Agenda item
Regency Court, 10 Norman Grove, London, E3 5EG - PA/18/00065
Minutes:
The report was considered in conjunction with item 5.2.
An update report was tabled
The Committee was informed that the implementation of the proposal at agenda item 5.2 (Appian Court) was contingent upon approval of the application at agenda item 5.1 (Regency Court) and therefore the Chair agreed that the items may be considered concurrently. However each application would be determined individually..
The Area Planning Manager introduced the report which concerned an application to demolish existing buildings at Regency Court, 10 Norman Grove, London, E3 and redevelopment to provide 32 residential dwellings (Class C3) with new hard and soft landscaping, ancillary service and plant, car and cycle parking, and associated works.
At the Chair’s invitation the Planning Case Officer presented a summary of his report outlining the proposed elements of the development and the key attributes. He advised that relevant planning issues to be considered were; the improvement of outdated housing stock, the conservation area adjoining the proposed development site, that the land-use contributed to the council's housing targets, that the design and heritage of the adjoining conservation area had been factored into the revised design, that although the separation distance was 3 metres shorter than that recommended, the Council’s policy did not specify a minimum separation distance, that there were daylight impacts to 2 units to the north but these were within acceptable levels, there would be a loss of sheltered units at the Regency Court development but this would be mitigated by the additional number of units that would be provided through the development of Appian Court. The Officer then presented a summary of the technical report for the development at Appian Court; this is recorded at minute 5.2.
The following relevant matters were highlighted:
- The distance between Regency Court and Appian Court was 1/2 mile.
- Sheltered housing lost from the redevelopment of Regency Court would be re-provided at Appian Court.
- The development was not assessed to have impact on the adjoining Bow neighbourhood conservation area.
- The proposal was assessed for impacts on overlooking and these were considered to be mitigated by the location of the proposed internal balconies.
- The sale of units at Regency Court would fund the development of Appian port.
- The development scheme also included Vic Johnson House which was launched in December 2017 and also contained a sheltered housing element to mitigate loss at Regency Court.
In response to member questions The Planning Case Officer, then provided the following information:
- The three sites in the development scheme, Vic Johnson house, Regency Court and Appian Court were owned by Gateway Housing Association.
- These three developments were linked and their delivery would yield a net gain of 14 social and sheltered housing over the whole scheme.
- The current sheltered occupancy at Regency Court was 21 dwellings. The applicant intended to vacate these sheltered housing units in preparation for development through natural transfers; once void the units would not be re-let.
- Council consultation on the proposal had comprised letters and site notices. 150 letters had been sent; 56 responses had been received, 54 of these objected to the proposal. Details of all representations were included in the report.
- There were also press notices on the proposed development
- The proposal would require 2 trees to be replaced.
- Concerning how the issues raised had been addressed, in the context of the high number of objections received as a proportion of the consultation letters sent, the Committee was advised that issues raised had focussed on the design and the distance between the proposed development and the adjacent conservation area.
- Although the separation distance was 15 metres and less than the recommended 18 metres, overlooking of nearby properties in Norman Grove conservation area would be mitigated by internal balconies. The 18 m recommendation was a guideline.
- In urban settings it was not unusual for separation distances to be smaller than which was policy recommended. If the recommended 18 metre separation distance were to be imposed on the development, it would impact negatively on the number of residential units that could be achieved. Notwithstanding, all applications were assessed on their own merits.
- Concerning what other methods might minimise the impacts of overlooking, the Committee was informed that overlooking issues had been dealt with during pre-application discussions with the applicant together with issues of height and separation. Should the development be stepped back, the provision would be reduced. Additionally, during these discussions the initial proposal which included external balconies had been revised to recessed balconies as mitigation. Officers had been mindful of the extent of the representations concerning overlooking and therefore had sought suitable mitigation not only in this regard but also in relation to heritage and design.
- Concerning issues around massing, Members were advised that the height differential between the existing buildings at Norman Grove and the proposed development was between 0.6 – 2.6 metres across the development site. Additionally considerations of enhancement not only related to reducing impact but also inclusion of other desirable features and benefits that the development would bring.
- The children's centre to the north of Regency Court was Council owned.
- The provision of play space in the scheme exceeded the minimum required under the Council's planning policy
- The results of the consultations revealed concerns around design, amenity and housing. Officers’ responses were provided in Sections 5.10 – 5.21 and in Section 6 of the report.
- In regard to concern around the existing social infrastructure, three disabled parking bays were planned. Members were also advised that the development fell within car-free zone.
Councillor Golds contended that the scale of the development and the narrowness of the separation were such that the bedrooms of residents in the adjacent Norman Grove terrace would be overlooked by occupants of the first and all upper floors of the development; this contravened the Council's planning policy.
The Committee then heard from registered speakers. Representations against the proposals were made by 2 members of the public who highlighted the following areas of concern:
- The applicant had not offered mitigation for the negative impacts of the proposals such as balconies and the scale of the proposed development.
- The proposal
- did not adopt a place sensitive approach
- had failed to take account of the scale of existing buildings in the locality and
- did not take account of the former grain of the neighbourhood
Responding to Members’ questions, objectors also provided the following information:
- most of the existing properties in Norman Grove did not have mansard roof extensions.
- One of the existing properties would be completely overlooked by the proposed to development.
- The separation between the existing properties and the proposed development was 15 metres, less than that recommended in the planning policy. The applicant, notwithstanding the complaints asserted that the proposed development was in keeping with the conservation area.
- Objectors acknowledged that outdoor space was a necessary part of the scheme however the separation distance was narrow and therefore they asked that the balconies should be located internal to the development.
- Additionally objectors asked that the applicant to consider a break in the rhythm of the roof heights.
- Concerning whether objectors had viewed plans with alternative proposals for the location of balconies, objectors present informed The Committee that there had been paper position statements which indicated that balconies could be sited to face the internal courtyard. The Committee noted this assertion.
The Committee then received representations from Ward Councillors Asma Begum and Val Whitehead; Councillor Begum addressed the Committee on their behalf.
Councillor Begum reiterated the issues brought forward by objectors and contended that the applicant had not listened to concerns highlighted by residents during the consultation. Furthermore, being aware of these, the developer had not demonstrated that any had been addressed.
Responding to Members’ questions, the Ward Councillors also provided the following information:
Concerning the nature of the separate consultation carried out by Ward Councillors, the Committee was informed that they had canvassed extensively and many concerns had been raised. These centred around proposals relating to Regency Court. Here there had been poor consultation with local residents and issues of overlooking and design of balconies had not been satisfactorily addressed.
A Committee Member observed that the financial viability of the redevelopment of Appian Court depended on the completion of the development at Regency Court and enquired whether there had been discussions around how the density of the development might be retained and the appearance changed. Councillor Begum informed the Committee that the developer had failed to listen to the issues raised by the consultees and this was the issue at hand. The revised proposal before the Members had not greatly affected density. Furthermore the desired outcomes depended on delivery of a scheme which involved redevelopment of three sites, namely Vic Johnson house, Appian Court and Regency Court; of these was the proposal for Regency Court which were a source of local concern.
The Committee then heard from the applicant’s, agent. She informed Members that the proposed scheme would improve sheltered accommodation facilities in the borough and, to achieve this outcome, it was necessary to undertake cross-development with private provisions.
Noting:
- The allegations of poor consultation, the agent contended that extensive consultation had been carried out, indeed revised proposals before Members had emerged from these.
- The discussions around the design and siting of balconies, the agent advised that these were recessed to preserve the amenity of Norman Grove. They also provided internal in amenity space for the proposed dwellings, therefore it was not expected that these balconies would be in continuous use.
Additionally the scheme included provision for cycle space.
Concerning whether amendments to the design could be made, the agent contended that the density of the private development was necessary to fund the sheltered housing development at Appian Court.
Concerning reports that tenants had complained about the proposal, the agent submitted that no current tenants had objected to that which had been put before the Committee. Gateway Housing Association had worked/engaged with the Council and had factored that the pace of development would be slower.
The Committee then heard from the Gateway Housing Association Operations Manager, She informed Members that the scheme had been brought forward because the present facilities at Regency Court were out of date and did not provide appropriate facilities. The development of modern sheltered accommodation at Appian Court, would be funded by returns achieved from the development of private dwellings at Regency Court; residents of Regency Court had been consulted and supported this proposal.
The Operations Manager wished to read a letter of support however the document had not been submitted in the time allowed and therefore for procedural reasons the letter was refused.
Responding to questions from the Committee the Agent and Operations Manager provided the following information:
- The decant would be undertaken in an incremental way by not re-letting vacated flats.
- Responding to issues around shape and size raised during consultation, the design had been varied to incorporate set-back storeys. Councillor Golds observed that the variation appeared to address issues around overlong however the variation had appeared to be translated into the design placed before Committee. The Agent advised that the design and access statement sets at the pre-application consultation with the diagrams of models (November 2016), these demonstrate recessed balconies at that time.
- In regard to the concern that the proposal did not take account of the adjacent conservation area in terms of the quality of the development, the Committee was informed that the test was whether to preserve or conserve the character. The focus of the proposal has been to redevelop and improve that which presently exists. The scheme was deemed to be acceptable in terms of density and well suited its surroundings in terms of amenity and materials used. It was assessed that the proposal would not impact residents of Norman Grove.
- Concerning the assertion that the Regency Court development would cause bedroom windows of properties in the opposite terrace to face into living rooms and balconies of the new properties, the Committee was advised that the scheme was flatted and included duplex units. In the Capital it was not unusual for flatted schemes to be located opposite housing; it was assessed that the scheme would not affect others’ amenity.
- Concerning why consultation on the proposal had not extended to Rosebank Gardens the Committee was informed that the applicant had been unaware of this. However there would also have been consultation by the Council at the application stage which would have included this area. The Team Leader, Planning Services referred Members to the site map printed at Appendix I to the report, this demonstrated the consultation boundary implemented and included Rosebank Gardens.
Having considered the matters at issue the Committee moved to vote upon each application individually.
The Chair proposed and on a vote of 5 in favour and 1 against, the Committee did not support the officer recommendation that the application be approved.
Councillor Golds proposed that the application for the redevelopment of Regency Court be deferred to enable a site visit to be undertaken and the issues of the impacts of balconies and massing be investigated. The Committee felt that more need to be done to explore if a solution for everyone was achievable.
The alternative proposal was moved and on a unanimous vote in favour, it was
RESOLVED
That the application BE DEFERRED for a site visit. The Committee was minded to undertake a site visit because of issues raised around the impacts of the balconies and massing leading to a perception that there would be overlooking of the terraced properties in the conservation area opposite the development.
Supporting documents: