As you see, the images on Church Walk are a little out of date…
As you know, the developers of Church Walk House, Epsilon, are looking to sell the property with planning permission (here’s the brochure, in case you lost it).
At the same time, Epsilon are trying to amend the specifics of the consent they were granted at appeal.
This mystified me, so I emailed Douglas Lister at Epsilon. He replied:
The application for changes is merely for minor internal matters and things like installing electricity plant and doesn’t affect anything you would be interested in.
We are marketing to determine whether we should sell or build, which is dependent on what we get offered.
So, what are these changes exactly?
Tim G, on Prospect Road, has kindly provided this detailed analysis of the proposed changes:
There are 13 variations to the drawings which got approval on appeal. Some minor, some less so.
The developer submitted these to Barnet Planning some time ago as ‘minor variations’ to the consented scheme.
The planners refused this (to their credit) and said they weren’t minor. Now the developers have submitted the same variations on this separate planning application (17/6776/S73).
This looks as though it will go through the full planning process, and will be referred to committee in the usual way if five or more comments are received from the public.
The list of variations is:
- Stair relocated; and single lift.
- Relocated bin store.
- Ramp and terrace above reconfigured.
- New plant room for carpark extract.
- Cycle storage moved from front to rear.
- New substation.
- Internal layout of ground floor flats reconfigured (because of no.6.)
- Windows changed (to suit amended layouts).
- Detail and extent of roof plant ‘clarified’ (my inverted commas).
- Condenser units for houses added.
- Vent relocated.
- Solar panels revised.
- New rain water downpipes.
Of these, I think the most important are no. 9 (roof plant) and no. 12 (solar panels).
No. 9: On the drawings of the elevations, items of roof plant have been added, not clarified. They are at each end and look quite considerable additions to the roof level, and may have implications for noise as well.
No. 12: Mike has commented on this. The panels need to be flat not angled or upright.
Of the others:
1. is internal. 2. is internal in basement. 3. ramp is internal. The amendment to the terrace alters the rear elevation. 4. addition to basement at rear. 5. cycle storage now at rear. 6. internal addition (at top of ramp). 7. internal. 8. the indications on drawings are that these are window alterations on roof pods, although it’s not clear exactly how they’re altered. 10. This refers to item of mechanical plant for houses at rear of them. 11. this is on middle roof pod.
Meanwhile, Bill G on Lyndale Avenue has been chasing the council to push back the deadline for comments from the public.
This week, Bill received a reply from Alistair DeJoux, principal planning officer, which did not absolutely confirm a postponement:
I am still in the process of assessing the application and despite looking closely at the submitted drawings today I am not yet able to tell you how much levels would change for the basement and for any other parts of the building.
My understanding at this stage is that the maximum height of the building would not change, but that the finished floor level within the basement would be slightly higher and I will be looking closely as to whether that affects any other elements in the building height – as you will be aware, this varies considerably across the site.
I do not anticipate that we would be in a position to make a decision before the new year, and as always we will take all written comments into account right up to the time of writing our report and / or going to Committee.
So there you are.
If you want to add your voice to call for a delay, click this link and your email will open with Mr DeJoux’s address pre-loaded.