Agenda item
Lamb Court, 69 Narrow Street, London, E14 8EJ. (PA/18/00074)
Minutes:
It was noted that Councillor Mufeedah Bustin had not participated in this decision and therefore she absented herself from the meeting during the consideration of the item.
The Development Manager, Planning Services introduced the report and summarised that the application had been heard at the meeting on 19 July 2018. At this time the Committee had refused the application. He advised that it was a practice that where the Committee made a decision contrary to recommendations in the report, a report would be brought back to a future meeting to provide a commentary on the position relating to the Committee's reasons for refusal.
The Planning Case Officer then presented the report outlining which of the reasons for refusal which had been identified by the Committee would provide robust grounds in planning terms. The Committee was informed that the reasons concerning impact on conservation area and impact on neighbouring amenity were defensible in planning terms.
In accordance with Council procedure no further speaking rights were afforded to applicants or objectors since the Council's Constitution does not allow further speaking in cases where the Committee has already heard arguments and where no new information relating to the application is submitted.
Responding to Members’ questions Officers advised that the weighting attributed to each of the reasons for refusal was not related to the order in which they were published but related to the defensibility of each of the reasons offered.
The Committee discussed the impact of the loss of the mature trees in the context of the current and increasing poor quality issues in the borough and noted that these matters were given a low priority in the context of policies handed down by government
The Legal Adviser directed that, in considering its decision, the Committee should refer to the recommendations at paragraphs as 6.1 and 6.2 of the report.
The Committee then moved to vote on the officer recommendations set out at 6.1 and 6.2 of the report.
Recommendation 6.1 - On a vote of 0 in favour, 5 against and 1 abstention the Committee affirmed that it did not agree with the officer recommendation to grant planning permission
Recommendation 6.2 - The Committee then moved to consider and vote on reasons for refusal as set out in paragraph 4.2 of the report:
- On a vote of four in favour, one against and one abstention the Committee voted to include the reason for refusal relating to a net loss of biodiversity as set out in paragraph 4.2.1 of the report.
- On a vote of four in favour and two against Committee voted to include the reason for refusal which concerned the restriction of access to Lamb Court and Albert Mews.
- On a vote of five in favour, and one abstention t the Committee voted to include the reason for refusal related to failure to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Narrow Street Conservation Area resulting in significant harm to the character of the street scene.
- On vote of six in favour and none against the Committee voted to include the reason for refusal that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy.
In summary the Committee to voted to adopt all four reasons for refusal set out in paragraph 4.2 of the report.
The Committee RESOLVED
TO REFUSE planning permission for the erection of a 4 storey building comprising 1 x 1b unit and 2 x 2b units above the proposed Reception and Concierge Area on the ground floor.
Reasons for refusal
1. The proposed development would result in a net loss of biodiversity. As such the proposal fails to accord with Policy SP04 of the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy and Policy DM11 of the Tower Hamlets Managing Development Document.
2. The proposed development would restrict access to Lamb Court and Albert Mews. As such the proposal fails to accord with policies 3.9, 7.1-7.5 and 7.27 of the London Plan (2016), policies SP04, SP09, SP10 and SP12 of the Core Strategy (2010), and policies DM12 and DM23 of the Managing Development Document (2013). These policies require development to promote the principles of inclusive communities, improve permeability and ensure development is accessible and well connected.
3. The proposed development due to its height, massing and design would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Narrow Street Conservation Area and result in significant harm to the character of the streetscene. As such, the proposal fails to accord with policies 7.4, 7.6 and 7.8 of the London Plan (2016), policies SP10 and SP12 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2010), DM24 and DM27 of the Managing Development Document.
4. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy. As such the proposal fails to accord with SP10 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2010) and DM25 of the Managing Development Document (2013).
Supporting documents:
- Lamb Court deferral report Final, item 4.1 PDF 476 KB
- PA 18 74 Lamb Court Committee report, item 4.1 PDF 2 MB
- Update Report 19.07.18 Lamb Ct, item 4.1 PDF 107 KB