: -The proximity to Hampden square junction. -The size of the front garden. -The heavy traffic levels on the road including Busses and HGVs. -Young and elderly people, (and dogs) using the pavement having to negotiate the crossover. -The removal of anti-parking bollards to allow for the installation of the dropped curb resulting in cars paring across the dropped curb. • The plants that would be lost by the installation of a hard-standing would no longer act as a pollution sink. • Impact upon wildlife and birds of the loss of this garden. • Impact upon visual amenities of neighbouring 111 Osidge Lane as a result of the drop in levels which occurs in this direction. • Vehicular access to 109 will leave 107 Osidge Lane more exposed to vandalism and would leave the occupant with a heightened fear of attack.
Internal/Other Consultation: Traffic
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL
Site Description and Surroundings Property is a two storey, mid terrace, single family dwelling on the south side of Osidge Lane in a four house terrace.
The front garden is of 7m in depth and 4.5m in width, a footway of 4.16m wide separates the front of the garden from the road.
Anti parking bollards are positioned on the verge of the pavement along the front of the terrace to prevent cars from parking up on the pavement.
No other crossovers have been performed on neighbouring front gardens.
A single yellow line is on the road immediately in front of the property, double yellow lines cease 5.6m to the east roughly in line with the boundary between 105 and 107 Osidge Lane.
The property is positioned 50m from the Hampden Square Roundabout.
Proposals The construction of a 2.4m wide dropped curb to allow access to a hard standing area in front of the 109 Osidge Lane.
Material Planning Considerations 7 Proposal follows guidelines laid down by in respect to vehicular crossovers and will not result in a significant impact upon neighbouring amenities.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS Impact of the installation of a dropped curb and the corresponding hard standing will not cause a significant change in character to the street scene.
The application site is 50m away from the Hampden Square roundabout, traffic have not raised any safety concerns with the positioning of the dropped curb in their observations on the site.
The size of the front garden allows enough room for a standard parking space (2.4m by 4.5m) as required by Appendix 7.1 of the Revised Deposit Draft of the UDP.
Impact upon pollution, and wildlife will not be significant enough to be considered a material planning concern.
The drop in levels to the west and potential impact upon outlook to neighbours in 111 Osidge Lane are not significant.
The potential for the hard standing to expose neighbouring residents to a greater level of vandalism or anti-social behaviour can not be seen as a material planning consideration.
4. CONCLUSION The dimensions of the site and its siting do not prevent this application from being approvable, whilst appreciating the concerns of neighbours arising from this development the application should be approved.
8 9
LOCATION: 85 Brunswick Avenue, London, N11 1HR.
REFERENCE: N07069E/04 Received: 9 Nov 2004 Accepted: 9 Nov 2004 WARD: Brunswick Park Expiry: 4 Jan 2005 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Dudrich (Holdings) Ltd
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building and erection of two-storey live-work unit.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
1. This development must be begun not later than five years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
2. Before the development hereby permitted commences, details of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building(s) and hard surfaced areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details as approved.
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of any development order made under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order) the building(s) hereby permitted shall not be extended in any manner whatsoever without the prior specific permission of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the character of the locality and the enjoyment by existing and/or neighbouring occupiers of their properties.
4. No construction work resulting from the planning permission shall be carried out on the premises at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, before 8.00 am or after 1.00 pm on Saturdays, or before 8.00 am or after 6.00pm on other days unless previously approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Location Plan, 985AD-51'D', 10 985/AD-52'E' and 985/AD-53'D' received 24th November 2004.
2. The applicant is advised that the use of the premises hereby approved should be the subject of a further planning application.
3. The applicant is advised that the gate in the boundary fence providing access to the area to the rear of the proposed building must open inwards so as not to encroach on highway land.
4. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows:
The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G18, T1.1, H6.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): GBEnv1, D1, D2, D6 and H27.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The application was deferred at the Chipping Barnet Area Planning Sub- Committee on the 11th January 2005 in order for the members to visit the site. A site visit has now taken place.
Since the last committee a petition containing 27 names has also been submitted.
The application is reported back top the Sub-Committee with a recommendation to approve subject to conditions
The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant:
Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies: Adopted UDP (1991): G1 – Character G18 – Residential character T1.1 – Character/Design H6.1 – Extensions
Revised Deposit Draft UDP (2001): GBEnv1 – Character D1 – High quality design D2 – Character D6 – Street interest H27 – Extensions to houses
Relevant Planning History: Several applications have been submitted between 1981 and 2003 for display of advertisements on the site these have all been refused by the council and subsequently dismissed at appeal.
11 N07069C - Demolition of existing building and erection of two-storey live-work unit – Withdrawn N07069D - Installation of internally illuminated advertisement panel - Withdrawn
Consultations and views Expressed:
Neighbours Consulted: 18 Replies: 1
The occupiers of neighbouring properties have raised the following objections: • Proposal will remove ability to maintain wall and gutters • Overshadowing of rear patio and loss of light into rear windows • Loss of privacy • Proposed unit will effect the already heavily congested Brunswick Avenue • Advertisement panel will lead to a loss of amenity (separate application) • Advertising board would compromise road safety (separate application)
Internal Consultation Traffic and Transportation – No parking is included within this proposal. However it is considered acceptable in this location as the proposed live/work unit is unlikely to generate a parking demand.
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL Site Description and Surroundings The application site is a small plot of land located at the junction of Oakleigh Road North, Oakleigh road South and Brunswick Avenue; it is also close to the main entrance to North London Business Park.
The site is currently occupied by a dilapidated single storey structure that was most recently used as a florist. The site occupies a particularly prominent position and has over recent years been the subject of applications for the display of advertisements. The general area consists of period terrace housing as well as some more recent 1970’s/80’s flat developments.
Proposals Planning permission is sought for a two-storey live/work unit. The proposal extends the existing footprint of the current building by 0.95m to the southwest, this continues along the flank and extends the footprint to the rear by 0.75m. The existing bay is replaced and a straight front elevation is proposed projecting 0.75 further forward than the neighbouring property (no.83) this is as the existing situation. The proposal extends up to a second storey, with the front façade of the first floor being inline with the neighbouring property. A hipped pitched roof is proposed over that respects the angle of the pitched roofs to the adjacent terrace properties.
Material Planning Considerations The plot occupies a very prominent position and is particularly visible to users of Oakleigh Road North and South. The current building occupying the site is in a rather dilapidated state and represents somewhat of an eyesore to the area. The proposal will visually improve the entrance to the Brunswick Grove/Avenue and Crescent area, which is essentially a residential area.
The main issues involved are the impact of the proposal on the amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers and the impact on the street scene.
Residential Amenity The proposal is adjacent to an end of terrace property the rear of which faces north westerly. The rear of this property forms an ‘L’ shape and as such a shadow from the property is cast over part of the property and rear garden. The building now proposed 12 is set forward by 2.05m from the rear wall of this property as a result a significant proportion of the shadow cast will be against the flank elevation. Some loss of light may occur as a result of this proposal however the available light is already impeded significantly by extensive vegetation on the side/rear boundary of number 83 and to a lesser extent the existing single storey building currently occupying the site.
The issue of reduced access for maintenance has also been raised however access will still be available although restricted. The need to maintain a significant proportion of the sidewall will be removed should the proposal be given permission. A small area to the rear of the proposal and under the ownership of the applicant has been left free so as not to block airbricks in the side elevation of no.83 Brunswick Avenue. A gate is proposed in the boundary fence to allow access to this area, which will also enable maintenance of the sidewall of number 83.
Impact on the Street Scene As previously mentioned the existing building has become rather dilapidated through lack of use an element of vandalism has also occurred. Being in such a prominent position the current building does not reflect the well-kept and maintained properties typical in this area. The redevelopment of this site will create visual interest on this corner site and will help to enhance the area. The design of the building reflects the style of the adjacent terrace properties and is proposed to be built of similar materials.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS Areas of objection have been addressed in the main body of the report. Comments with regard to the advertisement panel are the subject of a separate application and are not to be determined at this stage.
4. CONCLUSION The proposal is on balance considered acceptable, it improves the dilapidated and unattractive unit that currently occupies the site and will enhance the main entrance into this predominately residential estate.
13
14
LOCATION: UNIT 12, BRUNSWICK INDUSTRIAL PARK, Brunswick Way, London, N11 1JL.
REFERENCE: N00489BJ/04 Received: 16 Nov 2004 Accepted: 26 Nov 2004 WARD: Brunswick Park Expiry: 21 Jan 2005 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Henderson Global Investors
PROPOSAL: Alterations to fenestration and installation of additional roller-shutter doors to facilitate the subdivision of existing unit into 3no. separate Class B8 units.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
1. This development must be begun not later than five years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building(s) shall match those used in the existing building(s).
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the building and the surrounding area.
3. No delivery vehicles may arrive, depart, be loaded or unloaded within the site between 20:30 hours and 07:00 hours Monday to Saturday or at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays
Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties
4. No more than 15% of employees engaged at the property shall arrive or depart from the premises between 22:00 and 07:00 hours the following day.
Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties.
5. Before the building hereby permitted is occupied the proposed window(s) in the flank elevation facing the rear of properties located on Brunswick park Road shall be glazed with obscure glass only and shall be permanently retained as such thereafter and shall be permanently fixed shut with only a fanlight opening, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.
INFORMATIVE(S):-
15 1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Location Plan (unnumbered), 10416/TP/000, 10416/TP/001, 10416/TP/002, 10416/TP/003, 10416/TP/004, 10416/TP/005 and 10416/TP/006 received 16th Nov 2004
2. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows:
The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G2, G16, T1.1, E6.1, EMP1.1, EMP4.1, EMP5.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): GBEnv1, GBEnv2, GEMP1, GEMP2, GEMP4, Env12, D2, D5, EMP1, EMP13.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies: Adopted UDP (1991): G1 – Character and quality of the environment G2 – Environmental impact G16 – Employment generation T1.1 – Impact upon neighbouring properties E6.1 - Noise EMP1.1 – Changes of use to non-employment uses EMP4.1 – B8 permitted on suitable sites EMP5.1 – Small firms
Revised Deposit Draft UDP (2001): GBEnv1 – Quality and character of the environment GBEnv2 – High quality design and amenity for residents GEMP1 – Protecting employment sites GEMP2 – Promoting business activities GEMP4 – Protecting employment land Env12 – Noise D2 – Character and quality of the area D5 – Adjoining occupiers’ amenities EMP1 – Protection – primary industrial estates EMP3 – Consolidation of employment land
Relevant Planning History: N00489J – Redevelopment of the site as a single storey industrial/warehouse estate with ancillary office space and associated parking – Approved Sept/1977 N00489AY – Continued use of industrial unit as warehouse unit (class B8) with ancillary offices (unit 12 only) – Approved Feb/1996
Consultations and views Expressed:
Neighbours Consulted: 31 Replies: 7
The occupiers of neighbouring properties have raised the following objections: • Increased traffic noise and disturbance • Concerns over lack of security and anti social behaviour on the site out of working hours • Concern that previous conditions imposed are not being complied with 16 • Proposals represent creeping industrialisation
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL
Site Description and Surroundings The application site forms part of the Brunswick Park Industrial Estate a primary industrial estate located on the eastern side of the borough. The estate contains 12 units of varying sizes with the application site (no.12) being the largest with a floor area of 5940m².
The units have a mix of B1 (light industrial) and B8 (warehouse and distribution). The buildings are all of 1 or 2 storeys in height and parking exists for most of the units in their front forecourts.
The site has two entrance and exit points the first being off Brunswick Park Road the second off Waterfall Road.
Unit 12 was originally granted planning permission in 1979 for light industrial use (now Use Class B1 – which can be accommodated within residential areas without causing undue disturbance to neighbouring occupiers). A series of conditions were imposed regarding hours of deliveries, the use of a car park adjacent to residential properties and limits on the numbers of employees that could work during the night.
In 1996 planning permission was granted to allow the continued use of the building as a warehouse (Use Class B8). Similar conditions were imposed as per the original grant of planning permission for the unit to ensure the ongoing protection of adjoining occupiers’ amenities and because a storage and distribution use could generate a larger amount of activity – particularly deliveries and collections.
Proposals Planning permission is sought for the conversion of unit 12 into 3 separate units with approximate floor areas of 1980m². The building and the sub-divided units would remain within the B8 Use Class. The conversion into three separate units also requires various elevation alterations including repositioned and new loading bays and the introduction of new windows at first floor level to facilitate ancillary office space. The parking bays to the front of the units are also realigned to take account of the new loading bays.
Material Planning Considerations The application site has been used as a single storage and distribution unit in excess of 10 years. The unit has been marketed for some time for the same use however due to the sites location there is little demand for a storage and distribution unit of this size. The proposal is for the conversion of the single unit into three smaller units. This subdivision requires various alterations that will alter the front and side elevation of the property.
The alterations proposed are typical of many units within the site and include the insertion of additional full height delivery bays and new windows. The majority of the alterations face into the estate and therefore do not affect the amenity of neighbouring residents. The street scene within the estate is not one of high value and the elevational treatments do not represent significant harm.
Alterations to the south facing flank elevation, which include 2 no. first floor windows have been conditioned to ensure only opaque glass is used. In addition these windows serve a stair well and small kitchen area, which are infrequently, used parts of the building.
17 It is considered appropriate to restate the conditions that apply to this building to ensure that neighbours’ amenities continue to be protected, should the alterations and sub-division of the building lead to increased activity at the premises.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS
Breach of planning conditions is an enforcement issues and must be addressed separately from this application
4. CONCLUSION
The proposals represent alterations to an employment generating use to increase its viability, uses particularly in primary industrial estates are supported by council policy. The alteration to the elevations of the existing building will not result in demonstrable harm to the street scene of the amenity currently enjoyed by local residents. As such, the proposals are recommended for approval.
18 19
LOCATION: Land Rear of TESCO STORES LTD, COPPETTS CENTRE, North Circular Road, London, N12 0SH.
REFERENCE: N13230J/04 Received: 22 Oct 2004 Accepted: 18 Nov 2004 WARD: Coppetts Expiry: 17 Feb 2005 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Tesco Stores Limited
PROPOSAL: Erection of industrial and/or warehouse units associated servicing parking and landscaping and new access road.
RECOMMENDATION:
REFUSE
1. The proposed development would adversely affect the character, integrity and appearance of a site of Borough Importance for nature conservation. Additionally there are concerns that insufficient information has been provided to confirm that engineering works to facilitate the access and hardstanding will not impact upon the adjoining Local Nature Reserve and that protected species will not be adversely affected by the proposals. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to policies G1, G3, O5.1, 05.2 and 04.1 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991) and policies GBEnv1, GBEnv4, D7, O14, O15 and O16 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (March 2001).
2. The proposed development would adversely affect the character, integrity and appearance of land designated as Metropolitan Open Land. The proposals are therefore considered to be contrary to policies G1, G5, O3.1, O3.2 and 03.3 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991) and policies GBEnv1, GMOL, O1, O2, of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (March 2001).
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Site plan, 1671/PR/01, 1671/PR/01A, Updated Ecological Assessment, Transport Assessment, 1671/D/00B, 1671/D/100B, 1671/D/102, 1671/D/109, 201123/6 rev A and C3813/1 received 22nd Oct 2004.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
National Planning Policy Guidance
Planning Policy Guidance Notes PPG2 (Green Belt) Planning Policy Guidance Notes PPG9 (Nature Conservation)
Development Plan
The relevant development plan for the London Borough of Barnet is the Barnet Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1991) and the Mayor’s London Plan (published February 2004). The Barnet UDP is being revised as set out below (March 2001) and 20 a public inquiry into the UDP took place in March- May 2004 with an Inspectors Report issued in October 2004.
Strategic Planning Policy
Mayor’s London Plan (February 2004) Strategic Planning Policies, in particular 3D.9 and 3D.12.
Local Development Plan
Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991)
G1, G3, G4, G5, O1.1, O3.1, O3.2, O3.3, O5.1, O5.3, M6.1
Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan March 2001
GMOL, GBEnv1, GBEnv2, GBEnv4, D7, O1, O2, O14, O15, O16, M11, M12 and M13
Relevant Planning History:
N13230C/02 Environmental Impact Assessment –Screening Opinion. Environmental Statement Requested 13 January 2003. This concerned both the Tesco Store and the proposed Industrial units. The applicant appealed against the decision. The SOS decided that the Council was wrong to group both Application’s together. That because the industrial site was below 0.5 Hectares it was not a Schedule 2 proposal (hence an Environmental Statement was not required).
N13230D/03 Erection of new industrial/warehouse units to provide approximately 1162m2 of floorspace together with associated changes to landscaping, car parking and access roads – Withdrawn 12/01/2004
N13230E/03 Demolition of vehicle servicing facility and construction of side and rear extensions to existing Class A1 retail unit to provide additional floorspace and recladding of all elevations. Demolition and redevelopment of petrol filling station. Associated changes to landscaping, car-parking layout and access/egress roads – Withdrawn 12/01/2004
Consultations and Views Expressed:
The application was advertised in the press and on site. The application has been advertised as a departure from the development plan given the inclusion of part of the site in land designated as Metropolitan Open Land.
Neighbours consulted: 289 Replies: 47
Views expressed by neighbours may be summarised as follows:
- Area much appreciated by local people. - Concerns over traffic generation and congestion - Noise impact concerns. - Building grossly disproportionate and impact on surrounding area unacceptable. - No explanation of why necessary.
21 - Surveys insufficient, reference to legal precedence requiring bat surveys before a decision is made. - Absurd destruction of wildlife - Impact on Nature Reserve/conservation - Increased traffic and congestion in the area - Information provided is inaccurate and biased towards Tesco - Local Nature groups not consulted by EPCAD - Increase in litter and rubbish generated by the Tesco store.
Coppetts Wood Conservationists have stated that: - Eastern Triangle is remarkably rich in wildlife due to its high humidity levels and contains 79 species of plants, 9 species of butterfly and 29 species of bird. Near the eastern triangle are up to 7 bat species and slow worms (From their various surveys). Specific reference given to use of woodland adjoining the Eastern triangle by bat species. - Coppetts Wood Conservationists question data contained within the reports submitted by Epcad which shows various inconsistencies with similar data produced by this group.
Coppetts Wood and Glebelands Local Nature Reserve (summarised comments) - Damage to site of borough importance - Destruction of habitat and species - Speculative unnecessary development
London Wildlife Trust – (Summary) Oppose the planning application supporting comments made by Coppetts Wood and Glebelands Local Nature Reserve and those made by the Coppetts Wood Conservationists. The destruction of more than 100 trees should be measured by the amenity damage, as well as the total number of growing years to be destroyed together with their supporting developed biodiversity of invertebrates, upon which many vertebrate local species, including bats and bird life depend.
English Nature – (Holding objection) From information available it is assumed that the development will cause an adverse impact on Coppetts Wood Local Nature Reserve and Coppetts Wood Site of Borough Importance and would therefore be in direct conflict to policy O14 of Barnet’s UDP. (further information has been available to English Nature further comments are awaited)
Transport For London – No comments to make with regard to this application
Thames Water –No objections.
Environment Agency – Raise no objections to the proposal as long as various conditions and informatives are imposed should a permission be granted.
Internal Consultations
Tree Officer (summarised comments): - Plans contained within report are of insufficient scale and do not identify existing trees in terms of size species condition etc - Epcad report (updated) contain little data about flora on the proposal site - Topography survey indicates location of trees but does not identify them - No information is given with regard to level changes to impact of this cannot be assessed - There are clear contradictions between the proposed use of the land and policies that relate to the protection/maintenance of Metropolitan Open Land
Traffic and Transportation (summarised comments):
22 - The Traffic Generation information for the industrial units is satisfactory however TFL consent is also required as the proposal exits onto the NCR - A condition must be included that all vehicles related to the industrial element of the development will exit onto the A406 North Circular Road Slip Road and will not use the Tesco Car Park for egress from the site. - Gradient of ramp should be no steeper than 1:10 - The proposal exceeds the maximum parking standards as set out in appendix 7.1 of the revised deposit draft of the revised deposit draft of the UDP (Policy M14). The car parking spaces are not proposed to meet the requirements of standards approved by the Council for new development and would result in an unacceptable use of private cars accessing the site, which would not be in accordance with principles of sustainable development or reduced reliance on the use of the car, contrary to Policies GSD, Gparking, GNon Car, of the Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (Approved March 2001), the London Plan and Government Guidance within PPG 13 Transport.
1. PLANNING APPRAISAL
Site Description and Surroundings The application site is an area of land to the north of the existing Tescos Store on Colney Hatch Lane. The site covers an area of 4200 square metres and is currently occupied by various trees, plants and grasses.
The land was previously used as landfill following the closure of the sewerage works. Due to this previous use the site has irregular levels and due to the different compositions of the land there is a high variety of plant species.
The site is part of a larger area which is adjacent to Coppetts Wood Nature Reserve. Part of the site is recognised as a site of borough importance (Grade 1) and is Metropolitan Land (for this reason the development has been advertised as a departure from the Adopted Development Plan).
Proposals Planning permission is sought for the erection of industrial/warehousing units with a floor area of 1162 square metres (12,500 square feet). The proposed buildings are divided into four separate units and are located at the southern end of the site. A total of 29 parking spaces for cars are proposed within the site. The site is accessed form the north circular road and a ramp running along the northeastern boundary is proposed providing access to the site.
The application is associated with application N13230K/04 that concerns extensions to the existing Tesco Supermarket. To enable the supermarket to be extended it is proposed to demolish existing industrial units. This application concerns new industrial units on adjoining land. This application is nonetheless a separate application from N13230K/03 and needs to be determined on its individual merits.
Material Planning Considerations The keys issues concerned with the determination of this application are: The principle of development on a site that falls partly within Metropolitan Open Land. Traffic and transportation issues Nature conservation issues
23 Additional Information The site is adjacent to a Local Nature Reserve (designated under section 21 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act) this is a statutory designation and hence covered by statute. English Nature provides guidance on these sites as part of their statutory role. The site falls wholly within a site of Borough Importance for nature conservation, this designation is not a statutory designation but nonetheless carries weighting dependent on the status of the Development Plan. Both the Adopted and Revised Deposit Draft Unitary development plans indicate that the site is part of a site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation.
Metropolitan Open land A small part of the site is within Metropolitan Open Land.
Policy O3.1 of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan states that, ‘The Council will not permit within Metropolitan Open Land any development which is not compatible with its functions and essentially open characteristics.’
Policy 02 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan states that, ‘Except in very special circumstances, the council will refuse any development in the green belt or metropolitan open land which is not compatible with their purposes and objectives, does not maintain their open character and would harm their visual amenity.’
The proposal is for industrial units with associated hardstanding for access, manoeuvring and parking (parking and manoeuvring for HGV’s would be over the MOL). This use is not an acceptable use of Metropolitan Open Land. It is not considered that any special circumstances have been put forward to justify such a use of the land. The development is clearly contrary to policies intended to protect Metropolitan Open Land.
Impact on Nature Conservation
Planning Policy Guidance Note 9 on Nature Conservation (PPG 9) states that, ‘Many sites of local nature conservation importance are given designations by Local Authorities and by local conservation organisations. These sites are important to local communities, often affording people the only opportunity of direct contact with nature, especially in urban areas.’ (Paragraph 15)
The applicant has submitted an ecology report in connection with the site. The report submitted by Epcad appears to under value the nature conservation value of the application site rather than considering the possible beneficial value of both the habitat as a source for wildlife and its value as part of the wider Borough Site of Nature Conservation.
Part of the argument supporting use of the parcel of land is based around: a) Lack of species diversity. b) The identification of invasive Japanese Knotweed on the site.
Concerns exist with regard to the amount of survey work undertaken. Coppetts Wood is known to have at least 2 species of bat (Information taken from London Ecology Report). The site may be used for foraging, in particular given that the scrubland has a variety of invertebrate species. Boundary trees could be used for roosting. The ecological assessment fails to fully assess the possibility of bats using the area for either foraging or roosting. It is considered that specific bat surveys would have to be undertaken and more detailed work to fully access the site for activity by from bats.
24 It is noted that part of the Mayors Draft Biodiversity Strategy (October 2001) is attached as an Appendix to the ecology report and this document makes some interesting statements, On Sites of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation, ‘There is considerable variation in quality between those for different boroughs; for example those in Barnet will frequently be of higher intrinsic quality that those in Hammersmith and Fulham…’ (Page 94) On surveying species: ‘Information on species is often available from Local Naturalists, who are able to observe sites throughout seasons and years to provide an accurate and quite comprehensive listing of these and who may publish accounts of particular species or sites.’ (Page 97)
It is noted that local conservationists have objected to the lack of consultation by those compiling the ecology report and much of the information provided by local conservationist groups conflicts with that detailed in the Epcad report.
The Epcad report states that the scrubland habitat that covers the application site can be easily recreated elsewhere, and that such a habitat is not uncommon in London. This fails to take into account that sites such as the application site have not just Nature Conservation value but recreational value as well, that the site would also have a role as part of a wider eco-system. It is known that Coppetts Wood contains rare flies and represents an excellent habitat for birds. The interaction of this parcel of land with the rest of the Borough Site for Nature Conservation is not considered. With regard to the Japanese knotweed this is a highly invasive species, nonetheless it is not considered that this should be used as a reason to grant planning permission (the responsibility for controlling Japanese Knotweed usually rests on the landowner).
Impact on the Local Nature Reserve
Although no part of the development site falls within the Local Nature Reserve it is important that in addition to direct impact on the Borough Site of Nature Conservation Importance consideration is given to the impact on the Local Nature Reserve. A local Nature Reserve is a habitat of local significance that makes a useful contribution both to nature conservation and for the public to see, learn and enjoy wildlife (declared under Section 21 of the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949). The application site has changing levels and rises steeply on the western boundary. The proposals include a new access road adjacent to the site boundary and a large turning area. No information has been provided concerning retaining walls or engineering works associated with the access road and turning head, or with regard to any level changes. Such works could have a major impact on the flora and fauna of adjoining land (in particular trees and their root systems).
Visual Amenity
The proposed building has a functional design appropriate to its intended use and not dissimilar from surrounding building located on Colney Hatch Lane. Subject to appropriate external finishes (which could be dealt with by condition) it is not considered that objection can be raised to the design and external appearance of the building. Although it’s siting within the site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation would have an impact on surrounding views.
Traffic and Transportation
The traffic generation information provided is considered satisfactory and no objection is raised by Transport for London. A condition requiring vehicles using
25 these units to access the site via the North Circular Road would be required should planning permission be required.
The parking provision is in excess of the council’s maximum parking standards, which would require the provision of 4-12 spaces for industrial/warehouse units with a floor area of 1162m². Parking provision at this level is contrary to Policies GSD, Gparking, GNon Car, of the Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (Approved March 2001), the London Plan and Government Guidance within PPG 13 Transport.
A previously mentioned insufficient information has been provided with regard to the ramp accessing the site. The impact of this ramp on the neighbouring nature conservation area has not been shown neither has the incline been shown. This does not allow full assessment of the likely impact of the proposed ramp.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTION These are considered to be covered in the main body of the report. It is considered that noise concerns could be dealt with through appropriate planning conditions.
4. CONCLUSION The proposal is considered to be harmful and inappropriate development within a designated nature conservation area and Metropolitan Open Land, contrary to Government Guidance (PPGs 2 and 9), development plan policy including the Mayor’s London Plan and Barnet UDP (adopted and revised deposit) with regard to the principle of industrial development over land that is entirely within a site of Borough Nature Conservation Importance.
26 27
LOCATION: 234 Colney Hatch Lane, London, N10 1BD.
REFERENCE: N14395A/04 Received: 2 Dec 2004 Accepted: 2 Dec 2004 WARD: Coppetts Expiry: 27 Jan 2005 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Mr G Rose
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building and erection of a 2-storey building (with rooms in roofspace and lower ground floor), to provide 3, 1-bedroom flats and 2, 2-bedroom flats with associated car parking.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
1. This development must be begun not later than five years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
2. Before the development hereby permitted is occupied the parking spaces/garages shown on Plan 0412/LA 10 rev C shall be provided and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles in connection with the approved development.
Reason: To ensure that parking is provided in accordance with the council's standards in the interests of pedestrian and highway safety, the free flow of traffic and in order to protect the amenities of the area.
3. Before this development is commenced, details of the levels of the building(s), road(s) and footpath(s) in relation to adjoining land and highway(s) and any other changes proposed in the levels of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details as approved.
Reason: To ensure that the work is carried out at suitable levels in relation to the highway and adjoining land having regard to drainage, gradient of access and the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the health of any trees on the site.
4. Before the development hereby permitted commences, details of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building(s) and hard surfaced areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details as approved.
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality.
5. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use or occupied the site shall be enclosed except at the permitted points of access in accordance 28 with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality and/or the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties and to confine access to the permitted points in the interest of the flow of traffic and conditions of general safety on the adjoining highway.
6. Before the development hereby permitted commences, details of enclosures and screened facilities for the storage of recycling containers and wheeled refuse bins or other refuse storage containers where applicable, together with a satisfactory point of collection shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be provided at the site in accordance with the approved details before the development is occupied.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance for the development and satisfactory accessibility; and to protect the amenities of the area.
7. Before the building hereby permitted is occupied the proposed window(s) in the first floor side elevation facing Bedford Close shall be glazed with obscure glass only and shall be permanently retained as such thereafter and shall be permanently fixed shut with only a fanlight opening, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.
8. No construction work resulting from the planning permission shall be carried out on the premises at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, before 8.00 am or after 1.00 pm on Saturdays, or before 8.00 am or after 6.00pm on other days unless previously approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.
9. Development shall not begin until drainage works have been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the foul and/or surface water discharge from the site shall not be prejudicial to the existing sewerage system and the amenities of the area.
10. A scheme of hard and soft landscaping, including details of existing trees to be retained, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development, hereby permitted, is commenced.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.
11. All work comprised in the approval scheme of landscaping shall be carried out before the end of the first planting and seeding season following occupation of any part of the buildings or completion of the development, whichever is sooner, or commencement of the use.
29
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.
12. Any existing tree shown to be retained or trees or shrubs to be planted as part of the approved landscaping scheme which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of the completion of development shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of appropriate size and species in the next planting season.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.
13. Provisions shall be made within the site to ensure that all vehicles associated with the construction of the development hereby approved are properly washed and cleaned to prevent the passage of mud and dirt onto the adjoining highway.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not cause danger and inconvenience to users of the adjoining pavement and highway.
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are:- 0412 LA 09 rev C, LA10 rev C.
2. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows:
The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, T1.1, M2.1, H1.2 and H3.2. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, M14, H16, H17 and H18.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): T1.1, T1.3, M2.1, H1.2, H3.2, and H4.2 Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D8, M14, H16, H17, H18, and H21
Mayor of London Plan (Adopted February 2004)
Relevant Planning History:
C08698C/01 - Erection of a two storey building comprising 4 No. 1-bedroom flats, together with associated landscaping, parking for 4 cars with access from Bedford Close and Colney Hatch Lane, following demolition of existing buildings. Approved 29/08/01.
30 N14395/04 - Demolition of existing building and erection of a 2 storey building (with rooms in roofspace and lower ground floor), to provide 2, 1 bedroom flats and 3, 2 bedroom flat with associated car parking. Withdrawn 17/11/04.
Consultations and views Expressed:
Neighbours Consulted: 66 Replies: 4
Application was advertised on site
The objections received can be summarized as follows:
1. Loss of light 2. Overlooking and loss of privacy 3. Overdevelopment. 3. Traffic and parking issues
Internal/Other Consultations
• Traffic and Transportation have observations: Parking standards of UDP would be met; unobstructed visibility would have to be achieved on entering/exiting the site – provision of sight line is required; and it is noted that any street furniture or lighting column affected by the proposed works would be relocated under rechargeable works agreement by the council’s term contractor for Highway Works.
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL
Site Description and Surroundings
The application site is located on the east side of Colney Hatch Lane at the junction with Bedford Close. The site extends from its frontage on Colney Hatch Lane to a shared access road at the rear. The site is bounded by 236 Colney Hatch Lane to the north and Hatch House, a three storey block of eight flats and parking for ten cars to the east. There is a block of three storey maisonettes running along Colney Hatch Lane to the south of the site, and some three storey apartments to the west of the site.
Proposal
The proposal involves the erection of a part two, part three storey building with rooms in the roofspace. Given the difference in levels between the road and the rear of the site, the proposed building would be three storeys high facing Colney Hatch Lane and two storeys high on the rear elevation.
The proposed building would have a depth of 13m, width of 8.5m and height of 8.5m. The proposal would project 3.0m at the rear from the existing building line at 236 Colney Hatch Lane. It would accommodate 3no one bedroom and 2no two bedroom flats with three parking spaces at the front accessed from Colney Hatch Lane and two parking spaces at the rear accessed from Bedford Close. It should be noted that the proposed building would have the same height and footprint as the previous approved application ref: C08698C/01 for the erection of a two storey building comprising 4 No. 1-bedroom flats dated 29/08/01.
The proposal would incorporate 85 square metres of usable amenity area at the rear of the site and be surrounded by a 1.8m high boundary wall fronting Bedford Close and a 1.0m high wall fronting Colney Hatch Lane.
31 Material Planning Considerations
Given the previous approved application ref: C08698C/01 for a block of flats on the site, it is considered that the principle of flats has been established. As mentioned before the proposed building would have the same height and footprint as the previous approved application with the only difference being the addition of a part lower ground floor level facing Colney Hatch Lane. It is considered that this addition would have a minimal impact on the streetscene and visual amenities of occupiers of surrounding properties.
The proposed building would have a projection of 3.0m metres beyond the existing building line at the rear of 236 Colney Hatch and would retain a gap of 3.4m between the two flank walls. Given size and siting of the proposal it is considered not to cause a significant loss of privacy or light to the occupiers of surrounding properties. The proposal is considered to respect the constraints of the site, and is therefore not considered to constitute overdevelopment.
The proposed development would provide 85 square metres of amenity area to the rear. The provision of amenity area complies with Unitary Development Plan standards and is considered acceptable.
Five parking spaces would be provided as part of the proposal with access from Colney Hatch Lane and Bedford Close. The proposed parking spaces would be located to the front and rear of the new building. The proposal is not considered to generate levels of traffic likely to adversely impact upon highway safety. The parking provision complies with the parking standards in the Revised deposit draft UDP (2001).
A refuse area would be provided to the side of the proposed development.
Section 106 Items
Given that the proposal is for 3no one bedroom flats and only 2no two bedroom flats, it is considered not to justify an education contribution because of the high proportion of the amount taken up by the cost in drawing up the planning obligation.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS
Mainly covered in appraisal.
4. CONCLUSION
It is considered that the proposed development would not appear out of character with the area and would have a minimal impact on the residential and visual amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
Approval subject to conditions is therefore recommended.
32 33
LOCATION: TESCO STORE, COLNEY HATCH LANE, London, N12 0AG.
REFERENCE: N13230K/04 Received: 22 Oct 2004 Accepted: 23 Nov 2004 WARD: Coppetts Expiry: 22 Feb 2005 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Tesco Stores Limited
PROPOSAL: Demolition of vehicle servicing facility, extensions to Class A1 store, of 1,963.3 sqm, recladding of store, Demolition and redevelopment of petrol filling station. Alterations to existing access/Egress from Colney Hatch Lane, together with associated changes to car park, landscaping and servicing and ancillary plant and equipment.
RECOMMENDATION:
REFUSE
1. Insufficient information is provided within the Transport Assessment to fully assess the proposal as regards to the capacity on roads in the vicinity of the site contrary to policies G20 and M1.4 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991) and policies GDS, GRoad Net and M8 of the Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001)
2. Insufficient information has been provided to justify the proposed increase in parking provision contrary to policies G1and M2.1 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991) and Gparking, GNon Car and M14
3. The proposed egress onto Colney Hatch Lane is not acceptable as regards to the traffic impact on the surrounding highway network and highway safety contrary to within the London Plan, PPG13 and policies G20 and M1.4 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991) and policies GDS, GRoad Net, GNon Car and Policy M8 of the Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001)
4. The proposal will result in the loss/damage to trees of special amenity value contrary to policies G1, T1.1 and E2.1 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991) and policies GBEnv1, and D13 of the Revised Deposit Draft Barnet Unitary Development Plan (2001)
5. The applicant has not adequately demonstrated in the retail assessment a quantative need for the extension contrary to G14 of the Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991) and policies GTCR1 and TCR7 of the Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001)
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Site plan, C3813/1, 1671/D/00B, 1671/D/100B, 1671/D/102, 1671/D/100A, 1671/PR/101, 1671/PR/102, 1671/PR/100A, 1671/PR/01, 2296.03.100-RL-A, 1671/D/03, 1671/D/08, 1671/D/01A, 201/23/6A, Travel plan by Boreham Consulting Engineers, Transport assessment by Boreham Consulting Engineers Ltd Revised retail assessment by Cushman & Wakefield Healy and Baker, 34 Landscape supporting statement by Epcad received 22nd October 2004
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
National Planning Policy Guidance.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 6 (Town Centres and Retail Developments) Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport)
Development Plan
The relevant development plan for the London Borough of Barnet is the Barnet Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1991) and the Mayor’s London Plan (published February 2004). The Barnet UDP is being revised as set out below (March 2001) and a public inquiry into the UDP took place in March-May 2004 with an Inspectors Report issued in October 2004.
Strategic Planning Policy
Mayors London Plan (February 2004)
Local Development Plan
Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991)
G1, G3, G14, G5, T1.1, T2.1, S1.1, S2.1, S2.3, M6.1
Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan March 2001
GLOC, GTCR 1, GBEnv1, GBEnv2, Env 7, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, TCR1, TCR7, M11, M12 and M13
Relevant Planning History: N13230C/02 Environmental Impact Assessment –Screening Opinion. Environmental Statement Requested 13 January 2003. This concerned both the Tesco Store and the proposed Industrial units. The applicant appealed against the decision. The SOS decided that an Environmental Statement was not required and that the Council was wrong to group both Application’s together. N13230D/03 Erection of new industrial/warehouse units to provide approximately 1162m2 of floorspace together with associated changes to landscaping, car parking and access roads – Withdrawn – 12/01/2004 N13230E/03 Demolition of vehicle servicing facility and construction of side and rear extensions to existing Class A1 retail unit to provide additional floorspace and recladding of all elevations. Demolition and redevelopment of petrol filling station. Associated changes to landscaping, car-parking layout and access/egress roads. - Withdrawn – 12/01/2004
Consultations and Views Expressed:
The application was advertised in the press and on site.
Neighbours consulted: 288 Replies: 57
35 Views expressed by neighbours may be summarised as follows:
- Increased traffic and congestion in the area - Increased noise and disturbance caused by vehicles and lorries using the site 24 hours a day - Local shops will be threatened with closure due to lack of trade - Loss of trees that are part of preservation orders. - Loss of habitat for wildlife and loss of area of - Increased threat to pedestrian and highway safety - Will increase ques onto the north circular road leading to a hazard to this road - Possible rat running through Tesco to avoid ques on NCR slip road - Increased pressure on parking in local roads.
Greater London Authority – Comments to be given at committee
Transport for London The traffic Appraisal (TA) para 4.3 stated an intention to put traffic calming measures to ensure that the new exit does not make the site internal roads a rat run. We have requested the developers to clarify the following and awaiting their reply:
• What traffic calming measures are proposed?
• To provide details and assessment to demonstrate thet the proposed measures would not increase thr existing grid lock problem or cause traffic block back into the A406 eastbound off slip during peak hours. We would also recommend that the new building should not be operational for the intended purposes until after the completion of the new access to Colney Hatch Lane, which would require a section 278 agreement with Transport for London.
Thames Water –No objections.
Environment Agency –Recommend various conditions including contaminated land condition. State in their comments that Japanese Knotweed should be eradicated from the site and the Local Nature Reserve and that planting of native species to offset the losses should be proposed. Applicant advised to commission a landfill gas assessment.
London Borough of Haringey – Awaiting comments London Borough of Enfield – Awaiting comments
Internal Consultations
Tree Officer: (summary of comments) - Epcad Landscape Supporting Statement is insufficient containing details of only 7 trees - Plans contained within report are of insufficient scale and do not identify existing trees in terms of size species condition etc - Lack of levels information means impact on tree root systems cannot be assessed - Tree survey indicates TPO’s are in category B which indicates retention is desirable, insufficient information in relation to which other trees will be lost - Insufficient information submitted to fully assess the application and to assess if proposals to mitigate harm caused by loss of TPO’s etc are sufficient.
Traffic and Transportation: Recommend Refusal (summary of comments) - There is insufficient information within the Transport Assessment to fully assess the proposal.
36 - The proposed egress onto Colney Hatch Lane is not acceptable on the grounds of traffic impact on the surrounding highway network and highway safety - The current Transport Assessment may indicate that the principle of a increase in size of the store may be acceptable, however, the corresponding increase in parking provision has not been justified within the Transport Assessment. - The proposal does not include sufficient measures to increase trips to the store by public transport, walking and cycling especially by customers.
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL
Site Description and Surroundings
The application site is currently occupied by a A1 retail store, vehicle servicing units, petrol store and associated parking. The site is located on the northern side of the North Circular Road at its junction with Colney Hatch Lane. The site is accessed via an entry point off Colney Hatch Lane and the exit point is onto the east bound off slip road of the North Circular Road.
The site is bordered by a nature conservation area on the north eastern boundary and the other boundaries are formed by the north circular east bound slip road to the south and Colney Hatch Lane to the west. Directly to the north of the site are various units including car dealerships and ambulance and coach depot. The western side of Colney Hatch Lane is characterised by a recent residential development.
Proposals
Planning permission is sought for: The extension of the existing A1 retail store by 1963sq. metres following the demolition of car servicing units which currently occupy the site. Re-cladding of the existing A1 retail store The demolition and repositioning of the existing petrol station Alterations to existing entry point on Colney Hatch Lane involving removal of trees with preservation orders Associated changes to car park, landscaping, servicing and ancillary plant and equipment
Material Planning Considerations
The key issues concerned with the determination of this application include:
- Whether the principle of a retail development of the nature proposed is acceptable and whether the increase in floor area is considered acceptable with regard to local and national policy - The impact on traffic and transportation - The design of the new store - The loss of trees and landscaping
The size of the development is such that there would be possible environmental implications with regard to noise and air quality however it would be very difficult to maintain an argument that the extension to the store and associated works would materially impact on its surroundings. It is considered that these issues would be better dealt with through planning conditions. The development is not considered to impact upon the nearby Nature Reserve, Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation or nearby Metropolitan Open Land.
37
Retail Impact – Policy Summary
Government Guidance is contained within Planning Policy Guidance Note 6- Town Centres and Retail Developments. The principal test for retail developments is the sequential test described at the beginning of the PPG as, ‘Adopting a sequential approach means that first preference should be for town centre sites, where sites or buildings suitable for conversion are available, followed by edge-of-centre sites, district and local centres and only then out of centre locations that are accessible by a choice of means of transport.’ (Para 1.11) The guidance goes on to state that where out-of centre developments are proposed, the following key considerations should be applied; - The likely harm to the development plan strategy - overall travel The likely impact of the development on the vitality and viability of existing town centres, including the evening economy - Their accessibility by a choice of means of transport; and their likely effect on patterns and car use. Where there is a clearly defined need this should be met on existing out of centre sites. The subject of this application is an existing site of out of centre development.
Adopted development plan policy states that developments of over 1000 sq.m subject to retail and traffic impact should be directed to appropriate locations within the Borough’s Town Centres. The key retail policy is policy S2.1 which emphasis catering for the impact of increased traffic generation, providing accessible developments and protecting town centres. Policy G14 is a strategic policy that also stresses the protection of town centres from harmful retail development. The Revised Deposit Draft Plan also has a strategic policy that seeks to protect town centres that refers to the need to ensure that new retail development is located so as to enhance the vitality and viability of the Borough’s town centres. This emerging plan reflects upto date national guidance and therefore is considered to have considerable weighting with respect to retail policies. As part of the development plan process North Finchley was identified as being suitable for increased retail capacity.
Policy TCR7 is of specific reference as it includes extensions to existing retail units, it states that proposals will only be granted where: - There is an acknowledged need for the development; - The proposal satisfies the sequential approach to site selection; - The proposal would not put at risk or harm public and/or private sector proposals to safeguard the vitality and viability of any nearby town centre; - The proposal would not demonstrably harm the vitality and viability of any nearby town centre; - The development would be readily accessible by a choice means of transport, including public transport, cycle and on foot, and by the disabled, or that such accessibility can be provided; and - The development would facilitate linked trips with existing out of centre developments.
The Mayor of London Plan particularly emphasises the role of Town Centres. There has been a recent Ministerial statement on how Local Planning Authorities should determine the need for retail development (Tom McNulty 10th April 2003). The Secretary of State now places more weighting on quantitative need and considers that convenience and comparison retailing should be dealt with separately.
Government guidance within PPG6 and ministerial statements indicate that proposals for retail development on sites outside existing centres (including store extensions) will only be permitted if there is a clear need for the development. Failure to demonstrate either the need for such proposals or that a sequential approach has not been applied would normally justify the refusal of planning permission. This guidance is reflected in the more recent McNulty statement, which
38 emphasises that “these tests apply equally for extensions as well as to new developments”. However emerging guidance contained within Draft Planning Policy Statement Note 6 suggests that the sequential approach is not a relevant consideration in relation to extensions.
The reports produced by Cushman Wakefield Healey and Baker is set out so that the impact of the convenience floor space increase is considered, then comparison floor space increase before an assessment of the overall impact is made.
The report produced by Cushman Wakefield Healey and Baker has been appraised by Barnet’s retail consultants. The findings of their appraisal are detailed below.
Need for the Extension (CWHB’s) retail capacity figures do not demonstrate a clear quantitative need for the proposed extension, because their analysis only takes into account food store trading above company average levels and ignores food stores trading below average. However, CWHB has not fully updated previous population and expenditure data, and for this reason CWHB’s study may have significantly under-estimated available expenditure in the catchment area. There may be quantitative capacity for the convenience goods element of the proposed extension base don updated expenditure information. Notwithstanding the quantitative capacity for the proposed extension, our observations also suggest that the Tesco store is trading heavily and the convenience goods element of the extension would bring qualitative benefitsof reducing in-store congestion.
In relation to comparison expenditure capacity CWHB’s figures imply that existing floor space in the catchment area is under-performing and there is no need for additional floor space in the catchment area for the foreseeable future. However, we believe CWHB’s assessment is flawed and does not provide a robust basis for determining whether there is a quantitative need for the comparison element of the proposed extension. Therefore, we are un-enable to draw any conclusions in relation to the potential quantitative need for the comparison goods element of the proposed extension without carrying out a more detailed analysis. The implications of development at Brent Cross on the quantitative capacity for comparison shopping within the catchment area are also unclear.
Impact on Nearby Centres
The convenience goods element of the proposed extension is unlikely to cause the closure of any existing food stores, and is on its own unlikely to affect the vitality and viability of existing centres.
CWHB may have under-estimated the impact of the comparison element of the extension. However, it is not possible to assess the potential implications of the comparison element of the extension because CWHB’s assessment of existing 2002 trading levels is unreliable. Therefore it is not possible to assess the implications for the vitality and viability of existing centres.
Visual Amenity
The proposed recladding of the building is described in the retail assessment accompanying the application as,
39 ‘the opportunity would be taken to remodel the main elevations to the store so as to create a landmark building at this important location.’ It is not considered though that the proposed building meets this objective.
Traffic and Transportation
Parking Provision
The parking provision exceeds the maximum parking standards contained within the revised draft UDP. There is no justification for the need to increase the parking provision as a result of the extended store. The over provision of parking is likely to lead to the over reliance on the private motor vehicle and would not be in accordance with principles of sustainable development of reduced reliance on the car.
Proposed Egress
The proposal involves the alteration to the existing ingress on Colney Hatch Lane to enable egress in the form of a roundabout junction. The transport assessment indicates the roundabout will be able to operate within capacity on Colney Hatch Lane but does not address the capacity at major junctions on Colney Hatch Lane both to the north and south of the application site. Measures to avoid ‘rat running’ from the North Circular Road to Colney Hatch Lane. Some measures have been proposed to avoid this and deter motorists however movement through the site would still be possible and a number of vehicles are likely to use this route. Further deterrents would be required.
Travel by non-car modes The transport assessment does not assess the number of customer trips to the store by public transport or other non-car modes and measures to increase these non-car modes have not been considered. Access by pedestrians and bus users have been altered due to the amendment of the junction with Colney Hatch Lane. Although walkways are present the pedestrian route is less direct and the bus stop directly opposite the pedestrian entrance is lost.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTION
These are considered to be covered in the main body of the report.
4. CONCLUSION
In view of the concerns expressed above as regards to the impacts of the proposed extension it is concluded that the application be refused for the reasons attached.
40
LOCATION: Rear of 1 Brookside, East Barnet, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN4 8TT.
REFERENCE: N01779B/04 Received: 17 Sep 2004 Accepted: 13 Oct 2004 WARD: East Barnet Expiry: 8 Dec 2004 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs O'Brien
PROPOSAL: Erection of a two-storey detached house.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
1. Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is commenced.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.
2. Application for the approval of the reserved matters must be made before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
3. This development must be begun not later than whichever is the later of the following dates:-
(i) Five years from the date of the grant of this outline planning permission; or
(ii) Two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.
Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
4. Before this development is commenced, details of the levels of the building(s), road(s) and footpath(s) in relation to adjoining land and highway(s) and any other changes proposed in the levels of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details as approved.
Reason: To ensure that the work is carried out at suitable levels in relation to the highway and adjoining land having regard to drainage, gradient of access and the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the health of any trees on the site.
5. Before the development hereby permitted commences, details of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building(s) and hard surfaced areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 41 The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details as approved.
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality.
6. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use or occupied the site shall be enclosed except at the permitted points of access in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality and/or the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties and to confine access to the permitted points in the interest of the flow of traffic and conditions of general safety on the adjoining highway.
7. Before the development hereby permitted commences, details of enclosures and screened facilities for the storage of recycling containers and wheeled refuse bins or other refuse storage containers where applicable, together with a satisfactory point of collection shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be provided at the site in accordance with the approved details before the development is occupied.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance for the development and satisfactory accessibility; and to protect the amenities of the area.
8. Notwithstanding the provisions of any development order made under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order) the building(s) hereby permitted shall not be extended in any manner whatsoever without the prior specific permission of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the character of the locality and the enjoyment by existing and/or neighbouring occupiers of their properties.
9. Notwithstanding the provisions of any development order made under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order), the following operation(s) shall not be undertaken without the prior specific permission of the Local Planning Authority:
Insertion of windows in either flank elevation.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the character of the locality and the enjoyment by existing and/or neighbouring occupiers of their properties.
10. No construction work resulting from the planning permission shall be carried out on the premises at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, before 8.00 am or after 1.00 pm on Saturdays, or before 8.00 am or after 6.00pm on other days unless previously approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.
42
11. None of the dwellings shall be occupied until works for the disposal of sewage have been provided on the site to serve the development hereby permitted, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the foul water discharge from the site shall not be prejudicial to the existing sewerage system and the amenities of the area.
12. Development shall not begin until drainage works have been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the foul and/or surface water discharge from the site shall not be prejudicial to the existing sewerage system and the amenities of the area.
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Location Plan and 1494/1 received 17th September 2004.
2. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows:
The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G18, T1.1, H1.2, H3.2, H3.3, M2.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): GBEnv1, GBEnv2, Gparking, D1, D2, D5, D6, H16, H18.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Relevant Policies: Adopted UDP (1991): G1 – character/environment G18 – residential character T1.1 – Character/design issues H1.2 – Residential character H3.2 – Amenity space H3.3 – Private garden M2.1 – Off street parking
Revised Deposit Draft UDP (2001): GBEnv1 – Character GBEnv2 – Design Gparking – Parking D1 – High quality design D2 – Character D5 – Outlook D6 – Street interest H16 – Character H18 – Amenity space areas
Relevant Planning History: N01779A/04 - First and second floor side extension to provide granny annexe
43 Refused - 05-04-2004
Consultations and Views Expressed:
Neighbours Consulted: 42 Replies: 4
Internal Consultation: Traffic and Transportation – 2 off street parking spaces are required, cross overs should be between 2.4 and 4.8m in width.
Date of Site Notice: 11/11/2004
The occupiers of neighbouring properties have raised the following objections:
Direct overlooking of dining room, kitchen, rear bedrooms and garden Invasion of privacy Substantially changes outlook from property Proposal is over bearing, out of scale and too dominant for its position Loss of light Proposal is out of character and is out of place in this position Loss of street parking Loss of mature trees Increased noise and disturbance
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL Site Description and Surroundings The application site is land to the rear of 1 Brookside currently part of the rear garden of this property. The property is located on a corner site at the junction of Eton Avenue and Brookside and is in close proximity to Cat Hill. The land is on a significant slope running from the south west of the site to the northeast. As a result the road running parallel with Brookside is at significantly higher level.
The current property occupies a site of approximately 700m², which is significantly larger than the majority of the surrounding properties. A private access way runs along the north east of the site providing access to the rear of properties on both Eton Avenue and Brookside.
The general area is a mix of residential terrace properties; 8-storey block of flats and the site is located on the edge of East Barnet Village with all the associated facilities of a local town centre.
Proposals
Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached property to the rear of 1 Brookside. Although only siting is to be determined the plans indicate that the property will accommodate a living room, dining room and kitchen on the ground floor with bedrooms above. 2 off street parking spaces will be provided. The property is set back 4.8m from the back edge of the pavement, has a width of 8.1m and a depth of 6.5m. The proposed rear garden has a depth of 10m.
Material Planning Considerations Council’s policies with regard to new residential developments seek to ensure that they harmonise with and respect the character of the area in which they are situated, are well laid out in terms of access, car parking and landscaping and provide and preserve adequate residential amenity. In the case of creation of a new dwelling particular attention should be given to the size and design of the building as well as whether adequate parking and amenity space can be provided on site. Proposals
44 are expected to respect the constraints of a particular site to accommodate development and should not result in over-development.
Although this application is outline and only siting has been requested to be determined the agent has provided indicative plans showing the layout of the ground floor, a letter has also been received indicating that the proposal would be arranged over two storeys.
Character and Design Although details of design and external appearance will be required to be submitted as reserved matters the proposal is considered to be compatible with the character of the surrounding residential environment, which consists of a variety of different building types. The area intended for development is currently an area of hard standing used for parking and surrounded by 2m high fencing. The proposed location respects the building line created by properties on Eton Avenue and Brookside. The change in levels reduces the impact of the proposal on the area in general lessening the visible bulk particularly when viewed from properties at higher level.
Parking The parking provision meets the council’s standards as set out in Policy M14 in the revised draft UDP. The parking comprises one space within an integral garage and one space to the front of the proposed dwelling. As the parking for the existing house would be lost two new spaces are proposed to the front of the application site, no objection is raised to this by the Highways Department.
Residential Amenity The property does not directly face the windows of any habitable rooms in surrounding properties. The nearest property is approximately 13m away and is at an angle. Properties to the east located on Eton Avenue are at a significantly higher level and no overlooking from the proposal will arise. A condition restricting windows to both flanks has been imposed. Although the impact of the building’s bulk, height and location of windows cannot be considered at this stage it is considered that it will be possible to approve a scheme that will have an acceptable impact on the amenities of the occupiers of surrounding properties.
The proposed dwelling has a garden of 89m² which is considered sufficient for a property of this size.
Although located opposite the service area for shops on Cat Hill where there is significant vehicles movement it is not considered sufficient a reason to warrant refusal of the proposal.
3. CONCLUSION Overall it is considered that the proposal would be consistent with Barnet Council Unitary Development Plan policy and design guidance. The application is considered acceptable in terms of any impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupier’s and/- the appearance of the street scene and therefore approval is recommended.
45 46
LOCATION: 7 Cat Hill, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN4 8HG.
REFERENCE: N13042B/04 Received: 6 Dec 2004 Accepted: 6 Dec 2004 WARD: East Barnet Expiry: 31 Jan 2005 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Mr James Salaver
PROPOSAL: Variation of Condition 3 (opening hours) of planning permission N13042/02 dated 10/04/02 to open between 11:30am-11:00pm Monday to Saturday and between 11:30am and 10:30pm on Sundays.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
1. This development must be begun not later than five years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
2. The use permitted shall not be open to customers before 11.30am or after 11.30pm on weekdays or before 11.30am or after 10.30pm on Sundays.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Covering letter; Email dated 20 January 2005 amending requested opening hours to 11:30am-11:00pm; Email dated 21 January confirming Sunday closing time as 10:30pm.
2. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows:
The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): T1.1, E5.1, E6.1, S4.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): D2, D5, Env7, Env12.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies: Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1991): T1.1, E5.1, E6.1, S4.1 Revised Deposit Draft (2001): D2, D5, ENV7, ENV12 47
Relevant Planning History: N13042/02, Change of Use from A1 to A3, Approved at Committee 10 April 2002.
Consultations and views Expressed:
Neighbours Consulted: 12 Replies: 3
The objections can be summarised as follows: • The additional hours will increase the discomfort and disturbance to neighbouring residents that already exist from the presence of an A3 unit. • Odours from the restaurant, which already make it unpleasant to open the window, would become worse. • Additional disturbance caused at the rear of the property where access to the kitchen and access to the flats are in close proximity to one another. • Additional hours will result in additional noise smell and waste. • The additional hours will bring the restaurant into direct competition with the Coffee Lounge at 3 Cat Hill.
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL
Site Description and Surroundings
Site is the Larn Thai, a mid terrace ground level restaurant with seating for approximately 40 people. It is situated in a three storey terrace incorporating a parade of seven shops with flats at first and second floor level.
The surrounding area is predominantly of A1 class shops forming East Barnet Village which is considered as secondary retail frontage in the 1991 Revised Deposit Draft UDP.
Proposals
To extend opening hours from 5:00pm-11:00pm, 5:00-10:30 Sundays (as currently restricted by condition 3 of Application N13042/02) to 11:30am-11:00pm, 11:30am- 10:30pm on Sundays, to allow the restaurant to open over lunch trading hours.
This is an application to extend daytime opening hours only and will not impact upon the restaurant’s current closing times which will not change.
Material Planning Considerations
The opening hours proposed are not considered to impact significantly upon the amenities of neighbouring residents. Issues of noise and odour were dealt with in the initial application for a change of use from A1 to A3 and were confirmed as acceptable by Environmental health.
The proposed opening hours are in keeping with an A3 Class establishment within secondary retail frontage.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS
The impact of the additional opening hours upon discomfort and disturbance is not considered significant to refuse the application as the additional hours of opening are during the daytime, not into the evening.
48 Odour and noise output have both been considered acceptable by environmental health in the original application for A3 usage, the proposed extended opening times do not include any antisocial hours so these earlier opinions should still be considered valid.
Waste levels should not be significantly increased.
Competition between properties of A3 usage is not a material planning consideration as it has already been covered within policies.
4. CONCLUSION The extension of opening hours will not have a significantly negative impact upon neighbouring residential or commercial properties and should be approved.
49 50
LOCATION: 18 High Street, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN5 5RU.
REFERENCE: N09566G/04 Received: 21 Sep 2004 Accepted: 26 Oct 2004 WARD: High Barnet Expiry: 21 Dec 2004 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: ISIS Estates Limited
PROPOSAL: Demolish existing portion of building & re-build with amendment to the access through the existing building. New portion of building to include two rear dormers conservation roof lights to front elevation. Change of use from office to a three bedroom flat.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
1. This development must be begun not later than five years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building(s) shall match those used in the existing building(s).
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the building and the surrounding area.
3. Before the development hereby permitted is occupied the parking spaces/garages shown on Site Plan (received 20 January 2005) shall be provided and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles in connection with the approved development.
Reason: To ensure that parking is provided in accordance with the council's standards in the interests of pedestrian and highway safety, the free flow of traffic and in order to protect the amenities of the area.
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Drawing numbers 1146.001 received 21 September 2004, 1146.003 received 19 October 2004, 1146.002B received 19 November 2004 and Site Plan received 20 January 2005.
2. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows:
The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise 51 and the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G21, T1.1, H1.2, M2.1, M6.1, M6.2. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): GBEnv1, Gparking, D2, H16, M11, M12, M14.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies: Adopted UDP (1991): G1, G21, T1.1, H1.2, M2.1, M6.1,M6.2 Revised Deposit Draft UDP (2001): GBEnv1, GParking, D2, H16, M11, M12, M14
Relevant Planning History: N09556F/03: Removal of existing shop unit (18 High Street) to create new vehicular access, erection of 8 one-bedroom, 10 two-bedroom and 2 three-bedroom flats in two part three-storey, part four-storey blocks with associated car parking. Approved subject to a Section 106 agreement 10 March 2004 (not yet completed)
Consultations and Views Expressed:
Neighbours Consulted: 18 Replies: 1 (Consultation period had not ended at time at writing report. Further comments will be reported at the meeting).
The objections can be summarised as follows: - Approval already given for erection of 22 flats in two blocks to the rear of the property - Impact of additional three-bedroom flat on top of those already approved on water supply and traffic and parking problems - Demolition of part of building would damage aesthetics of existing building - Further flat development would upset the quality of life of existing residents
Internal/other comments:
Traffic and Transportation: - Provision of one space acceptable in this location - Application will not be acceptable on highways grounds unless a parking space can be provided
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL
Site Description and Surroundings The application site is a first and second floor unit located above the existing shop at 18 High Street. An application for the redevelopment of the rear of the site to provide 20 flats in two part three-storey, part four-storey blocks was approved subject to a Section 106 agreement on 10 March 2004. This would involve the removal of the existing shop unit at 18 High Street to provide adequate access to the rear of the site.
A postal sorting office previously occupied the unit above 18 High Street however the agent has advised that this use ceased six years ago. Since then the upper floors of the building have remained vacant.
Proposals The applicant seeks approval for the change of use of the first and second floor of 18 High Street to a single three-bedroom residential unit. This would involve the formation of a new door to provide access to the street, alterations to the roof
52 including the erection of two rear dormer windows and installation of three velux roof lights in the front elevation.
Material Planning Considerations The proposed change of use of this unit from office (B1) use to residential is considered to be acceptable. Council’s policies permit housing development in town centres through conversion and redevelopment of existing buildings except on the ground floor of primary and secondary retail frontages.
The proposed unit is considered to provide an acceptable level of residential amenity for proposed future occupiers. Independent access to the unit from the High Street is proposed. The proposed dormer windows in the rear roof slope would occupy less than half of the height of the rear roof slope and be set in from the party walls. The windows in the front elevation of the building will be conservation area style and have an acceptable impact on the appearance of the building.
The application would not be acceptable on highways grounds if parking for the additional unit could not be provided. However the development should be viewed in connection with the previous approval for the erection of 20 flats in two blocks to the rear of 16-20A High Street. The agent has indicated that one parking space can be provided to the rear of 18 High Street. This will not have an impact on the approved scheme for which 26 parking spaces have been provided (23 residential spaces and 3 spaces for the retail units at 16, 20 and 20A High Street). Previous applications for the conversion of the upper units at 16 and 20 – 20A High Street were refused however no additional parking could be provided.
Although the loss of a unit capable of generating employment may sometimes be resisted however in this case it is considered to be acceptable. The agent has advised that the unit has been vacant for six years and has been actively marketed during this period. It is therefore not considered to be reasonable to refuse the application for this reason.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS
Generally addressed in the report. An additional parking space for the occupiers of the proposed flat would be created. The proposed extensions and alterations are considered to be in keeping with the existing building.
4. CONCLUSION
The conversion of the first and second floors at 18 High Street to a single residential unit is considered to be acceptable. Additional parking can be provided. The proposal would be consistent will policies in the adopted and revised plans. The application is recommended for approval.
53 54
LOCATION: HIGH CORNER, Arkley Drive, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN5 3LN.
REFERENCE: N05841A/04 Received: 11 Oct 2004 Accepted: 11 Oct 2004 WARD: High Barnet Expiry: 6 Dec 2004 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Ms S Phillips
PROPOSAL: Conversion of garage into habitable room. Single storey side extension incorporating attached garage. Two-storey rear extension and single storey front extension. Repositioning of front entrance.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
1. This development must be begun not later than five years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building(s) shall match those used in the existing building(s).
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the building and the surrounding area.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of any development order made under Section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting that Order), the following operation(s) shall not be undertaken without the prior specific permission of the Local Planning Authority
No additional windows should be positioned in either flank elevation of the property.
Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.
4. Before the building hereby permitted is occupied the proposed window(s) in the first floor window elevation facing Ridge Cottage shall be glazed with obscure glass only and shall be permanently retained as such thereafter and shall be permanently fixed shut with only a fanlight opening, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are:- L04.581.021, L04.581.022, L04.581.023, L04.581.024, L04.581.025 and L04.581.026 received 11th Oct 55 2004 and L04.581.026 and L04.581.027 received 7th Dec 2004
2. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows:
The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G18, T1.1, H6.1. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): GBEnv1, D2, H27.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The application was deferred at the Chipping Barnet Area Planning Sub- Committee on the 11th January 2005 in order for the members to visit the site. A site visit has now taken place.
The application is reported back top the Sub-Committee with a recommendation to approve subject to conditions
The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant:
Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies: Adopted UDP (1991): G1 – Character G18 – Residential character T1.1 – Character/Design H6.1 – Extensions
Revised Deposit Draft UDP (2001): GBEnv1 – Character D2 – Character H27 – Extensions to houses
Design guidance Note Number 5 – Extensions to Houses
Relevant Planning History: N05841 – High Corner Arkley Drive Single storey side extension incorporating garage – Approved 26th July 1978
N01577B – Dapple Oak, Arkley Drive Conversion of bungalow into two-storey house together with part single, part two- storey rear extension – Approved 13th June 1980
N01577C – Dapple Oak, Arkley Drive Two-storey rear extension and single storey front extension – Approved 30th March 1988
Consultations and views Expressed:
Neighbours Consulted: 15 Replies: 3
The occupiers of neighbouring properties have raised the following objections: • Loss of light
56 • Possibility of damage to surrounding properties • Increased wear and tear on the surface of Arkley Drive
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL Site Description and Surroundings The application site is a large detached property located on the northeastern side of Arkley Drive. The road is wide and unsurfaced and is located on the edge of Green Belt. The properties located on the road have a wide variety of architectural styles and are of vary sizes.
The application site its self is a detached property in substantial mature gardens. The property has a carriage style driveway with off-street parking for several vehicles. The property has previously been extended with a two-storey side extension incorporating garages.
Proposals Planning permission is sought for a two-storey rear extension a single storey side extension, conversion of the existing garages to a habitable room and other front elevation changes.
The rear extension has a depth of 5mand is set of the boundary by 1m and is proposed to be two storey’s. The rear extension has a hipped pitched roof, which is to match and extend the existing roof.
The side extension projects from the north-facing flank by 3.75 and extends almost the full depth of the existing property being set back from both the front and rear elevation by 0.6m. A hipped pitch roof is proposed over and the extension is set of the boundary by 0.55m
The front elevation changes include the repositioning of the front door from the right hand side to the centrally located bay. The lower section of the bay is to be replaced with the main front door and porch. The existing entrance will be replaced with 2 windows to match the rest of the property. The existing garage doors will also be replaced with windows to match the existing property and is proposed to be converted to a habitable room.
Material Planning Considerations The application site is located in a road with houses of varying styles and sizes. Many of the properties have been extensively extended in the past and this is true of the property to the south of the application site known as Dapple Oak. This property has been extended from a bungalow to a two storey residential property. The property to the north of the application site is a relatively new addition having received planning permission in the early 1980’s and being built soon after. This property has a floor area far above many of its neighbours.
The main issue in this case is the effect that the proposal will have on the amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers and the effects of the proposals on the street scene.
Effects on Amenity Both the neighbouring properties have rear projections deeper than the application site itself. The proposed extension is sufficient distance away from the property to the north (Ridge Cottage) for it not lead to any harm. The property to the south (Dapple Oak) has been extended to the rear, and has no windows in this extension that will be affected by the proposal. There is a window in the side elevation of the original part of this property which faces the flank elevation of High Corner. It is accepted that some loss of light to this window may arise however this is considered marginal given that a gap between the two properties of 2.1m will be retained. In addition this
57 window in the flank elevation is a secondary window and the main window to this bedroom, which faces southwest will not be affected.
The single storey extension to the side will not effect the neighbour to the north, the height has been kept low in order to minimise impact and no loss of light will occur to the first floor windows located on this flank elevation.
Impact on the Street Scene The alterations to the front elevation are not considered harmful to the street scene. The proposals are considered respectful of the existing property and give it a more balanced appearance. The centrally located entrance way is typical of many of the properties in this road. As there is no typical architectural style in the road the changes to the front elevation will not appear out of character. New windows etc are to match existing windows and will give the property a unified appearance.
Although some planting will be lost as a result of the works as these are not subject of any preservation orders they are not the subject of this application and could be removed without any formal consents
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS Generally covered in the body of the report.
4. CONCLUSION The additions to the property are considered respectful of the existing property and its surroundings. Harm to the amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers is considered marginal and would not warrant a refusal.
58 59
LOCATION: BELFIELD HOUSE, Greenhill Park, New Barnet, Herts, EN5 1HG.
REFERENCE: N13214C/04 Received: 4 Nov 2004 Accepted: 4 Nov 2004 WARD: Oakleigh Expiry: 30 Dec 2004 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Ms Moira Garry
PROPOSAL: Change of use of house to a day nursery (class D1). Widening existing crossover and provision of 7 off-street parking spaces.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
1. This development must be begun not later than five years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
2. The nursery shall not be open at any time on Saturdays, Sundays or Public Holidays, or before 8.30am or after 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays.
Reason:
To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents.
3. The premises shall only be used for a day nursery or playgroup and for no other purpose in Class D1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).
Reason:
To enable the Local Planning Authority to exercise control of the type of use within the category in order to safeguard the amenities of the area.
4. The level of noise emitted from the extraction and ventilation plant hereby approved shall be at least 5dB(A) below the background level, as measured from any point 1 metre outside the window of any room of an existing neighbouring property at (address) at the time of this decision notice.
If the noise emitted has a distinguishable, discrete continuous note (whine, hiss, screech, hum) and/or distinct impulses (bangs, clicks, clatters, thumps), then it shall be at least 10dB(A) below the background level, as measured from any point 1 metre outside the window of any room of an existing neighbouring property at (address) at the time of this decision notice.
Reason
To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of 60 occupiers of neighbouring properties.
5. Before the development hereby permitted commences on site, details of all extraction and ventilation equipment shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in accordance with agreed details before the use is commenced.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the enjoyment or amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.
6. A scheme for acoustic fencing of the external play area and garden shall be submitted in writing and approved by the LPA prior to development. This scheme shall be fully implemented before the development hereby permitted is brought into use.
Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers.
7. The garden and external play area shall be used for no more than 3 hours per day. These hours shall be agreed in writing by the LPA prior to the use commencing.
Reason
To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the enjoyment or amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.
8. Before development commences, a report should be carried out by a competent acoustic consultant and submitted to the LPA for approval, that assesses the likely noise impacts from the development. The report shall also clearly outline mitigation measures for the development to reduce these noise impacts to acceptable levels. It should include all calculations and baseline data, and be set out so that the LPA can fully audit the report and critically analyse the contents and recommendations.
Reason
To ensure that the amenities of neighbouring premises are protected from noise from the development.
9. No more than forty pupils shall be registered at the school at any one time, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of occupiers of residential properties in the locality.
10. Before the building hereby permitted is occupied all window(s) in the side elevation facing no 40 Great North Road shall be fixed shut and glazed with obscure glass and shall be permanently retained as such thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason
To safeguard the privacy and amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.
11. No additional windows shall be inserted in the existing side elevation facing no 40 Great North Road .
61
Reason
To safeguard the privacy and amenities of occupiers of surrounding residential properties.
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Site Plan, 734.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
2. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows:
The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G18 and T1.1 Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): GBEnv1, D2, H27.
3. The details of acoustic consultants can be obtained from the following contacts: Institute of Acoustics: telephone number 01727 848195 Association of Noise Consultants: telephone number 01763 852958
The assessment and report on the noise impacts of a development should use methods of measurement, calculation, prediction and assessment of noise levels and impacts that comply with the following standards, where appropriate:
Dept of Environment: PPG 24 (1994) Planning Policy Guidance - Planning & Noise.
BS 7445 (1991) Pts 1, 2 & 3 (ISO 1996 pts 1-3) - Description & measurement of environmental noise.
BS 4142:1997 - Method of rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas.
BS 8223 :1999 - Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings: code of practice.
Dept of Transport: Calculation of Road Traffic Noise (1988).
Dept of Transport: Calculation of Railway Noise (1995).
Dept of Transport: Railway Noise & Insulation of Dwellings.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Relevant Policies:
Adopted UDP (1991):G1 , G18 and T1.1
62 Revised Deposit Draft UDP (2001): GBEnv1, D2, H27
Relevant Planning History:
N13214 - Erection of conservatory at rear. Approved 14-08-2002 N13214A - Change of use of house to a day nursery (Class D1). Refused 12/07/04 N13214B - Change of use of house to a day nursery (Class D1). Widening existing crossover and provision of 7 off-street parking spaces. Withdrawn 04/11/2004
Consultations and views Expressed:
Neighbours Consulted: 17 Replies: 1
The objections received can be summarized as follows:
Significant increase in traffic to and from property Inappropriate to the character of the area Proposed development would cause risk to road users
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL
Site Description and Surroundings
The application site is a corner property located on the north east side of Great North Road. A single storey rear conservatory has been added to property in previous years. There is a detached double garage located at the end of the rear garden with access from Greenhill Park.
Proposals
The applicant wishes to gain planning permission for change of use of the existing dwelling house to a day nursery (class D1) including widening the existing crossover and providing a total of 7 off-street parking spaces.
The ground floor would consist of two classrooms, a kitchen, reception, laundry and bathroom while the first floor would consist of three classrooms, an office and toilets. The proposed Nursery would specialise in providing Montessori Education. This system of education is both a philosophy of child development and a rationale for guiding such growth. It is based on the child's developmental needs for freedom within limits, as well as, a carefully prepared environment, which guarantees exposure to materials and experiences. Through this, the child develops intelligence as well as physical and psychological abilities. It is designed to take full advantage of the child's desire to learn and their unique ability to develop their own capabilities. The child needs adults to expose him to the possibilities of his life, but the child must determine his response to those possibilities. The main premises of Montessori education are:
• Children are to be respected as different from adults and as individuals who differ from each other. • The child possesses an unusual sensitivity and intellectual ability to absorb and learn from his environment that is unlike those of the adult both in quality and capacity. • The most important years of a child's growth are the first six years of life when unconscious learning is gradually brought to the conscious level.
63 Material Planning Considerations
Given that the proposal is for an employment generating use and the fact that it would provide not only a specialised but also very important local facility in the area, it is considered that the loss of the existing residential use in principle is acceptable in this particular case.
In relation to noise and disturbance the Councils Environmental Health Section advised that the most significant noise impacts to arise from the development would be noise from children both inside the property and in the garden, and noise from any extraction and ventilation equipment for the kitchen. Given that the property is located opposite a pub and next to a already noisy road (A1000), it is considered that with the strict adherence to the recommended noise conditions together with the erection of an acoustic fence, the proposed use would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the residential amenities of occupiers of surrounding properties. In addition a condition has been added to the proposal to restrict the opening hours between 8:30 –18:00.
In relation to traffic issues the Councils Traffic and Transport section advised that the parking provision complies with the parking standards set out in appendix 7.1 of the revised deposit draft of the UDP (Policy M14). The parking layout was amended to allow four dropping off spaces for parents at the front of the property. In this area there is sufficient space for the vehicles to turn around within the parking area and exit the site in a forward gear. An informative is also added to stagger the start times for the children attending the nursery both in the morning and at lunchtime. This would ensure that the four spaces provided are sufficient accommodate the proposed demand for parking shown in the parking survey for a nursery of this size. It is considered that the site is located in an accessible area that would encourage parents to arrive by means other than a private car and would reduce the overall trips by car. In addition, parents would be advised by the Nursery to use the dropping off area rather than parking on the public highway.
It is therefore considered that with the amended parking layout the application is now acceptable on highways grounds.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS
Dealt with in the appraisal
4. CONCLUSION
The application is consistent with policy and guidance and is an appropriate form of development in this residential area. The proposal is on balance considered acceptable and is therefore recommended for approval.
64 65
LOCATION: Murco Petrol Station, 45 Russell Lane, London, N20 0BB.
REFERENCE: N00162Q/04 Received: 29 Nov 2004 Accepted: 29 Nov 2004 WARD: Oakleigh Expiry: 28 Feb 2005 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Network Rail
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing service station and erection of a four- storey building to provide a total of 26no. self-contained flats. Associated provision of off-street parking and new access road.
RECOMMENDATION:
REFUSE
1. The proposed building, by reason of its size, height, bulk, siting, massing and design would be a cramped form of development, an unduly prominent and visually obtrusive feature in the street scene that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the locality contrary to Policies G1, G2, G18, T1.1, H1.2 and H3.1 of the Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991) and Policies GBEnv1, GBEnv2, D1, D2, D3 and H16 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001).
2. The proposed building, by reason of its size, height, bulk, siting, massing and design would result in an overbearing and visually obtrusive form of development and would cause overlooking and loss of privacy, detrimental to the visual and residential amenities of adjoining occupiers contrary to Policies G2, T1.1 and H1.2 of the Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991) and Policies GBEnv2, D2, D5, H16 of the revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001).
3. An adequate number of car parking spaces, manoeuvring space and a suitably located vehicular access route to meet the Council's requirements for the development are not proposed within the site, and this is likely to lead to obstruction and conflicting movements on the road network which would be to the detriment of the free flow of traffic and public safety contrary to Policies G21, M2.1 and M6.1 of the Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991) and Policies GParking, M11, M12, M13 and M14 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001).
4. No undertaking has been given by the developer to meet identified additional educational costs which would be incurred by the community as a result of the development, contrary to Policy EDN1.1 of the Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991) and Policy CS8 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001).
5. No undertaking has been given to secure the provision of affordable housing to meet the demand for such housing, contrary to policy H5 of the Revised Draft deposit Unitary Development Plan (2001).
INFORMATIVE(S):-
66 1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Location Plan (unnumbered), MGK/01, MGK/02, MGK/03, MGK/04, MGK/05, MGK/07, MGK/08, MGK/09, MGK/10
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Relevant policies in The London Plan Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London
Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies:
Adopted Unitary Development Plan: G1, G2, G15, G17, G18, G21, G23, T1.1, T1.2, EMP1.1, EMP 1.2, H1.1, H1.2, H3.1, H3.2, H3.3, H3.4, H4.1, H4.2, H4.3, M2.1, M5.2 and M6.1.
Revised Deposit raft Unitary Development Plan: GBEnv1, GBEnv2, GBEnv3, GParking, GH1, GH3, Env14, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D11, M4, M5, M11, M12, M13, M14, H0, H2, H5, H6, H16, H17, H18, H21, CS8, and EMP2.l
Relevant Planning History:
N00162C – Conversion to self-service and addition of canopy and wash bay – APPROVED 2.6.71
N00162E – Extension to store – APPROVED 23.8.71
N00162H – Erection of open car wash – APPROVED 7.8.72
N00162M – Extension to sales kiosk, installation of three new underground petroleum storage tanks, alterations to forecourt – APPROVED 16.6.93
N00162N – Replacement sales kiosk, installation of three new underground petroleum storage tanks, alterations to forecourt and new jet wash bay – APPROVED 17.11.93
Consultations and views Expressed:
Neighbours Consulted: 139 Replies: 5
The objections may be summarised as follows:
• Density • Visual impact • Overlooking • Loss of light • Height is out of character • Flats out of keeping • Noise from playground • Impact on community facilities • Impact on trees • Loss of outlook • Loss of a community service
The Coleswood and Simmons Way Residents Association objected to the proposals and 22 residents undersigned the letter. The objections were:
67
• Height is out of keeping • Inadequate parking • Poorly located play area adjacent to garages • Query the tenure of the units
The East Barnet Parish Residents Association object to the proposals on the grounds of density and height.
The Russell Lane Area Residents Association object to the proposal on the grounds of excessive density and contravention of the Council’s “Three Strand Approach”.
The Whetstone Society object to the proposal on the grounds of scale, visual impact and height.
The views of the Environment Agency and Metropolitan Police Crime Prevention Design Officer will be reported verbally at the Sub-Committee.
The application was advertised on site and in the local press.
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL
Site Description and Surroundings
The application site is located on the northwest side of Russell Lane, between its junctions with Russell Road and Gallants Farm Road; it lies directly opposite the junction with Beresford Avenue.
The area is predominantly residential, characterised by semi-detached and terraced houses of traditional suburban design (two storeys with pitched roof). The area has a spacious feel as Russell Lane is wide at this point and there is an island in the road to the east. To the west the houses fronting Russell Lane are set back from the road behind front gardens and wide verges.
A public house and a parade of shops with flats above (also two storeys) lie to the east. To the north are a group of three storey blocks of flats with flat roofs, beyond which are further three storey, pitched roof blocks of flats.
The site is currently occupied by a petrol filling station in active use. This comprises a single storey sales building at the rear of the site, and a pump island canopy. There is a car wash in the northwest corner of the site.
Proposals
The erection of a building part two storeys, part three storeys and part four storeys in height to provide 26 flats. 26 car parking spaces would be provided on the east side of the site, partly under the building and a play area and amenity space would be located at the rear of the site.
The buildings would be of a flat roof design, constructed in brick and render, with the fourth storey set back from the edges of the building.
The proposals include 9 affordable housing units.
Material Planning Considerations
68
The Proposed Use For Flatted Development
The site is currently occupied by a petrol filling station that is in use and provides employment. However, the level of employment generated by the use is limited. Given the site’s location within a predominantly residential area, a more intensive employment generating use would not be compatible with the surroundings and could give rise to unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance to adjoining occupiers. Furthermore, there are no development plan policies seeking the retention of local facilities such as petrol stations.
The site is surrounded by predominantly residential uses. To the south and west these properties take the form of single-family dwellings. However, Simmons Close and Russell Road contain purpose-built blocks of flats.
On this basis it is considered that the limited loss of employment that would result from the proposed development and the proposed development of flats would not be contrary to development plan policies, nor would it be out of character with the prevailing residential character of the locality.
The Impact Upon The Character of The Area
The existing buildings are set back into the site. The sales building is a single storey structure and the pump island canopy is approximately two storeys in height. The existing structures have a limited impact in the street scene. The prevailing storey height along Russell Lane is two storeys with pitched roofs.
The proposed building, as it fronts Russell Lane, has varying storey heights, which step up along the elevation. The part nearest to No. 43 Russell Lane is two storeys, which is of a similar equivalent height to the first floor eaves height of No. 43. The building then rises to a third storey, the height of which is at a similar level to the ridge height of No. 43. The building then steps up again to a fourth storey, which is set back from the front face of the building.
The existing pump island canopy is set back between 9 and 10 metres from the front boundary; however, the proposed building is set back only 4m from the front boundary. It would sit significantly in front of the adjacent houses to the west in Russell Lane. This, when considered alongside its unbroken frontage that would be taller than surrounding development, would give the building undue prominence in the street scene such that the building would draw attention to itself in the Russell Lane street scene. It would have particular prominence when viewed from Beresford Avenue as the site lies directly opposite the junction of Beresford Avenue and Russell Lane.
The proposed building is considered to be an unduly prominent and visually obtrusive feature in the street scene that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the locality.
Policies in the adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan seek to restrict densities for non-family housing to no greater than 235 habitable rooms per hectare. However, the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan states that densities should not be lower than 150 habitable rooms per hectare, but should be higher in more accessible locations – this being consistent with National Planning Policy Guidance.
The proposal contains 26 flats, which produce a total of 104 habitable rooms, located on a site of 0.17 hectares. This would produce a density in excess of 600 habitable rooms per hectare. Development plan policies suggest that higher densities should be restricted to accessible sites and town centre locations. The London Plan requires that the potential of sites should be maximised and sets out a density matrix for
69 different areas, particularly in terms of the accessibility of the site. However, the site does not fit easily within the matrix. The site is not located within a town centre and although a bus route operates along Russell Lane, the site is not particularly accessible.
The scale, height and site coverage of the proposed building results in a scheme that is cramped in terms of the levels of occupancy and density at the site, that would not reflect the prevailing character of the area.
The predominant character of the area is of semi-detached and terraced houses of traditional suburban design – being of two storeys with pitched roofs. The proposed building is of a flat roof design and is one continuous built form, albeit that the elevations are articulated by a series of recessed balconies. However, the blocks of flats immediately to the rear also have flat roofs. Furthermore, notwithstanding the fourth storey, the storey heights of the proposed building are consistent with those on the adjacent houses in Russell Lane. Whilst the building does not display the same architectural approach as the adjacent houses, it is more the scale, height and siting of the building that make it out of character with the area.
The Three Strand Approach sets out a strategy for protecting and enhancing the best of Barnet’s quality suburbs and delivering growth through high quality sustainable development and comprises the principles of Protection, Enhancement and Growth. Strand Two is appropriate to this proposal: “Protect and enhance Barnet’s suburbs of high quality”. New development will be considered in relation to its context, wider townscape and landscape qualities, rather than in isolation. Consideration of design and layout will be informed by these wider area characteristics as well as neighbouring buildings.
The Impact On The Amenities of Adjoining Occupiers
Currently the buildings that occupy the site are low-level and do not impact significantly upon adjoining occupiers’ visual amenities, nor by reasons of overshadowing, loss of light or overlooking. The proposal would introduce a building of greater height, mass and bulk that would be occupied on a residential basis with windows and balconies. Consequently, the proposal will lead to a significant visual impact upon the surrounding properties, will create greater overshadowing/loss of light and introduce new sources of overlooking.
No. 43 Russell Lane
This property lies immediately to the south west of the application site and is a two storey property with side facing windows and is positioned between 5 and 6 metres from the common boundary with the application site.
The proposed building would project, at two storey height, approximately 1m in front of and approximately 5m behind No. 43 Russell Lane. However, this would be at a distance in excess of 10m from the side wall of No. 43. The building rises to a third storey at a point 12m from the side wall of No. 43, but this part is of a similar depth to No. 43; however, 14m from the side wall of No. 43 its depth increases to project 3m in front of and 7m behind No. 43. The fourth storey would be 18m from the side wall of No. 43. It is recessed from the elevations, but would project approximately 4m behind No. 43’s rear wall.
It is true to say that the building will have a degree of visual impact upon this property and its garden, however, in view of the degree of separation, the impact could not be said to be overbearing. There would be some early morning overshadowing of No. 43’s garden, but the impact would not be harmful. Several side windows are proposed in the side elevation of the building, however, these are secondary
70 windows that could be obscure glazed or deleted altogether, if the proposal was considered to be acceptable.
1 to 12 “Coleswood”
This building is a three storey block of flats, within a group of similar blocks. It is set at an angle to the application site and is separated from it by an amenity space, sheds and garages. The distance from the common boundary to the nearest corner of the block is 21m. The flats have habitable rooms (lounges with balconies, kitchens and bathrooms) that face the application site.
The proposed building is L-shaped and the rearward projecting wing would be immediately adjacent to the site boundary, 14m wide (infilling the majority of the gap between the garages/sheds at “Coleswood” and the site boundary. Whilst this pat of the building would have some visual impact upon the amenity area, it would not be unduly obtrusive or overbearing when viewed from the flats themselves.
The building rises to its third floor 25m from the flats (4m from the site boundary) and is wider than the two storey part at 16m. The fourth storey would be 30m from the flats (9m from the site boundary), but is of the same width as the two storey element. The fourth storey wraps around onto the Russell Lane frontage, but that four storey part facing Russell Lane would be a minimum of 20m from the boundary of the site where it is adjacent to the garage court.
These higher parts of the building will have some visual impact upon the flats themselves and the amenity area, however, in view of the separation from the flats and the gradual setting back from the boundary with increasing height, the proposed development could not be said to be overbearing upon the flats. There is likely to be some overshadowing of the amenity area and loss of light to the ground floor flats. The flats are set at an angle to the building, and whilst the building would introduce new sources of overlooking, the separation distances comply with development plan standards, being a minimum of 21m, increasing with storey height. However, the building includes some large terraces to the second and third floor flats. These are considered to give rise to much greater levels of overlooking and loss of privacy than windows as people are outside the building and the range of view is greater.
Other Surrounding Properties
It is considered that the building would have some impact upon the visual and residential amenities of the properties that are in closest proximity to the siteas described above.
However, given the increased height, mass and scale of the replacement building as compared with the existing, it is true to say that the occupiers of other nearby properties, particularly in Russell Road, Simmons Way, Russell Lane and Beresford Avenue would also experience a significant impact upon their amenities. However, these properties would be further away from the development, for example 40m separation from 1 Simmons Way at the nearest point and it is not considered that there would be an overbearing impact upon other nearby properties.
The proposal would introduce a building of a greater scale and height than at present and would introduce new sources of overlooking. Nevertheless, views of surrounding properties from windows in the development would be at oblique angles and at distances in excess of development plan standards. Clear views of the private rear gardens of surrounding properties would arise; however, overlooking of this type is not uncommon in suburban residential environments and would not be sufficient to justify refusal.
71
Highway Issues
The site currently generates a significant number of traffic movements and there are entry and exit points onto Russell Lane; however, there is adequate space available on site, such that overspill parking on Russell Lane and the surrounding streets is likely to be limited.
The proposal provides 26 car parking spaces (including 1 disabled space). The proposed parking provision does not meet the parking standards set out in the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan – at least 10 more spaces would be required. This is likely to lead to parking occurring on adjacent streets, prejudicial to the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety. Furthermore, the parking arrangement does not allow adequate manoeuvring space.
The access road to the parking area is not wide enough to allow two cars to pass each other. The proposed location of the access could make movements confusing for drivers and a S106 Agreement would be required to amend the road markings in Russell Lane.
Section 106 Items
The applicant has indicated that 9 units of affordable housing would be incorporated in the scheme. As the development contains more than 15 units – there is a requirement to provide affordable housing. The level of affordable housing would be 35%, which is within the range suggested by development plan policy. The applicant seeks to justify this provision (as opposed to 50%) on the grounds of the clean-up costs of this contaminated site. However, no undertaking has been provided to secure the provision of the units.
The applicant has not indicated that a contribution towards the additional education provision resulting from the development would be provided.
Traffic and Transportation Officers have requested that any S106 Agreement should seek a financial contribution of £1000 towards amending the road markings in the middle of Russell Lane.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS
Considered to be addressed in appraisal.
4. CONCLUSION
The proposal to erect flats would be an appropriate re-use of this site. However, the height, scale, siting and design of the proposed building would give rise to a visually obtrusive building having undue prominence in the street scene and would be out of character with the locality. It would have a harmful impact upon the visual and residential amenities of adjoining occupiers. The parking provision, layout and access arrangements are not considered to be acceptable. The application fails to make provision for the resulting impact upon education provision as a result of the proposed residential units. No undertaking has been provided to secure the affordable homes identified in the proposals.
72 73
LOCATION: 20 Grange Avenue, London, N20 8AD.
REFERENCE: N07031D/04 Received: 17 Aug 2004 Accepted: 17 Aug 2004 WARD: Totteridge Expiry: 12 Oct 2004 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Mr J Dunton
PROPOSAL: Erection of two-storey extensions to both side elevations and erection of single storey front and rear extensions.
RECOMMENDATION:
REFUSE
1. The proposed two storey side extension on the northern elevation by reason of size, siting and design would be detrimental to the appearance of the existing property and to the character and appearance of this part of Totteridge Conservation Area, contrary to policies G1, G3, T1.1, T3.1 and H6.1 of the Barnet Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1991) and policies GBEnv1, GBEnv4, D1, D2, HC1 and H27 of the revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are:- PD/01, PD/02, PD/03, PD/05 received 17.8.04.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
This application was originally referred to the Chipping Barnet Area Planning Sub-Committee on 12 October 2004, but was deferred by the Members to allow a site visit to take place.
The site visit took place and the application was referred back to the Sub-Committee on 9 November 2004. At that meeting there was concern and discussion regarding whether trees to the side of the property would be lost or damaged, in view of the applicants comments and the views of the Council’s tree officer.
Both of these reports are attached as appendices.
The application was deferred for further consideration and discussion between the applicants’ arboriculturalist and the Council’s tree officer.
A recent site visit has taken place with the two specialists and the applicants’ arboriculturalist has submitted a report. This report suggests that hand digging and pile foundations should ensure the health and safety of the trees.
The Council’s tree officer has concerns, notwithstanding the above regarding the canopy of the trees and the need for the pile driver to gain access, and the inevitable pressure for future treatment of the trees, due to the proximity of the extension.
74 The planning inspector, in a previous similar proposal (1m wider than the current proposal) considered that the tree-lined access was an important feature of the conservation area and Grange Avenue.
Despite their undoubted amenity value and contribution to the character and appearance of the Totteridge Conservation Area, the Council’s street tree officer has expressed a view that, based on the individual condition of the trees, that he would not object to the loss of the sycamores, given the proximity of the proposed extension to the sycamores (which is less than that recommended in BS5837:1991).
It is not possible to guarantee that the proposals would not be detrimental to the health and future appearance of the trees.
On balance, and in recognition of the trees’ important amenity value, it is recommended that a condition requiring a detailed method statement for work within protective distances of the trees, such as hand digging and use of piles, should be given if Members are minded to approve the application.
Totteridge Conservation Area Advisory Committee felt that, notwithstanding the reduced scale of the proposed extension, the Committee’s comments of 11 June 2004 regarding applicationN07031C/02 remain relevant together with the appeal inspector’s comments as it is considered this proposal would result in a rather overbearing property which would reduce the gaps and views of the Green Belt in this semi-rural location and would also result in the damage and loss of trees and shrubbery.
Totteridge Residents’ association note that the scale of the proposal has been reduced and the design improved compared with the earlier application which was dismissed at appeal. However, it is considered that the proposal would significantly reduce the gaps and views of the Green Belt in this more rural part of Grange Avenue and would also cause the loss and damage of some trees and shrubbery.
Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G3, T1.1, T2.1, T3.1, E2.1, H6.1.
Revised Deposit Draft UDP (2001): GBEnv1, GBEnv4, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D12, D13, HC1, HC5, H27.
Relevant Planning History:
N07031 – Entrance porch, conversion of garage to habitable room, single storey front extension, and single storey side/rear extension. Refused 20th October 1981. N07031A - Retention of single storey garage in rear garden. Approved 24 September 2004. TREN07031B/02 –3 x Oak thin by 25% (standing in Group G6 of TPO). N07031C –Erection of two-storey extensions to both side elevations and erection of single storey rear extension. Refused 28 June 2002 and subsequently dismissed at appeal 12 May 2003.
Consultations and Views Expressed:
Advertised in the press and on site.
Neighbours Consulted: 4 Replies: 0
75
Internal/Other Consultation:
Conservation and Design Team: Strongly recommend refusal.
Trees: The proposed extension to the side elevation is shown to be 6m from closest Sycamore standing in Group G5 of TPO. Given the size and age of the tree, BS5837 guidelines would recommend a protective zone of at least 8m around the base of the tree. The proposals therefore provide insufficient room for an adequate protection zone around the Sycamore and construction could cause root damage that would be detrimental to the future health and appearance of the tree. The tree makes an important contribution to the character and appearance of the area and also provides a significant screen. Insufficient information is provided regarding size and position of pad supports (indicated in cross section A), or method of construction eg. Hand digging within protective zone around Sycamore in G5. Assuming that 1.5m construction working space would be required for construction of wall support beam and pad supports, and that pad supports would be at least 2m deep (depth of trench foundations shown in other cross sections), this method of construction is still considered to be likely to be detrimental to the health of the tree.
Given the proposed position of the kitchen window there is likely to be future pressure for treatment of protected trees. The proposed side extension will also be detrimental to non-TPO trees and hedging, which were noted for their importance in a recent appeal statement. Recommend: Refusal on basis of information submitted proposals are considered likely to be detrimental to trees of special amenity value.
PLANNING APPRAISAL
Site Description
The property is within Totteridge Conservation Area towards the end of Grange Avenue –which is a cul-de-sac. The property is setback from the highway edge by over 10m and has mature trees in the front garden. The property adjoins a wide tree lined access way leading into open fields to the rear.
Trees in the access way and in the rear garden are subject to Tree Preservation Orders.
Proposals
The proposals are to extend the property to both sides with two storey side extensions. On the southern side of the property the two-storey side extensions would be set behind an existing two-storey extension and would not be clearly visible from the front elevation. The extension on this elevation would be 3.3m in width and would project 2m beyond the existing rear elevation. A ground floor extension is proposed of 2m depth along the entire rear elevation.
A canopy on the front elevation of 1m depth and 8m width is proposed with 150mm thick timber supports. On the north elevation a 5m wide (narrows in part to 4.7m) extension is proposed. This projects forward 2.5m at ground floor level beyond the existing front elevation. The extension would also project 2m beyond the existing rear elevation at first floor level.
The changes between the new proposal and that dismissed at appeal are as follows: (i) The two-storey side extension has been reduced in width by 1m.
76 (ii) Both the north and south flank side extensions now project 2m rather than 3m from the rear elevation. (iii) The fist floor of the two-storey extension on the north elevation has been setback in line with the existing front elevation. (iv) The entrance canopy has been added to the front elevation. (v) The foundation details to the extension on the north elevation have been altered to pad supports at 3.5m centres.
Material Considerations
A similar proposal has already been dismissed at appeal. The Inspectors report is dated the 12 May 2003. It is considered to be a very strong material consideration.
The Inspector considered that the tree-lined access way was an important feature within Grange Avenue and the Conservation Area and that it would be harmed by the proposals.
The Inspector was highly critical of the bulk and mass of the two-storey side extension adjoining the access way in particular.
The Inspector considered that the extensions would be harmful to both Trees subject to a Preservation Order and trees within the Conservation Area.
The key considerations are whether the changes to the plans outlined above address the Inspectors concerns regarding impact on the Conservation Area and on trees. The proposals are not considered to impact on neighbour’s residential amenity.
A full copy of the Inspectors report is attached as an Appendix.
Impact on Conservation Area
The Inspector stated that he had no objection to the extension on the southern boundary or the single storey rear extension. The proposed canopy to the front of the house is also not considered to cause serious harm.
Notwithstanding the fact that most of the existing charm of the property (including an attractive understated entrance feature on the flank elevation facing the access way) would be lost by the siting of the two-storey side extension there are still concerns over the size of the extension.
The 5m width and 12m depth is such that it is considered that the extension would still be a dominant feature that would detract from the appearance of the existing property.
It is not considered that the reduction in with of 1m of the extension and removing the projection at first floor level to the front are sufficient to overcome the concerns raised by the Inspector. The sensitivity of the siting and the bulk of the extension are considered to be harmful to the character and appearance of this part of Totteridge Conservation Area.
Tree Impact
It is considered that the two-storey side extension on the north elevation would be detrimental to a TPO Sycamore Tree and to other trees considered to be of importance by the Planning Inspector.
The changes to the plans and information provided on foundation details are not considered to overcome the serious concerns regarding damage/loss of trees.
77
It is considered that the trees that form the boundary between 20 Grange Avenue and the access way are of high amenity value and that they make an important contribution to the character and appearance of Grange Avenue.
The application is not considered to address concerns regarding impact on these trees.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS
These are considered to be covered in the main body of the report.
4. CONCLUSION
The proposal is considered contrary to development plan policies concerning the protection of the Conservation Area and is considered to have an unacceptable impact on trees of high amenity value. The application is not considered to address the Inspectors concerns and is accordingly recommend for refusal.
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91
LOCATION: 32A Totteridge Common, London, N20 8NE.
REFERENCE: N02794W/04 Received: 16 Dec 2004 Accepted: 16 Dec 2004 WARD: Totteridge Expiry: 10 Feb 2005 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs B Vora
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing buildings on site including stables and riding school complex.
RECOMMENDATION:
REFUSE
1. The proposed demolition of the existing recreational buildings without planning permission for a suitable replacement development for the site would conflict with the need to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Totteridge Conservation Area, the Area of Special Character and Green Belt contrary to policies G3, O1.1, O1.2, T2.1 and T3.1 of the Barnet Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1991) and policies GBEnv4, O1, O2, HC1 and HC3 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (March 2001).
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are:- 707/06 rev A and 07 rev A.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Relevant Policies
Adopted UDP (1991): G1, G3, G4, T1.1, T2.1, T3.1, O1.1, 01.2, H1.2, and PPG2 and PPG15
Revised Deposit Draft UDP (2001): GGreen Belt, GBEnv1, GBEnv4, D2, D3, O1, O2, H16, HC1 and HC5
Relevant Planning History:
N02794B – Single storey accommodation for a night watchman. Granted limited (7 years) planning permission 24/07/73 N02794G – Part single part two storey building comprising new stables and two ancillary residential units. Approved subject to a legal agreement 11/07/85 N02794M: Continued use of buildings ancillary to the existing stable block for storage of 25 marquees and 2 vehicles on land at Totteridge Riding Stables Refused: Appeal dismissed 21.2.97 N02794N/00 –Demolition of existing buildings. Refused 20/5/00 N02794Q/00 –Demolition of existing buildings and residential development of site comprising of 3No. Two storey detached houses. Refused January 2001.
Consultations and views Expressed:
Neighbours Consulted: Replies: 92
The application was advertised in the Press and on site.
The objections received can be summarized as follows:
Conservation and Design section - Conservation and Design Team- The proposal is unacceptable and should be refused planning permission and conservation area consent, being contrary to Green Belt and conservation area policies. It is the retention of remaining agricultural uses that will ensure the special character of the area and its origins as n agricultural village remain and that the semi-rural quality of the area is not eroded.
Totteridge Conservation Area Advisory Committee – They object and reiterate the comments they made on the previous scheme.
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL
Site Description and Surroundings
The application site lies on the northern side of Totteridge Common within the Green Belt and Totteridge Conservation Area. It is also within the area shown in the UDP as a Countryside Conservation Area. The land to the north of the site forms part of an Area of Special Character stretching from Totteridge to Harrow Weald. The main factors for land being included are its architectural and historic interest and its high landscape value. Such areas are characterised by their traditional open landscapes, where traditional forms of land use have continued to the present day. They have considerable visual and aesthetic value, usually with a combination of small fields, hedges, copses, woods and ponds.
The application site has a semi-rural character and is currently used for the stabling of horses with associated structures and manage.
Proposals
The applicant wishes to gain Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the existing buildings on site.
Material Planning Considerations
General policy G4 states that the Council will safeguard the permanence and integrity of the Borough’s Green Belt. Adopted policy T2.1 states that the Council will not permit development which conflicts with the need to safeguard and enhance the landscape and townscape features which contribute to the identity of areas of special character. The main factors for land being included are its architectural and historic interest and its high landscape value. Revised policy HC5 is comparable. Adopted policy T3.1 states that the Council will not permit proposals, which conflict with the need to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas. . Revised policy HC1 is comparable
Adopted policy O1.1 will not permit development, which is not compatible with the principle functions and character of the Green Belt area. Those uses, which are generally acceptable, are listed in policy O1.2. Policy O1.4 relates to extensions and small scale developments within the Green Belt. Policy O1 of the revised plan will, except in very special circumstances, refuse any development in the green belt which is not compatible with its purpose and objectives, does not maintain their open character and would harm their visual amenity. Revised policy O2 refers to those developments considered appropriate in the Green Belt.
93 The Character Appraisal Statement for the Totteridge Conservation Area acknowledges Totteridge Common as an area set amid green fields imparting a distinctive semi-rural character. Totteridge common was untouched by the trend of denser housing spreading from the expansion of London. The introduction of Green Belt legislation preventing new residential development and protecting open land served to preserve the low density and the open nature of Totteridge Common characteristics still visible today.
The proposal involves the erection of a substantial two storey detached dwelling, comprising five bedrooms, a family bathroom, drawing room, kitchen, hall, dining, breakfast room, TV room, games room, utility, double detached garage and single storey Staff Lodge to the front. The proposed dwelling would have an overall width of 27m, depth of around 20m and height of 8.5m with a detached garage to the front some 6.5m x 6.5m in size. In addition a Staff Lodge is proposed to the front that would measures 9m wide, 7.5m deep and 5.5m high with a pitched roof.
The main issues in this case are:
(1) Whether or not the proposed new dwelling would represent an inappropriate development, detrimental to the function, character and appearance of this part of the Green Belt, the character and appearance of this part of the Area of Special Character and the character and appearance of this part of the Totteridge Conservation Area.
(2) Whether the proposals amount to very special circumstances to justify the grant of permission contrary to the general presumption against inappropriate development.
Residential development will only be appropriate within the Green Belt if it is for:
• Limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings • Limited infilling in existing villages (under particular circumstances) and limited affordable housing for local community needs (subject to certain criteria).
A temporary permission (7 years) was granted in July 1973 for a bedsitter bothey for a night watchman and limited to only an employee of the stables. There is no record of any further residential use on site and it is for the applicant to submit an application for a certificate of lawfulness if he considers that he has sufficient evidence to prove a residential use.
In September 1987 an application for the erection of two blocks of single and two storey buildings comprising loose boxes, tack rooms, an office, reception area and club room and the provision of six flats for staff were refused. A subsequent appeal ref: T/APP/N5090/A/88/091906/PS was dismissed on 19 September 1988. The Inspector who determined the appeal considered that the main issues in the appeal were whether there were sufficiently special circumstances to justify an exception to the presumption against residential development in the Green Belt; and the impact of the development in the landscape. The Inspector could not find any special circumstances to allow the proposed development and the appeal were subsequently dismissed.
It should also be noted that an enforcement notice was served on the property in August 1991 for making a material change to the use of the land, namely the commencement of the use of land: -
• For the storage of accident damaged motor vehicles; • For the storage and parking of vehicles and equipment other than in connection with the use of stables for the keeping of horses; 94 • As an office other than in connection with the use of the stables for the keeping of horses.
An appeal was lodged but subsequently withdrawn and the notice is still in effect. The proposal does therefore not fall within any of the above mentioned categories that would be appropriated in Green Belt and is therefore considered to be unacceptable in principle as residential use of the form proposed within the Green Belt is inappropriate development.
Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The agent considers that the proposal represents very special circumstances to justify the grant of permission. These very special circumstances are: -
• The substantial footprint of the existing buildings • The fact that the buildings detract from the character and appearance of both the Conservation Area, and impinge significantly upon the openness of the Green Belt and can readily be seen to do this from a distant ridge views and public paths • There is a level of activity including traffic generating arising from the stable which is in addition to the existing dwelling at a location where there have been a number of road traffic accidents
It is considered that none of the above very special circumstances argued by the agent, taken either by itself or in combination with others, amounts to a consideration sufficient to outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness, the harm to the character and visual amenities of the Green Belt and the harm to the openness that would be a consequence of the physical encroachment of the proposed development into the Green Belt.
It is considered that the presence of a two storey detached dwelling, detached garage and single storey Lodge would significantly change the character and appearance of the land and would not maintain its openness.
It should be noted that the proposal is identical to a previous planning application ref: N02794T/04 that was recently refused under delegated powers.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS
Dealt with in the main report
4. CONCLUSION
Given that no suitable application for replacement buildings has been put forward it is considered that the application is contrary to development plan policies intended to protect to the Totteridge Conservation Area, the Area of Special Character and the Green Belt.
95
LOCATION: 32A Totteridge Common, London, N20 8NE.
REFERENCE: N02794V/04 Received: 16 Dec 2004 Accepted: 16 Dec 2004 WARD: Totteridge Expiry: 10 Feb 2005 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs B Vora
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building and erection of a two-storey dwelling house, detached double garage and single storey staff lodge.
RECOMMENDATION:
REFUSE
1. The proposals would represent an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt and by reason of its size, siting and design would detract from the appearance and open character of the area detrimental to the Totteridge Conservation Area, Area of Special Character and Green Belt contrary to policies G1, G3, G4, O1.1, O1.2, H1.2, T1.1, T2.1 and T3.1 of the Barnet Unitary Development Plan and policies GGreen Belt, GBEnv1, GBEnv4, D2, D3, O1, O2, H16, HC1 and HC5 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan.
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are:- 707/06 rev A and 07 rev A.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Relevant Policies
Adopted UDP (1991): G1, G3, G4, T1.1, T2.1, T3.1, O1.1, 01.2, H1.2, and PPG2 and PPG15
Revised Deposit Draft UDP (2001): GGreen Belt, GBEnv1, GBEnv4, D2, D3, O1, O2, H16, HC1 and HC5
Relevant Planning History:
N02794B – Single storey accommodation for a night watchman. Granted limited (7 years) planning permission 24/07/73 N02794G – Part single part two storey building comprising new stables and two ancillary residential units. Approved subject to a legal agreement 11/07/85 N02794J – Erection of two blocks of single and two storey buildings comprising loose boxes, tack rooms, an office, reception area and club room and the provision of six flats for staff were. Refused September 1987 N02794M: Continued use of buildings ancillary to the existing stable block for storage of 25 marquees and 2 vehicles on land at Totteridge Riding Stables Refused: Appeal dismissed 21.2.97 N02794N/00 –Demolition of existing buildings. Refused 20/5/00 N02794Q/00 –Demolition of existing buildings and residential development of site comprising of 3No. Two storey detached houses. Refused January 2001. 96
Consultations and views Expressed:
Neighbours Consulted: 14 Replies: 0
The application was advertised in the Press and on site.
The objections received can be summarized as follows:
Conservation and Design section - Conservation and Design Team- The proposal is unacceptable and should be refused planning permission and conservation area consent, being contrary to Green Belt and conservation area policies. It is the retention of remaining agricultural uses that will ensure the special character of the area and its origins as n agricultural village remain and that the semi-rural quality of the area is not eroded.
Totteridge Conservation Area Advisory Committee – They object and reiterate the comments they made on the previous scheme.
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL
Site Description and Surroundings
The application site lies on the northern side of Totteridge Common within the Green Belt and Totteridge Conservation Area. It is also within the area shown in the UDP as a Countryside Conservation Area. The land to the north of the site forms part of an Area of Special Character stretching from Totteridge to Harrow Weald. The main factors for land being included are its architectural and historic interest and its high landscape value. Such areas are characterised by their traditional open landscapes, where traditional forms of land use have continued to the present day. They have considerable visual and aesthetic value, usually with a combination of small fields, hedges, copses, woods and ponds.
The application site has a semi-rural character and is currently used for the stabling of horses with associated structures and manage.
Proposals
The applicant wishes to gain planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings and erection of a two-storey dwelling house with detached double garage and single storey Staff Lodge.
Material Planning Considerations
General policy G4 states that the Council will safeguard the permanence and integrity of the Borough’s Green Belt. Adopted policy T2.1 states that the Council will not permit development which conflicts with the need to safeguard and enhance the landscape and townscape features which contribute to the identity of areas of special character. The main factors for land being included are its architectural and historic interest and its high landscape value. Revised policy HC5 is comparable. Adopted policy T3.1 states that the Council will not permit proposals, which conflict with the need to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of conservation areas. . Revised policy HC1 is comparable
Adopted policy O1.1 will not permit development, which is not compatible with the principle functions and character of the Green Belt area. Those uses, which are generally acceptable, are listed in policy O1.2. Policy O1.4 relates to extensions and small scale developments within the Green Belt. Policy O1 of the revised plan will,
97 except in very special circumstances, refuse any development in the green belt which is not compatible with its purpose and objectives, does not maintain their open character and would harm their visual amenity. Revised policy O2 refers to those developments considered appropriate in the Green Belt.
The Character Appraisal Statement for the Totteridge Conservation Area acknowledges Totteridge Common as an area set amid green fields imparting a distinctive semi-rural character. Totteridge common was untouched by the trend of denser housing spreading from the expansion of London. The introduction of Green Belt legislation preventing new residential development and protecting open land served to preserve the low density and the open nature of Totteridge Common characteristics still visible today.
The proposal involves the erection of a substantial two storey detached dwelling, comprising five bedrooms, a family bathroom, drawing room, kitchen, hall, dining, breakfast room, TV room, games room, utility, double detached garage and single storey Staff Lodge to the front. The proposed dwelling would have an overall width of 27m, depth of around 20m and height of 8.5m with a detached garage to the front some 6.5m x 6.5m in size. In addition a Staff Lodge is proposed to the front that would measures 9m wide, 7.5m deep and 5.5m high with a pitched roof.
The main issues in this case are:
(3) Whether or not the proposed new dwelling would represent an inappropriate development, detrimental to the function, character and appearance of this part of the Green Belt, the character and appearance of this part of the Area of Special Character and the character and appearance of this part of the Totteridge Conservation Area.
(4) Whether the proposals amount to very special circumstances to justify the grant of permission contrary to the general presumption against inappropriate development.
Residential development will only be appropriate within the Green Belt if it is for:
• Limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings • Limited infilling in existing villages (under particular circumstances) and limited affordable housing for local community needs (subject to certain criteria).
A temporary permission (7 years) was granted in July 1973 for a bedsitter bothey for a night watchman and limited to only an employee of the stables. There is no record of any further residential use on site and it is for the applicant to submit an application for a certificate of lawfulness if he considers that he has sufficient evidence to prove a residential use.
In September 1987 an application for the erection of two blocks of single and two storey buildings comprising loose boxes, tack rooms, an office, reception area and club room and the provision of six flats for staff were refused. A subsequent appeal ref: T/APP/N5090/A/88/091906/PS was dismissed on 19 September 1988. The Inspector who determined the appeal considered that the main issues in the appeal were whether there were sufficiently special circumstances to justify an exception to the presumption against residential development in the Green Belt; and the impact of the development in the landscape. The Inspector could not find any special circumstances to allow the proposed development and the appeal were subsequently dismissed.
98 It should also be noted that an enforcement notice was served on the property in August 1991 for making a material change to the use of the land, namely the commencement of the use of land: -
• For the storage of accident damaged motor vehicles; • For the storage and parking of vehicles and equipment other than in connection with the use of stables for the keeping of horses; • As an office other than in connection with the use of the stables for the keeping of horses.
An appeal was lodged but subsequently withdrawn and the notice is still in effect. The proposal does therefore not fall within any of the above mentioned categories that would be appropriated in Green Belt and is therefore considered to be unacceptable in principle as residential use of the form proposed within the Green Belt is inappropriate development.
Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The agent considers that the proposal represents very special circumstances to justify the grant of permission. These very special circumstances are: -
• The substantial footprint of the existing buildings • The fact that the buildings detract from the character and appearance of both the Conservation Area, and impinge significantly upon the openness of the Green Belt and can readily be seen to do this from a distant ridge views and public paths • There is a level of activity including traffic generating arising from the stable which is in addition to the existing dwelling at a location where there have been a number of road traffic accidents
It is considered that none of the above very special circumstances argued by the agent, taken either by itself or in combination with others, amounts to a consideration sufficient to outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness, the harm to the character and visual amenities of the Green Belt and the harm to the openness that would be a consequence of the physical encroachment of the proposed development into the Green Belt.
It is considered that the presence of a two storey detached dwelling, detached garage and single storey Lodge would significantly change the character and appearance of the land and would not maintain its openness.
It should be noted that the proposal is identical to a previous planning application ref: N02794T/04 that was recently refused under delegated powers.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS
Dealt with in the main report
4. CONCLUSION
The principle of a residential dwelling in this location is unacceptable in National and Local policy terms. The proposed scheme would cause demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance and there are no other material considerations, which outweigh the statutory protection afforded to Green Belt areas.
99 100
LOCATION: MEADOWSIDE CARE HOME, Holden Road, London, N12 7DY.
REFERENCE: N09665J/04 Received: 11 Oct 2004 Accepted: 11 Oct 2004 WARD: Totteridge Expiry: 6 Dec 2004 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: James Wallace
PROPOSAL: Submission of details of Conditions 6, & and 10 (materials, means of enclosure and landscaping) pursuant to planning permission N09665E/03 dated 19/11/2003.
RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are:- Samples:- a. Facing brick work to be - Gilt Yellow Multi stock (primary facing brick), - Charnwood Natural (rear corner only), b. Terracotta Rain Screen Cladding by James and Taylor to terracotta panels between windows, c. Terracotta blocks by NBS Group to gable end vertical central bay. (Finish as item b. above). d. Roof tiles to be Mini Stonewold Slate by Redland. e. Rendered blockwork: Colour light grey by K-rend.
- Attachment 0017M6869, - Received 24 September 2004. - Plan ASL001E. M6866 ASL001 E - Received 11 October 2004.
E- mail received from James Wallace of Hunter and Partners dated 15th November 2004 confirming that the species of the 11 Conifer trees to be planted adjoining the boundary with Station Approach would grow to provide screening of at least 3.5 metres in height.
Subsequent e-mail from James Wallace of Hunter and Partners dated 20th January 2005 confirming that the 'feature tree' shall be a semi - mature Japanese Maple at a height of 2m, and that the unidentified climber to the pagoda will be Clematis.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Relevant Planning History:
N09665E/03 Demolition of existing buildings and erection of part three, part four- storey building to provide 68-bed residential care home and 29 place day-care centre, erection of 2no.two storey blocks with rooms in the roof to provide 10no.terrace houses and erection of a three storey block to provide 10no.self-contained flats with associated changes to parking and landscaping. 101
Consultations and views Expressed:
A single objection was received in relation to the details submitted to the Local Planning Authority, the main points of which are summarised below: • The proposed screening between the application site and Station Close (to the east of the application) site is insufficient. • The minimum of a two storey screening was agreed for the original determination at the Chipping Barnet Area Sub-Committee meeting (held in November 2003). The screening was agreed in order to shield the development in Station Close from the habitable room windows on the eastern elevation of the proposed building at the application site. The proposed screening will not accomplish this sufficiently.
The application is brought to the Committee at the request of Cllr Coleman.
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL
This application relates to the discharge of three conditions pursuant to Planning Permission Reference N09665J/04. The conditions are as follows:
Condition 6 Materials
Before the development hereby permitted commences, details of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building(s) and hard surfaced areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details as approved.
Reason:
To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality.
Condition 7 Means of Enclosure
Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use or occupied the site shall be enclosed except at the permitted points of access in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason:
To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality and/or the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties and to confine access to the permitted points in the interest of the flow of traffic and conditions of general safety on the adjoining highway.
Condition 10 Landscaping - Details
A scheme of hard and soft landscaping including details of existing trees to be retained shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development hereby permitted, is commenced.
Reason:
To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development. 102
Officers Views:
Condition 6 : The Council is satisfied with the choice of materials for the external surfacing of the buildings, and the areas to be hard surfaced. The materials are appropriate for a development of this type and are in keeping with the character of the area.
Recommend : Discharge condition.
Condition 7 : The Council is satisfied that the points of access correspond to those previously approved, and the means of enclosure and boundary fencing as shown on plan ASL001 E are considered to be acceptable.
Recommend: Discharge condition.
Condition 10 : (Aboricultural Officer’s Views) The 11 Conifers planted for screening along the boundary with Station Close (as shown on plan ASL001E) are identified as 1.8m high Leylandii. This is a slightly golden form of Leyland Cypress, which is frequently grown for screening and capable of reaching considerable height. It is generally accepted that planted trees of this height are likely to establish better and can provide grater screening in the medium to long term than larger specimens.
Recommend: Discharge condition.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS
The issue of the maintenance regarding these trees has been raised, with adjoining occupiers concerned that the trees may not be properly maintained and able to grow to a satisfactory height.
In response, attention is drawn to condition no.12 of Planning Permission (N09665E/03):
Landscaping - Maintenance
Any existing tree shown to be retained or trees or shrubs to be planted as part of the approved landscaping scheme which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of the completion of development shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of appropriate size and species in the next planting season.
Reason:
To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the details provided pursuant to the above conditions are satisfactory and should be discharged accordingly.
103 104
LOCATION: 1-6 Station Close, London, N12 7EG.
REFERENCE: N09191E/04 Received: 26 Nov 2004 Accepted: 26 Nov 2004 WARD: Totteridge Expiry: 25 Feb 2005 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: D A S
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing block and erection of 4no. three/four- storey blocks to provide a total of 16no. self-contained flats. (OUTLINE).
RECOMMENDATION:
REFUSE
1. The proposed development by reason of its siting and indicative scale and bulk would result in an overly dominant and cramped form of development. In this respect the proposal would be contrary to Policy T1.1 of the Barnet Unitary Development Plan (Adopted 1991) and policies D2, D3 and D4 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001).
2. The indicative plans show windows to habitable rooms proposed in the side elevation adjacent to the Underground line and station. The proposal does not include a formal PPG24 Noise assessment and noise mitigation measures to ensure that the amenity of future occupiers of the development is not compromised by the proximity of Woodside Park Underground Station and the Northern Line contrary to Policy E6.1 of the Barnet Unitary Development Plan (Adopted 1991) and Policy ENV13 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001).
3. The development does not include a formal undertaking to meet the extra educational costs arising as a result of the development, contrary to policy EDN1.1 of the Barnet Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1991) and Policy CS8 of the Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (March 2001).
4. The development does not include a formal undertaking to provide any affordable housing to meet the demand for such housing in the area, contrary to Policy H5 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001).
5. The development does not include a formal undertaking to provide a contribution towards off site highways works to Station Approach which would be needed as a result of the as a result of the development. The increase in vehicular movements without these improvements would cause a hazard to safety and the free flow of traffic, contrary to Policy M2.1 of the Barnet Adopted Unitary Development plan (1991) and Policy M14 of the Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (March 2001).
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Relevant National Policy: 105 • Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing (PPG3) • Planning Policy Guidance Note 24: Planning and Noise (PPG24) • Circular 6/98 Planning and Affordable Housing
The Mayor for London, The London Plan – Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (relevant policies)
Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies:
Adopted UDP (1991): M2.1, M6.1, T1.1, E6.1, H3.2, CS8
Revised Deposit Draft UDP (2001): Env13, D2, D3, D4, M1, M4, M8, M10, M11, M12, M13, M14, H2, H5, H13, H14, H16, H17, H18, H21 and EDN1.1
Relevant Planning History: N09191 Erection of 10, two storey terraced houses with integral garages, access road and provision of nine car parking spaces in place of existing garages Withdrawn 8.2.89
N09191A Erection of pair of two storey semi-detached houses and three, 3 storey terraced houses with integral garages, access road and provision of five parking spaces in front of and three garages behind the existing block of flats Refused 2.11.89 Appeal dismissed
N09191B Erection of terrace of three, three storey houses and pair of semi-detached houses with integral garages. Formation of access road and provision of six parking spaces in front of existing block and two garages and stores block at rear Refused 24.4.90
N09191C Certificate of lawfulness Installation of patio door Lawful 26.3.92
N09191D Demolition of existing block and erection of 4 three/four storey blocks to provide a total of 16 self contained flats with associated changes to parking and landscaping (outline) Refused 25.11.03
Consultations and views Expressed:
Neighbours Consulted: 218 Replies: 8
The application was also advertised on site and in the local press.
The views may be summarised as follows:
• The new blocks because of their height will dominate the skyline out of character with adjoining properties. • Increased traffic in an area, which is already heavily congested given the proximity of the tube station. • The proposal would result in a higher density usage which when considered in light of the redevelopment of the adjoining site would result in an overdevelopment of the area. 106 • Overlooking and loss of privacy. • Safety given the proximity of the tube line. • Noise and disturbance.
The five residents of the existing flats and the Church Manager for St Barnabas Church wrote in support of the application.
The Finchley Society submitted the following comments:
• Taken with the redevelopment of the adjacent ‘Meadowside’ site the proposal results is overdevelopment and this application should be refused in its present form.
Thames Water - No objection
Transport for London - No objection
Environment Agency - No objection
Internal consultation
The Councils Traffic and Transportation Section were consulted. The parking provision meets the parking standards set out in the revised deposit draft of the UDP (Policy M14). The layout of the car parking area is now acceptable and the applicant has confirmed with emergency services that sprinkler system can be used to ensure that they can service the building.
The Councils Education section advised that there is a shortfall in primary and secondary school provision in the area, the proposals would generate a child yield and contribution, in accordance with the adopted SPG, towards education provision would be needed.
The Councils Housing section advise that affordable housing relates to ‘units gross’ which, means that the proposal would be above the 15 unit threshold in Policy H5 of the emerging UDP. Therefore 30% (5) of the units would be required to be provided at 50% of TCI.
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL
Site Description and Surroundings The site is located on the north side of Station Approach. There are 6 flats located in a three storey block at the front of the site. To the east of the site is London Underground land and Woodside Park tube station.
To the west (and sharing a common boundary) is the ‘Meadowside’ (58 Holden Road) site which is currently being redeveloped by Ealing Family Housing Association to provide a residential care home and day centre, 10 larger affordable houses and 10 shared ownership flats.
A minicab office adjoins the Woodside Park tube station on the northern side of Station Approach and car parking for the drivers exists to the southern side of Station Approach.
Access to the site is off Station Approach. Parking on site is currently located to the north of the block of flats. A large open area with ancillary sheds is located to the north of the car parking area.
Proposals 107 The proposal is to demolish the existing three storey block of 6, two bed flats and erect 4 part three/part four storey blocks of flats containing 7, three bedroom and 9, two bedroom flats. Each block would contain 4 flats.
Basement and some surface parking is proposed.
The planning application is submitted in outline form with siting and access to be considered at this time. Illustrative plans have been submitted for information, however they do not form part of this application.
Material Planning Considerations • The acceptability of the proposal having regard to PPG3. • Access and parking • Siting • The acceptability of the proposal having regard to PPG24. • Affordable housing • Whether the development would result in the community incurring extra educational costs, which should be met by the developer.
The Government is committed to maximising the re-use of previously developed land and empty properties to minimise the amount of green field land being taken for development. The chief objective of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing (PPG3) is to provide sufficient housing for future needs, ensuring that as many of the new homes as possible are built on previously developed land. PPG3 introduces a sequential approach to selecting sites for housing to ensure that green field sites are used only when no appropriate sites exist inside urban areas. The sequential approach identifies previously developed sites within urban areas as being the most suitable for development.
PPG3 advocates that local planning authorities should avoid developments, which make inefficient use of land (those of less than 30 dwellings per hectare); encourage housing development which makes more efficient use of land (between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare) and seek greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility such as town, district and local centres. The application site currently equates to 26 units per hectare and the proposals would equate to 70 units per hectare. The proposal in principle would therefore represent an efficient use of previously developed land.
This application is an outline application, where the only matters to be determined are siting and access. All other matters are reserved.
Siting Whilst the application has been submitted in outline the bulk and scale of the proposals shown on the accompanying indicative plans is not considered to comply with Policy H21 of the emerging UDP and Policies H4.1 and H4.2 of the adopted UDP.
In order to overcome concerns about the relationship between the proposed units and the new units at ‘Meadowside’ the new blocks would be orientated on an north/south axis. As a result habitable rooms (in particular bedrooms) are indicated to be located adjacent to the Underground line and without a PPG24 noise report there is a concern that these rooms could not be adequately protected to ensure the amenity of future occupants of these units.
Access The width of the proposed access road and footway and the layout of the proposed basement car parking spaces have been amended to overcome the previous concerns of the Councils Traffic and Transportation section. The proposal is
108 therefore considered to comply with policies M11, M12 and M14 of the Revised Draft Deposit UDP.
PPG24 The side boundary of the site is adjacent to the London Underground Tube line and in close proximity to Woodside Park Underground station. The indicative plans show that in order to overcome concerns about overlooking the buildings would be orientated on a north/south axis, as a result a number of windows, particularly to bedrooms, are shown to be located in the flank elevation adjacent to the Underground line. A PPG24 noise assessment should be undertaken and the noise mitigation measures considered prior to determination to ensure that these concerns can be satisfactorily dealt with so that the amenity of future residents is not compromised.
Section 106 Policy H5 of the emerging UDP advocates that when considering proposals for residential development of 15 or more units gross, the council will seek to enter into planning obligations with developers to ensure that a minimum of 30% of the units are affordable. Whilst the applicant has forwarded the argument that because of the existing flats on the site the development falls below the 15 unit threshold the policy clearly states that the ’gross’ not the net figure is applicable. As a result 5 units would be required to be made available to a Registered Social Landlord at 50% of TCI.
Because of its proximity to the station and the size and type of units being proposed the Council consider that the site is appropriate for the location of affordable housing.
Section 54a of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act requires that an application or appeal be determined in accordance with the development plan. Circular 6/98 advocates that where a Council considers that a site is suitable for inclusion of an element of affordable housing and an applicant does not make such a provision as part of the proposed development, such a failure could justify the refusal of planning permission.
The proposal would result in an increased child yield from the site. Policy IMP1 of the emerging UDP advocates that in areas with existing shortages of school places or where the development will create such a shortage then a financial contribution will be sought, via a legal agreement to meet the extra additional costs that would result from this proposal. There are currently shortages for the provision of nursery and secondary education facilities in Finchley and a contribution of £17,691 is consistent with the formula contained within the Councils Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Policy M13 advocates that “the Council will expect developers to provide safe and suitable access for all road users (including pedestrians) to new developments. Where it is necessary to make improvements or changes to the road network to ensure this, the council may require these to be financed by the development through the use of planning obligations attached to planning permission”. It is considered that a S106 contribution of £30,000 is required to be paid towards upgrading the width of Station Approach and providing street lighting to improve access to the new development and the station. The affect of increasing the number of occupiers from this site from 6 to 16 flats, increases the need for Station Approach to be widened between the cul de sac and the entrance to the Meadowside site. The width of Station Approach between the intersection off Holden Road and the Meadowside site, is considered acceptable for the proposed and existing number of users from all sites off Station Approach at the time of this decision.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS None
109
4. CONCLUSION The proposal represents a high density residential development. Whilst the development would reflect current local and government policy on creating sustainable development by making efficient use of urban land, the bulk and indicative scale of the development is considered to be overly dominant, resulting in an overedevelopment of the site. Accordingly, refusal is recommended.
110 111
LOCATION: 17 High Street, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN5 5UJ.
REFERENCE: N02493U/04 Received: 2 Dec 2004 Accepted: 2 Dec 2004 WARD: Underhill Expiry: 3 Mar 2005 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Quadron Investment Ltd
PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building and erection of new part three, part four-storey block to provide a total of 13 self- contained flats and 3 commercial units.
RECOMMENDATION:
REFUSE
1. The proposed development would provide insufficient on-site parking provision, thereby contributing to congestion in the area and causing a hazard to safety and the free flow of traffic, contrary to Policy M2.1 of the Barnet Adopted Unitary Development plan (1991) and Policy M14 of the Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (March 2001).
2. The development does not include a formal undertaking to provide a contribution towards the provision of open space or to meet the extra educational costs that would arise from the development. The proposal is therefore to contrary to Policy EDN1.1 of the Barnet Adopted Unitary Development Plan (1991) and Policies CS8 and IMP1.1 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001).
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are:- SU-001, SU-002, SU-003, SU- 004,SU-005, PL-001 rev A, PL-002 rev A, PL-003 rev A, PL-004 rev A, PL-005 rev A, PL-006 rev A, PL-007 rev A, PL-008 rev A and statement ref CA/1928.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Relevant National Policy: • Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing (PPG3) • Planning Policy Guidance Note 6: Retail (PPG6)
The London Plan, Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (relevant policies)
Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies:
Adopted UDP (1991): G1, G2, G17, G18, T1.1, T1.2, T1.3, E6.2, EDN1.1, H1.1, H1.2, H3.2, H4.1, H4.2, H4.3, M2.1, M5.2, R1.1, R1.2.
Revised Deposit Draft UDP (March 2001): GSD, GBEnv1, GBEnv2, GBEnv3, GBEnv5, GParking, GH1, GH2, Env13, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D8, D11, D13, M4, M5, M11, M14, H0, H13, H14, H16, H18, H21, CS8, IMP1, IMP2
112
Relevant Planning History:
N02493P Change of use from A1 to use of front for retail sales of exercise clothing and use of rear for aerobics studio/gym Refused 16.2.95
N02493S Conversion and alteration of first floor to increase number of flats from 2 to 3 Granted 1.6.99
N02493T Demolition of existing building and erection of part three, part four storey block to provide a total of 13 self contained flats and 3 commercial units. Withdrawn 13.10.04
Consultations and views Expressed:
Neighbours Consulted: 69 Replies: 1
The application was also advertised on site and in the local press.
The views may be summarised as follows:
* Overdevelopment of the area. * New development will only place additional pressure on existing over stretched public utilities. * Loss of a building with character. * Development unnecessary as many flats in the area remain vacant. * Additional traffic congestion and on-street parking.
Thames Water - No objections
Environment Agency - No objection
English Heritage (Archaeology) - Site lies within an Archaeological Priority Area and is known to have been used as a pub from the 1630’s. Request for archaeological desk based assessment.
Internal The Councils Traffic and Transportation Section were consulted. The parking provision does not meet the standards set out in the emerging UDP with no on-site provision for the residential units. There is no provision of secured and covered cycle storage.
The Councils Urban Design and Heritage Section were consulted. They advised that whilst this is a modern design, it would fit into the street scene and therefore subject to a number of conditions they raised no objections.
The Council’s Greenspaces Development Section were consulted. They advised that the proposal would result in additional pressure on already oversubscribed facilities and that as a result a financial contribution should be sought towards improving these facilities.
The Councils Education section advised that there is a shortfall in primary and secondary school provision in the area, the proposals would generate a child yield and contribution, in accordance with the adopted SPG, towards education provision would be needed.
113
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL
Site Description and Surroundings The site is located on the south west side of the High Street adjacent to Victoria Lane. The site is currently occupied by a two storey building with retail units at ground floor and residential units above. The retail units are currently occupied by Hunters Estate Agents (A2) and the Bed Shop (A1). To the north of the site is Graseby House part of the Barnet College campus.
The area is generally mixed in character with a variety of old and new buildings in predominantly commercial use with some residential accommodation on the upper floors. The site falls within the secondary retail frontage for the Chipping Barnet shopping area. The site also falls within an area of archaeological significance. Levels rise across the site
Proposals The application is for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a new part three, part four storey building to provide 3 commercial units at ground floor with 13 self contained flats above. Two off street parking spaces would be provided to the rear of the site.
The two ground floor units which would front onto the High Street would maintain a shopfront and it has been indicated would continue to accommodate the existing uses. The commercial unit to the rear of the site would provide office accommodation. The residential accommodation would be 6, one bed and 7, two bed flats. No off street parking provision would be provided for these units.
Material Planning Considerations
• The acceptability of the proposal having regard to PPG3. • Impact on the street scene. • Impact on the amenity of adjoining properties. • Highway safety. • Whether the development would result in the community incurring extra educational costs which should be met by the developer.
The Government is committed to maximising the re-use of previously developed land and empty properties to minimise the amount of green field land being taken for development. The chief objective of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing (PPG3) is to provide sufficient housing for future needs, ensuring that as many of the new homes as possible are built on previously developed land. PPG3 introduces a sequential approach to selecting sites for housing to ensure that green field sites are used only when no appropriate sites exist inside urban areas. The sequential approach identifies previously developed sites within urban areas as being the most suitable for development.
PPG3 advocates that local planning authorities should avoid developments which make inefficient use of land (those of less than 30 dwellings per hectare); encourage housing development which makes more efficient use of land (between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare) and seek greater intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility such as town, district and local centres. The application site would equate to 171 units per hectare. The proposal would therefore represent an efficient use of previously developed line in accordance with national legislation and policy H4.3 of the adopted UDP and policy H21 of the emerging UDP.
PPG6 advocates that local planning authorities should encourage mixed use developments which provide additional housing and create lively street frontages 114 within town centres. The conversion of older office buildings and upper floors above shops for flats are highlighted as being particularly suitable. The proposal would therefore, in principle, accord with national guidance and policy TCR13 of the emerging UDP.
The main issues therefore are the visual impact of the proposal on the street scene, car parking provision and community benefits.
It is considered that whilst this is a modern design, it is a fairly simple composition broken down vertically so that it would fit into the streetscene. It reflects the design of surrounding buildings such as the Police Station opposite. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policies D1, D2 and D4 of the emerging UDP.
The car parking court to the rear of the building would provide off street parking for 2 vehicles. Policy M14 of the emerging UDP requires that parking should be provided in line with current Council standards. A 1 bed unit would require the provision of 1 space and a 2 bed unit would require the provision of 1.5 spaces. In areas of high accessibility commercial units require the provision of 1 space per 200sqm. of floorsapce. The proposed development would require the provision of 19 spaces. As a result there would be a shortfall of 17 spaces. Whilst the Council recognise that this is a town centre location and therefore the lower requirement of 1:1 spaces may be applicable this would still result in a shortfall of 13 spaces to the detriment of highway safety and the free flow of traffic. The applicant has offered to enter into a ‘car free’ section 106 agreement – this being to the effect that future residents of the proposed flats could not apply for residents parking permits. The Council’s Traffic and Transportation section have advised that this would not be acceptable.
Section 106 Items The proposal would result in insufficient amenity space provision. Policy IMP1 of the emerging UDP advocates that the request for a contribution towards improvements in outdoor recreation facilities in this area is fairly and reasonably related to this proposal, as the proposed development would provide insufficient amenity space to comply with Policy H18 of the emerging UDP. The Council’s Greenspaces Development section has advised that a contribution of £1,800 per residential unit and £1,000 per commercial unit should be sought.
The proposal would result in an increased child yield from the site. Policy IMP1 of the emerging UDP advocates that in areas with existing shortages of school places or where the development will create such a shortage then a financial contribution will be sought, via a legal agreement to meet the extra additional costs that would result from this proposal. There are currently shortages for the provision of nursery and secondary education facilities in Finchley and a contribution of £6,124 is consistent with the formula contained within the Councils Supplementary Planning Guidance.
The applicant has indicated that they would be willing to enter into a legal agreement to secure these benefits.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS None
4. CONCLUSION The proposal represents a high density town centre mixed use residential and commercial development. Whilst the development would reflect current local and government policy on creating sustainable development by making efficient use of urban land, the shortfall in on-site parking provision is considered to contribute to congestion in the area and causing a hazard to safety and the free flow of traffic, Accordingly, refusal is recommended.
115
116
LOCATION: BARNET GENERAL HOSPITAL, Wellhouse Lane, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN5 3DJ.
REFERENCE: N01070CB/04 Received: 30 Nov 2004 Accepted: 30 Nov 2004 WARD: Underhill Expiry: 1 Mar 2005 Final Revisions: APPLICANT: Barnet Enfield & Haringey
PROPOSAL: Erection of part two, part three-storey mental health hospital to provide a total of 65no. beds, day hospitals and associated office space. Provision of new service roads, off-street parking and landscaping.
RECOMMENDATION I:
That the Borough Solicitor and Head of Planning be instructed to invite the applicant and any other person having requisite interest, to enter by way of an agreement into a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and any other legislation which the Borough Solicitor considers is necessary for the purposes of seeking to secure the following advantage:
(a) The contribution of £29,000 for amendment of the existing highway network required in order to mitigate the traffic implications of the development; (b) The implementation of a Travel Plan to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority which should include the appointment of a Travel Plan Coordinator; (c) The payment in (a) to become payable in its entirety within 28 days following a material start of any building implementing the planning permission with prior written notice to the Head of Planning 14 days before the implementation of development; (d) Paying of the Council's legal and professional costs of preparing the agreement and any other enabling agreements.
RECOMMENDATION II:
That upon completion of such agreement the Director of Environment or Head of Planning be instructed to approve planning application ref: N01070CB/04 under delegated powers subject to the following conditions:-
1. This development must be begun not later than five years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990.
2. The layout of the car parking area should be in accordance with drawing number 3440 D 12 Rev D and the parking spaces should be provided and not used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles in connection with the approved development.
Reason To ensure that parking and associated works are provided in accordance with the council's standards in the interests of pedestrian and highway safety and the free flow of traffic.
117 3. The Barnet Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust should produce a car parking management scheme for approval by the Local Planning Authority before the development is occupied which should be compatible with the controls at the adjacent Barnet General Hospital car parks.
Reason To ensure that parking and associated works are provided in accordance with the council's standards in the interests of pedestrian and highway safety and the free flow of traffic.
4. Before the development hereby permitted is occupied the upper car park and lower car park should be signed appropriately indicating the upper car park for disabled drivers and service vehicles only and the lower car park for use by staff and other visitors.
Reason To ensure that parking and associated works are provided in accordance with the council's standards in the interests of pedestrian and highway safety and the free flow of traffic.
5. Before the development hereby permitted is occupied the pedestrian and vehicular access between the site and West End Lane should be closed to pedestrian and vehicular traffic and permanently retained as such.
Reason To ensure that parking is provided in accordance with the council's standards in the interests of pedestrian and highway safety, the free flow of traffic and in order to protect the amenities of the area.
6. The sight lines and visibility requirements for all accesses must conform to the guidance set out in Design Bulletin 32. These sight lines must be achieved without the vehicle encroaching onto the footway.
Reason To prevent danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway and the premises.
7. Before this development is commenced, details of the levels of the building(s), road(s) and footpath(s) in relation to adjoining land and highway(s) and any other changes proposed in the levels of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details as approved.
Reason: To ensure that the work is carried out at suitable levels in relation to the highway and adjoining land having regard to drainage, gradient of access and the amenities of adjoining occupiers and the health of any trees on the site.
8. Before the development hereby permitted commences, details of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the building(s) and hard surfaced areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with such details as approved.
Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality.
9. Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use or occupied the site shall be enclosed except at the permitted points of access in accordance
118 with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality and/or the amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties and to confine access to the permitted points in the interest of the flow of traffic and conditions of general safety on the adjoining highway and to provide adequate noise screening.
10. Before the development hereby permitted commences, details of enclosures and screened facilities for the storage of recycling containers and wheeled refuse bins or other refuse storage containers where applicable, together with a satisfactory point of collection shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be provided at the site in accordance with the approved details before the development is occupied.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance for the development and satisfactory accessibility; and to protect the amenities of the area.
11. Before the building hereby permitted is occupied the proposed window(s) to the corridor in the eastern elevation facing 64 West End Lane shall be glazed with obscure glass only and shall be permanently retained as such thereafter and shall be permanently fixed shut with only a fanlight opening, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the privacy and amenities of occupiers of adjoining residential properties.
12. A scheme of hard and soft landscaping, including details of existing trees to be retained, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development, hereby permitted, is commenced.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.
13. All work comprised in the approval scheme of landscaping shall be carried out before the end of the first planting and seeding season following occupation of any part of the buildings or completion of the development, whichever is sooner, or commencement of the use.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.
14. Any existing tree shown to be retained or trees or shrubs to be planted as part of the approved landscaping scheme which are removed, die, become severely damaged or diseased within five years of the completion of development shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of appropriate size and species in the next planting season.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.
15. The development hereby permitted shall not be implemented (other than for investigative work) -
(a) Until a full site investigation, which shall include a geophysical study and
119 soil survey, has been carried out on the site in accordance with a recognised code of practice; and
(b) a risk assessment of any hazards identified thereby is provided to the Planning Authority; and
(c) a remediation strategy is submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority; and
(d) a verification report and completion certificate has been produced to and accepted by the Local Planning Authority to confirm that the remediation strategy has been completed.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory treatment of the site and to protect the amenities of the area.
16. The level of noise emitted from the site plant hereby approved shall be at least 5dB(A) below the background level, as measured from any point 1 metre outside the window of any room of an existing neighbouring property at the time of this decision notice.
If the noise emitted has a distinguishable, discrete continuous note (whine, hiss, screech, hum) and/or distinct impulses (bangs, clicks, clatters, thumps) then it shall be at least 10dB(A) below the background level, as measured from any point 1 metre outside the window of any room of an existing neighbouring property at the time of the decision notice.
Reason: To ensure the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties.
17. Before the development commences a report should be carried out by an acoustic consultant and submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval that assesses the likely noise impacts from the development. The report shall also clearly outline mitigation measures for the development to reduce these noise impacts to acceptable levels. It should include all calculations and baseline data and be set out so that the Local Planning Authority can fully audit the report and critically analyse the contents and recommendations.
Reason: To ensure the proposed development does not prejudice the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties.
18. Surface water drainage works shall be carried out in accordance with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the development commences.
Reason: To prevent increased risk of flooding and to improve water quality.
19. The development shall not commence until details of on site drainage works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. No works which result in the discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be commenced until the onsite drainage works referred to above have been completed.
Reason: To ensure that the foul and/or surface water discharge from the site shall not
120 be prejudicial to the existing sewerage system.
RECOMMENDATION III
That if the above agreement has not been completed by 1 March 2005 the Head of Planning REFUSE the application reference N01070CB/04 under delegated powers for the following reasons: 1. The development does not include a formal undertaking to provide a highways contribution for the amendment of the existing highway network in order to mitigate the traffic implications of the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies M1.4 of the Barnet Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1991) and M13 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (March 2001). 2. The development does not include the implementation of a travel plan to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority which should include the appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies M2.1, M6.1 and M6.2 of the Barnet Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1991) and M11, M12 and M14 of the Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (March 2001).
INFORMATIVE(S):-
1. The plans accompanying this application are: Drawing numbers 3440 D 08 A, 3440 D 09 A, 3440 D 010 A, 3440 D 35 C, Statement in support of a planning application and Transport Assessment received 30 November 2004, Plan 1, Plan 2 and Plan 3 and drawing number 3440 D 12 D received 20 January 2005, drawing numbers 3440 D 21 E, 3440 D 22 E, 3440 D 23 E and 3440 D 24 E, 3440 D 30 E and 3440 D 31 D received 24 January 2004 and drawing numbers 3440 D 15 D and 3440 D 32 D received 25 January 2005.
2. Advice from Thames Water:
Waste Comments: Increased flow from the development may lead to sewerage flooding. Impact studies of the existing infrastructure will be required in order to determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a suitable connection point. The developer will be required to fund this and early contact with Thames Water is recommended.
Surface Water Drainage: With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or surface water sewer. It must not be allowed to drain to the foul sewer as this is the main contributor to sewer flooding. Thames Water recognises the environmental and economic benefits of surface water source control and encourages its appropriate application where it is to the overall benefit of our customers. Hence, in the disposal of surface water, Thames Water will recommend that the applicant: a) looks to ensure that new connections to the public sewerage system do not pose an unacceptable threat of surcharge, flooding or pollution; b) check the proposals are in line with advice from the Defra which encourages, wherever practicable, disposal on site without recourse to the public sewerage system - for example in the form of soakaways or infiltration areas on free draining soils; c) looks to ensure the separation of foul and surface water sewerage on all new developments.
Where disposal of surface water is other than to a public sewer then the applicant should ensure that approval for the discharge has been obtained
121 from the appropriate authorities. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving network through on or off site storage.
3. The reason for this grant of planning permission or other planning related decision is as follows:
The proposed development accords with strategic planning guidance and policies as set out in the Mayor's London Plan (published 10 February 2004) and the Adopted Unitary Development Plan/Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan except where material considerations indicate otherwise and the following polices are relevant: Adopted Barnet Unitary Development Plan (1991): G1, G2, G3, G12, G18, G20, G21, T1.1, T1.2, T1.3, E8.1, E8.2, M1.4, M2.1, M6.1, M6.2. Barnet Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (2001): GBEnv1, GBEnv2, GBEnv4, Gparking, GSC1, Env9, Env10, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, M11, M12, M13, M14, CS1, CS10, CS11.
1. MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies: 1991 UDP: G1, G2, G3, G12, G18, G20, G21, T1.1, T1.2, T1.3, E8.1, E8.2, M1.4, M2.1, M6.1, M6.2
2001 UDP: GBEnv1, GBEnv2, GBEnv4, GParking, GSC1, Env9, Env10, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, M11, M12, M13, M14, CS1, CS10, CS11
Relevant Planning History:
N01070CA/04: Environmental Impact Assessment Screening Opinion. Decision that Environmental Statement is not required 9 November 2004
Consultations and Views Expressed:
Neighbours Consulted: 276 Replies: 11 (At time of writing report. Further comments will be reported at the meeting). The application was advertised in the press and on site.
The objections can be summarised as follows: - Lack of consultation of local residents - Development will be detrimental to amenities and character of High Barnet - Overdevelopment of site - Location of unit in close proximity to family homes - Access road narrow and in heavy use - Insufficient parking for high volume of cars - Appearance of buildings out of keeping with surrounding residential homes - High density of patients in small development - Loss of privacy to neighbouring homes and gardens - Noise and disturbance to residents from 24 hour admissions - Location of dustbin area, generator and electricity sub-station - Pollution and disturbance due to location of car park - Loss of public right of way - Public safety and crime prevention issues - Lack of amenities for patients
122 - Impact on conservation area - Loss of trees - Effect on traffic, access and parking - Proposed high wall - Use of materials - Security of secure unit - Traffic management in Wellhouse Lane - Council obliged to give consideration to alternative sites - Plan should show proposed trees and hedging extended to rear of properties on Bells Hill - Light pollution - Impact of parking area on neighbouring properties - Treatment of existing slope - Treatment of wall to be closed at West End Lane - Large number of schools close to facility who should be consulted - Retail community need to be consulted - Barnet General Hospital is not centrally or conveniently located within boroughs of Barnet, Haringey and Enfield - Inaccessibility of site - Loss of strategic views over London
Sir Sydney Chapman MP has requested that the views of his constituents are taken into account when the application is considered.
Internal/other comments
Traffic and Transportation: - Proposed parking provision consistent with level of demand albeit with level of restraint to try to reduce travel to site by private car - Parking provision acceptable in this location - Proposed top car park should be used as drop off point and for parking for disabled drivers only and should be signed accordingly (covered by condition) - Car park management scheme should be included as condition of any approval (covered by condition) - Gradient of ramp to lower car park should not be greater than 1:10 - Sight lines and visibility requirements should conform to Design Bulletin 32 - Pedestrian access from West End Lane should not be permitted as it may encourage staff or visitors to park in this location to access the site (Amended plans remove pedestrian and vehicular access) - Dropping off on Wellhouse Lane unacceptable - Existing yellow lines adjacent to secondary entrance point on Wellhouse Lane should be upgraded to include a loading restriction - Section 106 agreement required for contribution of £29,000 to improve existing highway network (to facilitate increase in traffic and reduce the impact on capacity at the Wood Street/Wellhouse Lane junction and Wellhouse Lane itself - Development will not be acceptable on highways grounds unless amendments to existing highway network are implemented (Covered by Section 106 agreement)
Traffic and Transportation (comments on revised plans): - Parking provision acceptable - Amended layout of upper and lower car parks acceptable - Recommend conditions relating to layout of parking area, parking management scheme, signage, closure of access from West End Lane, sight lines and visibility. - Previous concerns overcome
123 Monken Hadley and Wood Street CAAC: - Mass of building is acceptable but details of elevational treatment should match local brick and roof could be improved as it is on the edge of the conservation area
Thames Water: - Developer should contact Thames Water Development Control who will determine ability of local sewers to dispose of foul and surface water - Request relevant condition to be imposed
Environment Agency: - Removed objection in relation to provision of flood risk assessment (further to information provided by applicant) - Recommend condition relating to surface water drainage works
2. PLANNING APPRAISAL
Site Description and Surroundings The application site is located on the eastern side of the Barnet General Hospital site to the south of Wellhouse Lane. Barnet General Hospital has been redeveloped to provide new hospital buildings to the west of the site. Remaining one, two and three storey Victorian buildings to the eastern side of the site were demolished three years ago leaving an area of cleared land where the proposed mental health hospital is to be located. The ground slopes down from north to south and rubble from the demolition has been left on site thereby increasing general ground levels. The site is bordered by properties to the south of Wood Street to the north, properties on West End Lane to the east and properties on Bells Hill to the south. The site is adjacent to Wood Street Conservation Area which lies to the north and east of the site boundary.
Proposals The applicant seeks approval for the erection of part two, part three-storey mental health hospital to provide a total of 65no. beds, day hospitals and associated office space, provision of new service roads, off-street parking and landscaping adjacent to Barnet General Hospital. The building, which comprises two elements would be located to the north of the site with a new parking area to the south. The building to the west of the site, adjacent to Distribution Road, is intended to provide older adult inpatient facilities and day hospital as well as the reception and main entrance and accommodation for support facilities and Community Mental Health Teams. The block to the east of the site will provide two storey adult inpatient facilities. The building is mainly two-storey with a three-storey element in the centre of the site although the levels will be changed and the proposed building sunk into the site.
Proposed vehicular and pedestrian access to the unit and parking areas would be from Distribution Road, to the south of the building. The car park would be separated into an upper and lower parking area. The upper parking area would provide facilities for disabled parking, as well as access for deliveries, refuse collection and patient drop-off. The main parking area would be to the south with independent access from Distribution Road. There would be another pedestrian access to the adult day hospital to the north of the building from Wellhouse Road.
The plans that were originally submitted have been amended to increase the distance of the three-storey part of the building from properties on West End Lane. The design of windows in the south elevation of the eastern block has been altered to mitigate any impact on amenities of residents of West End Lane. The access to the site from West End Lane will be closed to vehicles and pedestrians and the generator and waste compound area has been relocated to another location within the car parking area.
124
Material Planning Considerations Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust seek permission for the erection of a new building on the site of Barnet General Hospital to provide a new facility for adult and older people’s mental health services. The purpose of the development is, firstly, to replace current substandard facilities at Colindale Hospital, Edgware Hospital and Barnet Psychiatric Unit on Barnet General Hospital Site and, secondly, to allow service improvements with local community-based services. The facility will provide two day hospitals for adults and older adults as well as inpatient services comprising 65 beds, administrative accommodation and offices for the community mental health teams. A review of the Trust’s services has concluded that existing facilities at Barnet General Hospital, Colindale Hospital and Edgeware Hospital should be replaced with a modern, purpose built facility on the application site.
Character and design issues The building has been designed in two parts to provide separate adult inpatient facilities to the east of the site and older adult inpatient facilities and a day hospital to the west of the site. A three-storey ‘overlap’ block in the centre of the site will link the two two-storey wings together. The site slopes down to the south from Wellhouse Lane. The building will therefore be set down from street level and will appear in keeping with the height and proportions of surrounding buildings on Wood Street and West End Lane.
The building is functional in design that reflects the nature of its proposed use but faced in brick. The use of traditional materials is considered to be in keeping with the character of the adjacent conservation area. Although the roof will be constructed of modern materials these will be pre-aged in order that views from the Conservation Area will not be detrimentally affected. Although the building is relatively large in scale due to it’s limited height and the slope of the land to the south it is not considered to be overbearing in appearance when viewed from outside the side. It should also be noted that buildings forming part of the original hospital previously occupied the site. A hospital ward to the north of West End Lane occupied much of the land that will be covered by the new building.
Residential amenity The erection of the new building is considered to have most impact on the properties on the north and south sides of West End Lane. The plans that were originally submitted with the application have been amended to show improvements to the layout of the building in relation to these dwellings. Changes to the southern elevation of the building have resulted in the design of the windows being amended so that although the distance between the block to the east and the front of residential properties on the southern side of West End Lane is 20 metres the windows of the unit do not face directly onto the residential properties opposite.
The ground floor of the three-storey part of the building opposite 75 West End Lane has been set back by 5 metres to a distance of 14 metres. The first and second floor gable end has been set back by a further metre. The windows in this gable end have also been relocated to ensure there is no overlooking of neighbouring residential properties. The windows at the end of the corridor in the eastern elevation closest to the garden of 64 West End Lane will be obscured to protect the privacy of existing residential properties. Additional landscaping has been introduced along the boundaries with all properties that will be adjacent to the car parking area to mitigate against any impact on neighbouring properties and their gardens. This is particularly significant in relation to the boundaries with properties at 92A Bells Hill and 75 West End Lane.
Highways
125 The application is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the management car parking areas and a Section 106 contribution for Traffic and Transportation to mitigate the traffic implications of the development.
Parking standards in the Revised Deposit Draft UDP state that the parking provision for use class C2 should be assessed individually for each application. The existing parking demand has been analysed in the separate Transport Assessment and the proposed parking provision is consistent with these figures. However the proposed level of parking includes a certain level of restraint to try and reduce travel to the site by private car in line with the aims and objectives of the accompanying Travel Plan. The level of parking is therefore considered to be acceptable in this location.
Conditions have been attached relating to the management of the car parks. Concerns have been raised by Traffic and Transportation that because the car parks are on separate levels vehicles will enter the top car park and find that no spaces are available and then have to exit the car park and enter the lower car park, leading to an increase in unnecessary vehicular movements in Distribution Road. A condition has therefore been included to ensure that the car park is signed accordingly.
The layout of the upper car park has been amended to minimise the potential for illegal parking through additional landscaping and road markings. The applicant has demonstrated that service and refuse vehicles will be able to circulate adequately. The number of disabled spaces proposed is considered to be acceptable. A pedestrian link between the upper and lower parking levels would be located within the site. The applicant has confirmed that the ramp to the lower car park would have a gradient of less than 5%. There will be no pedestrian or vehicular access from West End Lane. This will ensure that the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers are maintained and that staff and visitors are not encouraged to park in this location in order to access the site.
To date no car parking management scheme has been put in place however similar controls are required to the adjacent car parks at Barnet General Hospital. The Mental Health Trust has confirmed that it intends to manage the car park so that only staff, patients and visitors to the facility can use it however as details of the management strategy have not been provided a condition relating to the management of the car parks has also been included.
Traffic and Transportation have raised concerns over the location of the secondary pedestrian access to the building from Wellhouse Lane as it may be used for dropping off patients and staff rather than using the drop-off point in the upper car parking area. Due to the width of Wellhouse Lane and its use by emergency vehicles and buses this is unacceptable. In order to prevent dropping off in this location the Mental Health Trust has agreed to make a contribution for the implementation of a traffic order to prevent stopping or waiting adjacent to the unit. Contributions will also cover the cost of provision of new street lighting, the introduction of an anti-skid surface for the zebra crossing on Wellhouse Lane and improvements to the junction of Wood Street and Wellhouse Lane.
It is considered that the development would not be acceptable on highways grounds unless the amendments to the existing highway network are implemented. The applicant has agreed to make a contribution under a Section 106 agreement to mitigate the traffic implications of the development. As part of the Section 106 agreement the applicant is also required to implement a Travel Plan, the details of which are to be agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Environmental Health The revised plans show the proposed refuse storage area and generator relocated to be moved away from the boundary with West End Lane. The facilities will be located between the upper and lower car parks. This would meet the requirements of the
126 Environmental Health section in respect of likely noise and disturbance resulting from the development. The sub-station will remain in its existing position as it does not generate noise. In any case the pedestrian and vehicular access from West End Lane will be closed to protect residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
Environment Agency The Environment Agency originally raised an objection to the scheme as the Flood Risk Assessment submitted as part of the application was considered to be inadequate. However additional information has been submitted by the applicant to mitigate the concerns of the Environment Agency. Conditions have been recommended to ensure that adequate details are submitted prior to the commencement of the development.
Section 106 Items The applicant will make a contribution the investigation and implementation of amendments to the existing highway network to mitigate the traffic implications of the development. The applicant will also be required to submit and implement a Travel Plan and appoint a Travel Plan Coordinator.
3. COMMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS
Generally addressed in the report.
A number of objectors have raised concerns relating to the safety and security of the proposed use. The agent has advised that the facility will be a non-secure mental health unit providing in-patient and day-patient services for people experiencing mental health problems however only those deemed to be low risk will be treated at the facility. Medium and high risk patients will be treated at other facilities in the Borough. Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust have further advised that “the proposed development is designed primarily to improve upon current facilities for identified existing vulnerable groups. There is no intention to increase the number of acute inpatient beds. It is accepted there will be an increase in elderly bed provision but as previously stated with proactive care management this group should have little or no impact on the surrounding community”.
4. CONCLUSION
Overall the scheme is considered to provide appropriate accommodation for the provision of a new mental health care facility adjacent to Barnet General Hospital. The proposed building is considered to have an acceptable impact on the appearance of the street scene and adjacent conservation area. Amendments have been made to the plans to ensure that the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers will be protected. The application is acceptable from a highways point of view, subject to contributions to enable the improvement of the existing highway network. The application is recommended for approval.
127