Nine homes and parking at 33 And 27-32 Ivy Road, Southgate, London N14

The site and surroundings

The 917-square-metre site contained eight vacant garages, parking bays, hardstanding, shrubs, trees and hedges beside residential buildings and allotments.

“The site is approximately 917sqm. The site currently contains 8 existing garages and approximately 9 car parking bays. It is “L” shaped. The site is mainly made up of single storey garage structures, a large area of hardstanding and an area of existing shrub land with trees and hedges. The garages are all vacant and have been for over 1 year.”

“There is a 3 storey building to the west of the site, number 27-32 Ivy Road, with a blank wall facing on to the flank of the site. To the east of the site is number 33 Ivy Road which is a two storey building with windows on the flank elevation that serve non habitable rooms. Numbers 21-26 Ivy Road is also to the west of the site and also 3 storey but set further back than number 27-32 Ivy Road. To the rear of the site are allotments.”

Officer report

Earlier planning discussions

Two pre-application discussions found the principle, design and layout acceptable, while identifying matters including amenity, parking, vehicle tracking and refuse collection.

“Principle of residential is acceptable in planning terms. • A number of suggestions made regarding the design of the units. • Confirmed that all units must have access to amenity. • Impact to existing residential amenity and overlooking within the development needed to be addressed.”

“The design of the proposal was acceptable. • The layout was acceptable. • An improved relationship between the front unit and 27-37 Ivy Road was required. • A Lambeth Style Parking Survey was required. • Vehicle tracking was required to be demonstrated. • No disabled parking space was required. • Demonstrate how refuse can be collected. • Clarification on the position of the cycle spaces for the front units. • A planning application was invited.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Transportation, Environmental Health and flood services raised no objection subject to conditions, while Urban Design identified matters addressed in the assessment.

“Transportation No objection raised subject to conditions relating to cycle parking.”

“Environmental Health No objection raised subject to conditions relating to dust management, non-road mobile machinery and contamination conditions.”

Officer report

Objections from neighbours

Forty-seven objections raised concerns about parking, height, privacy, overlooking, flooding, ecology, pollution, congestion, safety and overdevelopment.

“Consultation letters were sent to 69 neighbouring properties. Consultation ended on the 4 th April 2025. In total 47 objections were received. 11 of these objections did not provide their details. It should also be noted that numerous objections came from the same property addresses with different named persons. In summary the objections are as follows:”

“Inadequate distance to other properties • Impact to local ecology • Too high • Inadequate parking • Issues with the Parking Survey undertaken • Increase danger of flooding • Increase of pollution • Loss of light • Parking implications • Loss of privacy…”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

Two local residents spoke against the recommendation, followed by the planning agent representing the applicant.

Questions from members

Members questioned housing mix, energy, refuse, access, overlooking, height, light, transport, ecology, cladding and the reserved landscaping matter.

“In response to Members’ questions and comments regarding energy, refuse and access, officers replied that an energy statement had not been submitted, but there was a London Plan requirement for 35% which would be secured by condition, in addition to the water consumption element of this. Refuse was proposed alongside units 6-8, which was the most appropriate location for it and the windows had been designed to avoid any issues.”

“In response to Members’ queries relating to overlooking, distancing, height and light, officers responded that the applicant had indicated the 45- and 33- degree lines in relation to the ground and first floors respectively and there would be no breach with primary windows. There was no inter-looking at the site with balcony screening and non-habitable rooms served by obscure glazed or higher level windows.”

Minutes

The decision

Permission was granted subject to conditions, with delegated authority to finalise their wording.

“That the Head of Planning and Building Control be authorised to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions. That the Head of Planning and Building Control be granted delegated authority to finalise the wording of the conditions to cover the matters in the Recommendation section of this report.”

Minutes