Agenda item
Regents Wharf. Wharf Place, London E2, PA/18/01676
Minutes:
Councillor Qureshi did not participate in the consideration of this item.
The Development Manager introduced the report which concerned a proposal to remove an existing roof at Regents Wharf and replace with a mansard style structure to provide 6 additional residential units. He advised that the application had been considered first in January 2019. It had been deferred and presented for decision in June 2019 at which time Members requested that the application be listed afresh because there had been changes to Membership and they felt that substantial new information relating to daylight sunlight assessments had been presented which merited full consideration.
The Planning Case Officer then presented his report. The Committee was informed that:
- Since daylight/sunlight levels had been a matter concern when the application was first considered, independent verification of the daylight/sunlight assessments had taken place. Results indicated that three windows failed the winter sunlight criteria.
- New cycle parking facilities had been redesigned and no longer impeded car parking. Additionally the applicant increased provision for cycle storage offering 20 cycle storage space is in the basement and an additional eight at ground floor level
- The overall building height would be 0.6m higher than the current height; this was in keeping with the surroundings in terms of size, scale and proportions.
Responding to Members’ questions the Planning Case Officer provided the following additional information:
- There would be loss of green space during the building works since this would be used as a construction site. However the space would be returned in total once the development was completed
- Details of how water would be harvested from the green roof were a matter for Building Control.
- Since the development was of a small scale, the proposal did not include provision of affordable housing.
- The construction of the green roof was to deliver a biodiversity gain. For health and safety reasons it was not intended that this area should be accessible as residents’ amenity space.
- Noise impacts of development and construction would be managed via a noise management plan and, if chosen by the developer, mitigated by off-site construction of some of the mansard elements.
- Noise proofing measures would be applied via mandatory conditions on appropriate noises limiting materials. The Development Manager advised that Members could, if they wished, condition noise limitation and transmission measures and the Committee indicated that it wished appropriate measures to manage noise impacts to be conditioned.
- The scale of the application was small and therefore it did not attract any financial contributions (S106). However there would still be CIL liability.
Responding to Members questions the Planning Case Officer provided the following additional information:
- The three windows which had failed the daylight/sunlight assessment were situated in the area of the building that formed an internal angle and were located across two flats.
- The assessment did not indicate the nature of the rooms that would be impacted by loss of light.
- There were no mandatory measures which could be imposed that would ensure that the impacts of construction above existing residential units could be mitigated in total. The Development Manager advised that the relevant policy was DM25 and that the construction management plan would deal with the impact of construction. However the Committee was not able to condition what the form of development should be.
- The development would not cause overshadowing of other neighbouring developments.
- Should it be required that private amenity space be provided for each of the new residential units, the size of each unit and the number of units would need to be reduced. Additionally the units would fall below policy compliance levels. However the scheme mitigated the lack of private amenity by the provisional provision of communal space.
- The mansard units were not under the category of ‘family space’ as they were to be located on the fourth storey of the building.
Members then heard from objectors who raised the following concerns:
- Following the original construction there had been several subsequent developments each of which had negatively impacted existing residents. Much of these developments had not been delivered efficiently and this had caused disruption and lack of confidence in the applicant's intention to deliver the changes in a considerate and timely way.
- The application failed to comply with policy on daylight/sunlight levels and on private amenity space.
- There would be material loss of winter sunlight to existing residential units. The impact of the reduction of light levels contravenes the levels those outlined in the local plan.
- The windows that failed the daylight/sunlight test represent one quarter of 12 windows tested. Two flats would be particularly impacted; one would have light levels reduced to 66% and another to 0%
- Five of the proposed six new residential units would have no private amenity space.
- The report did not properly reflect that the 26 letters of objection had originated from residents living at each of the current residential units.
- There were inaccuracies around the parking facilities that would be provided following development.
- The addition of residential units at roof level would cause additional overlooking.
- There would be adverse impact on the adjacent, soon-to-be listed, public house in terms of massing and overshadowing.
- The applicant had not provided sufficient information around waste storage and waste streams for the proposed residential units nor had a waste management plan been provided.
Responding to Members’ questions the objectors provided the following additional information:
- Residential units were double aspect however the rooms within each unit were single aspect.
- The conversion of the current pitched roof to a mansard would have a negative impact on light levels. Additionally the three windows which had failed the daylights/sunlight assessment also did not comply with the policy for private amenity space.
- Objectors acknowledged that the applicant’s daylight/sunlight assessment had been independently reviewed. However they remained of the view that the assessment did not accurately reflect the levels of sunlight that would be lost. The Legal Adviser to the Committee provided a clarification that daylight/sunlight assessments were based on estimations. Therefore objectors’ assertion that the report was inaccurate needed to be considered in this context.
- The application would overshadow an historic pub which the Council was in the process of listing.
The Committee then heard from the architect on behalf of the applicant who put forward the following arguments in support of the application:
· The land use was appropriate.
· The proposed housing mix represented a positive contribution towards housing need in the borough.
· The height of the property and type of design was appropriate to the context, as was scale and design.
· The applicant had sought to engage positively with residents and illustrated this by informing the Committee that the applicant had collaborated with residents to refurbish an communal amenity space. Additionally provision of amenity space across the development fell within permitted tolerances.
· The daylight sunlight levels were compliant with the Council’s requirements.
· Additional cycle storage had been provided.
· The development exerted no negative impact on local biodiversity; however the proposed green roof was not intended to be a residents’ amenity space.
· Refuse collection arrangements had been assessed and were found to be sufficient for the expected levels of occupancy.
· It was acknowledged that there would be construction disturbance during the build and that off-site construction of elements of the development had been considered as well as their cost implications
Having considered all of the information provided the Committee discussed the application and noted the following:
- There were some concerns around the lack of private amenity, daylight/sunlight impacts and disturbance from construction. However these concerns were not substantial.
- It was in the Committee's gift to suggest further planning conditions to ensure that noise and construction impacts were mitigated.
The Committee therefore came to the view that it was reasonable to approve the application subject to additional conditions.
Councillor Pierce proposed and the Chair seconded that compliance conditions be added and on an unanimous vote in favour the Committee
RESOLVED
That the following additional compliance conditions be mandated to the application
I. That prior to commencement a noise and sound insulation plan be drawn up and submitted.
II. That the hours of construction be amended to exclude the period Saturday 8am – 12 noon.
The Committee then considered the application with amended conditions. The Chair moved and on an unanimous vote in favour the Committee
RESOLVED
That the application be GRANTED at Regents Wharf. Wharf Place, London E2, for the removal of the existing roof structure and construction of a mansard style roof extension to provide 4x 1b2p flats, 1x 2b3p flat and 1x 2b4p flat with associated cycle parking and refuse storage facilities subject to conditions and informatives.
At 8:30pm the meeting adjourned and resumed at 8:35pm.
Supporting documents: