45 social rented homes at Garages Adjacent To Cropley Court Cavendish Street, London

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the garages and building 45 homes with amenity space, cycle parking, landscaping, play space and public-realm improvements.

“Demolition of existing garage structure and construction of 45 new residential dwellings (Use Class C3) with associated amenity space, cycle parking, refuse stores, hard and soft landscaping, play space, improvements to access and public realm, and other associated work…”

“Proposed Section AA - NHP2_ARC_CRO_6275 A Proposed Section BB - NHP2_ARC_CRO_6276 A Proposed Elevation North - NHP2_ARC_CRO_6250 B Proposed Elevation East - NHP2_ARC_CRO_6251 B Proposed Elevation South - NHP2_ARC_CRO_6252 B Proposed Elevation West - NHP2_ARC_CRO_6253 B C Bay Study - Typical Facade - NHP2_ARC_CRO_6350 A C Bay Study - Communal Entrance - NHP2_ARC_CRO_6351 B Cropley Court Open Space Diagram…”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site is a disused garage and courtyard within Cropley Court estate; it is outside conservation areas and has no previous planning applications.

“Cropley Court estate consists of a number of large housing blocks which span from Cropley Street in the west, New North Road to the east, and between Shaftsbury Street and Cavendish Street to the north and south. Within the centre of the site sits a large, poorly used courtyard and open space. This includes a hard standing previously used as a play area built upon a partially sunken garage block, which is now closed off to the public.”

“In the south eastern corner sits 89-132 Cropley Court, an 11 storey ‘H’ shaped tower block. Meanwhile, the north-eastern corner is enclosed by 133-196 Cropley Court, another ‘L’ shaped block which measures six stories in height. North of Shaftesbury Street is 1-30 Shaftsbury Street a six storey apartment block, which faces eastward.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because 45 affordable homes, public-realm improvements and sustainable design benefits outweighed harm to some neighbouring residents.

“On balance, the benefits of the proposal are substantial. This includes the provision of 45 affordable housing units, all of which provide good quality of accommodation, improvements to the existing public realm within Cropley Court including new play areas and improved communal open space, and a development which is deemed to be sustainable in terms of energy use.”

“The proposal would have an acceptable impact in respect of all other material planning considerations as outlined above, subject to the recommended conditions and Legal Agreement provisions.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

One objection cited loss of daylight and sunlight and flooding or drainage, while consultees generally raised no objection subject to conditions.

“- Loss of daylight/sunlight - Flooding/drainage…”

“No objection subject to conditions requiring a construction management plan, dust monitoring and NRMM restrictions. These have been attached.”

Officer report

Who spoke

No one registered to object, while a ward councillor, council housing officers, architects and the planning agent spoke in support.

What members discussed

Discussion covered the white-brick design, bin-store distances, solar panels, construction timing and possible privacy screening for balconies.

“During the course of a discussion a number of points were raised including the following: • The applicant explained the use of white brick instead of Buckland Court's red brick was due to the estates' different contexts. The white brick design was chosen as a backdrop to the trees, taking cues from adjacent buildings following a design competition.”

“The applicant's representative stated that the 34.5-meter distance for one apartment was an acceptable trade-off to avoid locating the bin store near the main entrance; • On Roof Features and Solar Panels, the Planning Officer confirmed that that the proposals would include a Photovoltaic (PV) panels condition; • The Planning Officer stated they could not provide a construction timeline for the proposals.”

Minutes

How the committee voted

Six councillors voted for the application, none voted against, and one councillor abstained.

“Vote: For: Cllr Michael Desmond, Cllr Jon Narcross (Vice-Chair), Cllr Ali Sadek, Cllr Ifraax Samatar, Cllr Sheila Suso-Runge and Cllr Jessica Webb (Chair). Against: None. Abstained: Cllr Penny Wrout.”

Minutes

What was decided

The committee granted conditional planning permission, subject to completion of a legal agreement.

“To grant conditional planning permission subject to completion of a legal agreement.”

Minutes