Agenda item
Walker House, 6-8 Boundary Street, London E2, PA/17/03009
Minutes:
Councillors Ahmed and Das did not participate in the consideration of this item.
The Development Manager introduced the report which concerned an application for change of use of existing office space to residential accommodation and construction of a two story building to the rear to provide office space in the courtyard area which is currently used as a car park. The application had been considered at the meeting on 13 June 2019 at which time it had been deferred for a site visit and for additional images to be provided.
The Planning Case Officer then gave a presentation in which he set out the context of the application site and highlighted the material planning considerations. These were; land use and housing (provision of additional housing and re-provision of office space), amenity, transport, design and heritage. The Committee noted:
· The design submitted was intended to be largely obscured and to have minimal on the surrounding heritage assets and adjacent conservation area.
· The additional graphical information that had been provided to enable members to better understand the context of the proposal including materiality and impacts on surrounding buildings.
Responding to Members’ questions, the Planning Case Officer also provided the following additional information:
· There had been 33 letters of objection and a petition which outlined concerns around the suitability of the design in the context of the surrounding conservation area and the impact of the development on its surroundings.
· The proposal would result in a loss of 7 parking spaces. After development there would be 13 spaces available.
· The development would be car-free although existing parking rights would be retained.
· The infill element would re-provide the current office provision at Walker House plus uplift.
· The current offices at Walker house would be replaced with residential units.
The Committee considered the proposed facing materials and the impacts on amenity over time.
Concerning what actions the Council might be able to take should the selected roofing material oxidise to a green copper oxide rather than maintain its red appearance, or what actions could be taken should the developer opt for cheaper materials, Members were informed that the chosen material was pre-oxidised and stable against further oxidation. Additionally planning conditions required materials to be agreed before construction; therefore the Planning Authority was able to inspect materials ahead of construction. Members were also informed that, should the material denature after construction, the Authority would not be able to require the applicant to make repairs that would restore the roof to its original appearance but could require reasonable measures of the applicant to ensure the appearance of the chosen material was maintained. A Member noted the advice offered but (since he had inspected a sample of the material and was not assured of its durability) was not assured that this measure would reasonably prevent the appearance of the development becoming altered over time.
Concerning what future action could be taken by the Authority to mitigate the potential loss of visual amenity from the conservation area (which could occur if the ivy that presently obscured the development site were to be lost or removed), Members were informed that there was no requirement to control through the planning method therefore it was not possible to guarantee that heritage views would be unaffected.
Members then discussed the proposal and put forward the following views:
· The site visit had helped to provide an understanding of the application in its proposed situation. On this basis there remained concern around the scale and design of the development and how these would appear from the surrounding heritage buildings
· The design was not sympathetic or suited to the surrounding heritage architecture.
· There remained some concern about the impact of the development on amenity as the effects of massing would be more evident from street level if, in future, the screening provided by ivy foliage should become eliminated.
· There was some concern that design and scale of the proposed development was such that it would noticeably impact its surroundings.
There being no further matters to discuss, the Chair moved that eligible Members vote on the officer recommendation and on a vote of 1 in favour and 3 against the Committee
RESOLVED:
Not to accept the recommendation to grant planning permission at Walker House, 6-8 Boundary Street, London E2, for change of use of first floor office space (use class B1a) to 4no. residential flats (use class C3). Construction of a two-storey building to the rear to provide approx. 400sq.m of office space (use class B1a).
Councillor Bustin proposed and Councillor Qureshi seconded that the application be refused and on a vote of 3 in favour and 1 against, the Committee
RESOLVED:
That the application be REFUSED.
The Committee provided the following reasons for refusing planning permission:
The height scale and mass of the proposed development and its appearance in terms of facing materials and roof form would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.
The limited public benefits of the development would not outweigh the harm that it could cause to the conservation area.
Supporting documents: