Agenda item
Regency Court, 10 Norman Grove, London, E3 5EG (PA/18/00065)
Minutes:
The application was considered in conjunction with item 4.3.
An update report was tabled
A late application to speak, by Ward Councillor Begum, was accepted by the Chair since in his view it offered the Committee a broader Ward based consideration of the matters at issue and would assist the Committee in its decision making.
The Development Manager introduced the report which concerned the demolition of existing buildings at 10 Norman Grove and redevelopment to provide 32 residential dwellings (class C3) with new hard and soft landscaping and celery servicing and plant, car and cycle parking and associated works.
The Committee was informed that the implementation of the revised proposal at agenda item 4.3 (Appian Court) was contingent upon approval of the application at agenda item 4.2 (Regency Court) and therefore, upon the Officer’s recommendation, the Chair agreed that the items may be considered concurrently. However each application would be determined individually.
The Planning Case Officer introduced the report outlining that the application had been previously considered Development Committee on 27 September 2018 at which time the committee had deferred to the application pending a site visit as concerns had been raised around overlooking by balconies at the exterior of the development and because of issues around massing. Further work on these was requested. Responding to concerns raised the applicant had proposed amendments to the application and consultation on these amendments had been undertaken. 30 letters of objection had been received out of the consultation on the amended scheme relating to an amenity, massing and amenity.
Relevant planning issues relating to the application were land use, design, massing, impact on neighbouring amenity, housing and planning contributions.
The Committee was informed that the update report addressed issues raised during the consultation and those raised by Councillor Whitehead.
The Planning Case Officer then presented the application for the development of Appian Court which is recorded at minute 4.3
Responding to Members question questions the Planning Case Officer provided the following information:
- The Children's Centre site adjacent to Regency Court was Council owned.
- The combined development proposals spanned three sites. Proposals for Vic Johnson house had been considered by Committee in 2015 and refused. However permission had been granted subsequently on appeal.
- Proposals for Regency Court and Appian Court had come forward later following development of their respective strategies.
- Current policies for sheltered housing need and provision were covered by the policy DM5.
- Housing to be provided at Appian Court was intended for residents over 55 years of age. Applications will be drawn from the housing list where the applicants were older people with housing need.
- There would be increased provision of over-all sheltered housing upon completion of the redevelopment of Appian Court.
- Communal amenity space would be provided in the central courtyard at Regency Court and there would be shared communal space between Appian Court and Vic Johnson House.
- The 13 new trees, additional soft landscaping and bird boxes proposed at Appian Court were deemed sufficient mitigation to offset the loss of the trees at the current site.
- The sales of residential units at Regency Court will part-fund the provision of sheltered accommodation at Appian Court.
- To access the GLA grant funding that was secured to develop the three sites, it was necessary that works start by March 2018. The funds were derived from the Housing Supported Fund and, would be clawed back by HM Treasury if not spent.
- Noting that the child play space at Appian Court was not compliant the Committee was informed that the calculation had been based on intermediate units which were not sheltered; however the provision was for those over 55 years of age.
- Concerning the potential impact of the loss of trees, the Committee heard that the Biodiversity Officer had proposed, had assessed and proposed the diversity enhancements which were considered to mitigate the loss of the trees presently located at Appian Court.
The meeting paused between 8:00pm and 8:05pm.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee. Members first heard representations From Councillor Begum. She informed the Committee that some of the concerns around massing, design and privacy previously raised had been dealt within the revised proposals. However concerns remained around voids and demolition. Additionally residents felt that some of the provisions had been insufficient to satisfactorily address the issues of overlooking and separation.
The Committee then heard from two objectors who raised the following concerns; on these bases they asked for the application to be deferred:
· The proposal conflicted with policy H1
· The proposal at Regency Court did not facilitate the provision of mixed and balance communities that meet strategic needs.
· The policy did not comply with Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (London Plan 2016, policy 3.9 -- mixed and balance communities).
· The designation of Regency Court as private housing exacerbates community segregation.
· Concerning Managing Development Document (April 2013) DM26 - building heights, an objector argued that development did not respect light and the context of the local area.
· There was a lack of commentary on daylight.
· It was not appropriate the developments of Appian and Regency Courts should be linked.
· The proposal did not deliver housing in accordance with the Local Plan since the scale was out of keeping with the surrounding terraced housing.
· The distance between the development and terraced housing was below the acceptable limits.
· The amendments proposed by the developer did not respond to all of residents concerns
· It was necessary that construction management plans were developed in conjunction with the local community.
Responding to Members’ questions the objectors provided the following additional information:
- While it was acknowledged that many of the separation distances in the surrounding streets did not meet the requirements of Policy DM24, objectors argued that it was necessary that the separation distance be the stipulated 18 metres or else the development should take its form in the style of its surrounding buildings (these were low-rise terraces).
- The application could be changed to ensure that the height of the development was in keeping with those of the surroundings.
- Since the housing that would be provided across the three sites (Regency Court, Appian Court and Vic Johnson House) totalled 152 units, the proposals should have been referred to the Mayor of London.
- The developments across the proposed sites would not deliver a diverse community set within a mix of types of dwellings. An objector contended that diverse provision such as that suggested brings communities together.
- Concerning the community's views on matters of viability, the objectors advised that the community supported initiatives to build affordable housing via a community-led trust. To this end it was their hope that lessons had been learned from mistakes of the past and that the ideas of local people would be heard. This outcome could not be achieved if developments were pursued solely on the basis of financial viability.
The Committee then proceeded to hear representations in support of the applications.
Members first heard from the Architect. He submitted that the Applicant, having heard the views and concerns of the Committee at the time the applications for Regency Court and Appian Court had first been brought for determination, had sought to address the issues raised through the revisions made to the scheme; these were now placed afresh before the Committee. Additionally the approach of ‘linked developments’ permitted delivery of 60.3% affordable housing across the two sites.
The Chair then agreed that two residents be permitted to make statements in support of the applications. They informed the committee that:
- The proposals for sheltered development were important to the community because of the poor quality of the current sheltered housing provision at Regency Court where the buildings were outdated.
- All residents of Regency Court in sheltered housing supported the application which would better their quality of life through the provision of modern sheltered facilities.
Responding to members questions the Agent, a representative from Gateway Housing (the Applicant) and supporters provided the following additional information:
- The representative from Gateway Housing informed the Committee that the new sheltered housing development was necessary since the current provision at Regency Court did not meet the needs of residence for quality of life.
- The revised plans ensured that, in future, the occupants of the residential units at Regency Court could not alter the design configuration of the living spaces since the kitchen was attached to the living room. Therefore it would be difficult to inhabit the units differently. It was also noted that the living areas would face inwards into the courtyard.
- Age UK would provide outdoor seating in the sheltered development.
- The current residential units at Appian Court had already been completely decanted.
- In regard to Members’ concerns around the differential in scale between the terrace housing at Saxon Road and the proposed Regency Court development, the committee was informed that the 4th storey section of the development was located furthest from the conservation area.
- The applicant had not opted for a mixed tenure at each of the sites as without the GLA grant contribution, the applicant would not have been able to fund the scheme.
- The Gateway Representative informed the Committee that the aim of the development was to provide residents with empowered lives through a new model of sheltered housing.
- Concerning the rationale around the need for supported housing, supporters informed the Committee that the sense of community that the new development at Appian Court would provide was very important as was daily contact from the Concierge and the better adapted facilities that would lead to better quality of life.
Having heard all representations the Committee then proceeded to discuss the material considerations which were land use, design and Heritage, standard of accommodation, neighbouring amenity, Housing and contributions
The Committee received advice from the Development Manager that, concerning the cumulative impacts of construction, permission did not require that development must take place but that a construction management plan would mitigate delivery; although this did not address linkage.
The Committee then proceeded to vote on each application individually.
The Chair proposed that Members vote on the officer recommendation to approve the application for the redevelopment of Regency Court and on a vote of 6 in favour and 1 abstention, the Committee
RESOLVED
That the application for planning permission for demolition of the existing building at Regency Court and redevelopment to provide 32 residential dwellings (Class C3) with new hard and soft landscaping, ancillary servicing and plant, car and cycle parking, and associated works be GRANTED subject to the obligations and conditions set out in the report.
Supporting documents: