Proposal:

Erection of a two-storey building comprising of 2 residential dwellings with associated landscaping works.

Recommendation:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Paul Buckenham (Development Manager) introduced the application for the erection of a two-storey building comprising of two residential dwellings with associated landscaping works. He confirmed the reason why an application of this scale required a Committee decision is because  the Committee’s Terms of Reference specified that developments creating over 100 square metres of floorspace  on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) needs to be determined by the Committee.

Julian Buckle (Planning Services) presented the report, describing the site and surrounding area, and the relevant planning history. The Committee also noted the proposed layout and the outcome of the statutory consultation.

It was noted that Metropolitan Open Land is afforded the same protections as Green Belt Land within national policy (NPPF 2018).  Exceptions exist where development is allowed on the MOL when the land has been previously developed, and the proposed development has no greater impact on openness of the MOL.

The land was previously the subject of a planning appeal (see APP/E5900/W/15/3133876). In the decision, the Planning Inspector stated that this land was previously developed. With which the parties agreed. Accordingly, in order to consider whether the proposal is inappropriate development or not, the Committee Members were asked to consider the effect of the development on ‘openness’ and could accept that the land had been previously developed.

Officers concluded that the proposed development would not have a greater impact on openness than the existing structures and therefore complies with the policy relating to MOL.

In design terms, the proposal would respond well to the surroundings and would enhance the character and appearance of the Regent’s Canal  Conservation Area. A condition would be secured requiring details of the lighting to demonstrate that the site would be sufficiently lit. There would also be a net gain in biodiversity benefits through the provision of a green roof and landscaping along the western boundary. 

For the reasons set out in the report, Officers were recommending that the application was granted permission.

Members asked questions about the measures to protect the canal wall and sought assurances regarding continued public access to the pathway. Members also asked about the provision of additional planting along the pathway in view of the Canal and River’s Trust comments.  Officers confirmed that there was a proposed condition requiring a structural report and that this would need to be approved by Council Officers and the Canal and Rivers Trust  to ensure there would be no damage to the canal wall.  There would also be a condition requiring a construction management plan which would require measures to maintain access to the pathway during construction. There would also be a condition requiring details of the landscaping improvements and that this planting was maintained for the lifetime of the development. 

Members also asked questions about the impact from the railway arches, in terms of noise disturbance and whether the plans would obstruct the access point to the arches. Officers considered that the development’s proximity to the railway arches did not raise any undue planning issues. There would be measures to minimise any noise impacts as detailed in the noise report such as glazing and a ventilation system which would be secured via a condition. It should also be noted that the units would be triple aspect so should have a good outlook.

Members also sought assurances regarding the safety of the development and the provision of lighting given the isolated nature of the site. The Committee were reassured that the condition requiring adequate lighting should address any issues in this regard. 

Members also sought assurances about the suitability of the material in terms of preventing graffiti/helping with the easy removal of graffiti.  Officers provided assurances that the activation of the site should in itself offer a greater degree of natural surveillance and that the materials used as part of the development would be of a high quality. Officers would however take on board the issues raised by the Committee in respect of this and also the other issues raised by the Committee in formulating the future conditions for other applications.

The Committee also discussed the nature of the Council’s consultation and that affordable housing policy applied only to larger housing developments (with 10 plus units).  Accordingly, the development would not provide any affordable housing. However, it was noted that the proposal would be CIL liable. 

On a vote of 6 in favour and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED:

That planning permission be GRANTED for the erection of a two-storey building comprising of 2 residential dwellings with associated landscaping works subject to the conditions and the informative set out in the Committee report.