Agenda item
73 Lockesfield Place, London, E14 3AJ (PA/19/00543)
Minutes:
An update report was tabled.
The Area Planning Manager (East) introduced the report which concerned an application for a part ground, part first floor rear extension to an existing dwellinghouse within the Lockesfield Estate. He advised Members that matters relating to houses in multiple occupation related to the application should be considered with reference to the National Planning Policy Framework and change of use; however it was noted that the application did not include an application for change of use. Additionally the Committee was not able to give weight to the Article 4 Direction under GDPO 1995. (?)
The Planning Case Officer then presented the report outlining the context of the proposal in relation to its neighbourhood and the relevant material planning considerations which were; design, scale, appearance and houses in multiple occupation. He informed the Committee that the application did not significantly differ in appearance from its surrounding properties. The design had been revised since its first submission and the application now proposed a shallower first floor extension and a deeper ground floor extension to that originally applied for. This revision would cause the extension to be less visible from neighbouring properties. There had been 32 objections from residents and 28 representations in support, 19 supportive representations were found to be invalid upon review for the purpose of Committee referral.
Responding to Members’ questions, the following information was also provided:
• Most objections originated from Lockesfield Estate but some were from outside the immediate locality.
• Planning permission was sought as the proposed extension was in excess of that allowed under permitted development rights.
• The application was not referred to Conservation and Design Officers for comment because it was a small development.
• It was not possible to advise whether the application would cause pressure on resources in terms of refuse collection service or additional impact on highways.
The Committee then heard from Councillor Golds and from an objector. They made representations against the application highlighting the following concerns:
• There were inconsistencies around the design of the application.
• The development would be seen from Chapel House Street Conservation Area and from nearby Millwall Park.
• There would be over occupation as the application was for a 5-bedroom house in multiple occupation and it was likely that each rentable room would be occupied by 2 persons.
• The development would place unsustainable demands refuse collection recycling facilities and highways.
• The property only had access to mixed waste refuse facilities.
• There were antisocial behaviour issues in the area which would likely be made worse by the development.
• The property did not have allocated parking or cycle storage spaces. Additionally the garage allocated to the property was being used by the applicant as builder’s storage.
• Operation of the developed property would be unsustainable and the applicant had misled potential tenants in this regard.
• Planning history outlined at page 78 of the agenda referenced enforcement activity. This suggested that the property was not used as a family home.
• The applicant has 11 properties at Lockesfield Place and should the application be granted, this would constitute a large HMO.
Responding to Members’ questions, the objectors provided the following additional information:
• The application contravened planning policy around overdevelopment in that, since 2017, the property had grown from a 3 bedroomed house to a 5 bedroomed property which was out of keeping with its surroundings and its intended use.
• Use of developed premises would also result in increased demand for water, sewage/drainage, refuse, parking, cycle and highways facilities. This in turn would place strain on these facilities for those already living in the area.
The Committee then heard representations in support of the application from the agent on behalf of the applicant and from a supporter. They outlined the following matters:
• The current recessed arrangement at ground floor level created unacceptable daylight levels.
• In modifying the application the applicant had intended to mitigate negative effects on amenity of neighbouring properties.
• The nature of occupancy of the premises would not affect the way that the premises were used as the impacts would be the same whether or not occupied by a family.
• The change of use was not material as it did not render it different in character.
• The concerns around a large scale HMO were not a material planning consideration.
• The development would continue to appear like much of its surroundings.
• The intended tenancies were to be single tenancies not lettings on a room by room basis.
• The application was intended solely to enhance the internal spaces of the premises.
• Concerns around antisocial behaviour were without foundation. Additionally family occupancy did not prohibit occurrence of antisocial behaviour.
Having heard from all parties, Members noted that they sympathised with concerns raised around houses in multiple occupation, however these were not relevant to the application. Members indicated that they were satisfied that the information provided was sufficient to proceed to a vote.
The Chair moved and on an unanimous vote in favour the Committee
RESOLVED:
That permission be GRANTED for the erection of a part ground part first floor rear extension to the existing dwellinghouse at 73 Lockesfield Place, London, E14 3AJ subject to conditions and informatives.
Supporting documents: