Agenda item
Lamb Court, 69 Narrow Street, London, E14 8EJ. (PA/18/00074)
Minutes:
An update report was tabled.
During the consideration of the item, the Committee heard from the following registered speakers Councillor James King, Ms L Carr and Mr P Patel spoke against the application which was recommended for approval. Mr Peter Camp representing the applicant spoke in support of the application.
Jerry Bell (Area Planning Manager (East) Planning Services) introduced the report which concerned an application for the erection of a four-storey building comprising a reception and concierge area on the ground floor and three residential units above.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee
Residents speaking in objection asserted that there were several concerns relating to the proposed development:
- the Lamb Court Management Company, which acted on behalf of residents, had not been consulted about the proposal for a concierge with full-time manager
- the tabled update report was inaccurate in that it did not accurately represent the impact of the development on residents’ access to fire escape routes at ground floor level, this caused concern around fire safety as not all of the routes indicated provided exit at ground floor level this would affect emergency egress from existing residential units
- there were concerns around loss of privacy as the proposed units would cause the bedrooms of existing properties to be overlooked. The proposed screens would not successfully remedy this
- environmental concerns arising from the proposal to remove six mature trees and replace these with young trees. It was argued that the loss of the mature trees would not be compensated equally by their replacement with immature trees
Councillor King, in addition to these concerns argued that
· the development did not propose any provision of social housing as required under Council policy
· by excluding such provision the proposal does not incorporate diversity or social inclusion in it design
· it did not identify with its neighbourhood as prescribed in S3.9 of the London Plan, nor did it provide evidence of social cohesion as prescribed by Infrastructure Levy DC1
· the proposed development was detrimental to the local environment
In response to Members’ questions the speakers offered the following additional information on areas of concern:
Ecological Matters
The removal of four mature trees and their replacement with four immature trees did not offer equivalent replacement since it would take 30 years for the environment currently provided by the mature trees to be restored. This position was argued on the basis that:
· Tower Hamlets was one of 13 London boroughs with poorest air quality
· according to studies, maple trees provide the best outcomes in terms of air purification
· the trees were accessible to residents of the development and to those of Albert Mews as this formed a public walkway
Consultation
The Committee was informed that residents had for many years sought to secure an amenity for a part-time caretaker. Recently the freeholder had indicated that there might be some amenity but no information had been provided in writing. Enquiries from Lamb Court Management Company for written details had not been responded to however a planning application had been submitted without notice. Additionally, at the time of the original development certain planning conditions had not been fulfilled such as the completion of Albert Lock and some issues around water leakage is still persisted at present.
Safety
Fire safety concerns centred around the existing building buildings which had been designed in an open horseshoe arrangement; residents safest route for escape was to the first floor garden which was presently not enclosed. However should the development taken place the addition of the Concierge would create a barrier to escape at ground floor level. Residents felt this was a pertinent matter in the context of recent fire safety concerns created by the Grenfell Tower fire.
Appearance
A Member of the Committee (referencing page 22 of the agenda) noted that the diagrams submitted in the report did not accurately represent the development and felt that this matter affected the Committee's ability to make an informed decision. Additionally it was asserted that the illustrations presented to the Committee at the meeting by officers which showed the scale and materials of the proposed development was not, as claimed by the applicant, harmonious with the existing development.
The Committee then heard from Mr Camp representing the applicant who spoke in support of the proposed development. He outlined the revisions that had been proposed which were intended to address the areas of concern. In summary the revisions were:
- changes to the design of the roof to align with the ridge of the existing terrace houses,
- development to be consistent with the proportions and materials of the existing development,
- existing fire escapes will be maintained and fire hydrants sited,
- the right of way in Albert Mews maintained,
- six trees removed and two replaced with new field maples which are to be ground-planted; additionally there would be increased planting in the development and installation of bird and bat nesting boxes.
The revised design would have no impact on the amenities of existing daylight or privacy since the design had been revised and balcony boundaries would be obscured to a level of 1.8 m. Consultations with residents were presently being undertaken indirectly via the Lamb Court Management Company. It was proposed that the ground floor space/concierge area would be operated by the management company at a peppercorn rent. The applicant had agreed to terms that a proportion of the proceeds from the sales would be used to fund services / activities in the concierge area. The development would cause no impediment to existing fire escapes.
Responding to members questions the following matters were clarified:
- there had been no direct correspondence with residents, all correspondence had been undertaken via the property management company the applicant believed that this group would liaise with residents.
- Mr Camp had been directed by the land owner to deal with the property management company.
- the meeting on 13 March 2018 to discuss objections been attended by neither the applicant nor the agent but by the planning officer and by residents
- concerning the design, the Committee was informed that the concierge had formed part of the original proposal and the intention was that Lamb Court Management Company would be offered unfettered use of the concierge at a peppercorn rent
- in relation to residents’ concerns on biodiversity the Committee was informed that there was unobstructed access around Albert Mews and in this area there was facility to plant trees and accommodate growth
- the additional information circulated in the update report had been submitted two days prior to the meeting as a request had been made by Building Regulation to produce plans of fire escapes
- it was intended that a lump sum would be provided to the Lamb Court Management Company upon completion of the development but this sum had yet to be determined
Mr H Vong, Planning Officer presented technical report which outlined the salient features of the development including revisions from the original proposal. The Committee then questioned the Planning Officer on matters relating to the issues which had been raised by the objectors.
Having concluded the discussion of the Chair moved that the Committee proceed to vote on the proposal.
Accordingly Councillor John Pierce proposed and Councillor Ruhul Amin seconded a motion and on a vote of two in favour, three against and one abstention in respect of the officer recommendation, the Committee did NOT AGREE the officer recommendation that planning permission be granted for the reasons set out below.
The Committee was minded to overturn the recommendation and refused permission because there were concerns relating to the following matters:
- the proposed development would not be in keeping with the conservation area, it was felt that the appearance of the building would differ significantly from existing properties
- the construction of the concierge would cause a public right of way to be lost
- the proposed development would encroach on other's houses and cause loss of privacy
- the loss of mature trees and their replacement those with younger specimens would cause detrimental environmental impact in terms of air quality and biodiversity.
Councillor John Pierce proposed and Councillor Ruhul Amin seconded an alternative proposal that the application be refused and on a vote of three in favour, zero against and three abstentions the application was refused.
RESOLVED
That the officer recommendation to grant planning permission for the erection of a four-storey building comprising 1x1b unit and 2x2b units above the proposed reception and concierge area on the ground floor be refused.
Reasons for Refusal
Conservation area
the proposed development by virtue of its design and materials would be out of keeping with other developments in the conservation area
Public right of way
the proposal for a concierge conflicts with the free flow of pedestrians
Loss of amenity
they would be lack of privacy for existing occupiers due to overlooking of the residential to dwellings by the balconies of the proposed developments
Environment and biodiversity
the loss of mature trees and replacement with immature trees negatively impacts air quality and biodiversity.
Supporting documents: