Two storey extension above the existing building with three self-contained flats, cycle parking storages and new bins storage for new residences and associated landscaping work in the external areas.

Grant planning permission with conditions

Councillor John Pierce proposed and Councillor Sufia Alam seconded a proposal requesting that an additional condition should be added to the s106 agreement requiring a small site contribution for affordable housing.  On a vote of 3 in favour and 2 abstentions this condition was agreed.

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:

1.             That, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, planning permission is GRANTED at Armoury House, 7 Gunmakers Lane, London, E3 for the following development:

·       Two storeys extension above the existing building with three self-contained flats, cycle parking storages and new bins storage for new residences and associated landscaping work in the external areas. (PA/20/01914)

2.             Subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the Committee report dated 14^th January 2021 and the additional condition agreed by Committee at the meeting to secure a small site contribution for affordable housing.

3.             Subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report dated 14^th January 2021.

Gareth Gwynne introduced the application for a two storey extension above the existing building with three self-contained flats and associated works.

Katie Cooke presented the report. This application for planning permission was considered by the Development Planning Committee on 14^th January 2021.

The application was deferred by Members to request the following:

·       Justification of why a contribution for affordable housing has not been sought;

·       Details in terms of potential noise impacts from the proposed fifth floor roof terrace; and

·       A site visit

The Committee were reminded of the key features of the application, including:

·      Details of the site location and the character of the area, including  a mix of converted industrial and new buildings, the Albany Works complex and Gun Wharf.

·      The site lay in the Victoria Park Conservation Area and is close to Victoria Park.  Whilst not listed itself, there were a number of listed building nearby. Officers remained of the view that the scheme would have minimal impacts in regards to the setting of the area.

·      Access arrangements would remain as existing with a new bin storage area and new cycle spaces. Details of this were noted.

·      All of the units would be in accordance with policy standards in terms of internal standards and private amenity space.

·      That the scheme had been designed to minimise the impacts, through for example, setting back the development.

·      The submitted daylight and sunlight assessment had been reviewed by officers and showed full compliance with the exception of a minor failing.

·      The results of the consultation (involving two rounds of consultation)  and a summary of the responses received. 67 representations were received.

In terms of the reasons for deferral, the following issues were noted

The lack of affordable housing contribution given the approach to the114-150  Hackney Road Development. (Item 4.2).

It was confirmed that, as with all small developments, Officers did not consider it appropriate to apply the draft SPD to this scheme, since the Planning Obligations SPD and associated calculator have yet to been adopted. The Hackney Road Scheme (for which a contribution could be sought),  is an unusual scheme. It differed from this development in a number of ways given: its classification as a major scheme, the application of a public benefits test, and the issues around the timing of the decision notice, following the adoption of the SPD. This is not the case for this scheme.

Lack of noise assessment in relation to the impacts on residents below the development.

·       It was noted that the Council’s Noise Officer has been consulted on the scheme and were of the view that the impact would be in keeping with that from the surrounding residential properties. They had no record of any complaints from similar extensions and felt that any noise impacts could be managed.

·       Overall, Officers were of the view that the proposal would raise no undue impacts in this regard. Therefore it was considered that no noise report was necessary.

Issues with the plans

It was noted that new drawings  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4

Proposal:

Two storeys extension above the existing building with three self-contained flats, cycle parking storages and new bins storage for new residences and associated landscaping work in the external areas.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions

Councillor John Pierce proposed and Councillor Sufia Alam seconded that the consideration of the application be deferred for the reasons set out below.

On a vote of 4 in favour, and 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED:

1.       That consideration of the planning application is DEFERRED at Armoury House, 7 Gunmakers Lane, London for the following reasons:

Further information on:

·       The lack of affordable housing contributions.

·       The noise assessment in relation to the impacts on residents below the development

To carry out a Committee Site Visit

Jerry Bell introduced the application for a two-storey extension to an existing residential building of 3 storeys to provide three additional flats.

Katie Cooke (Planning Services) presented the application, highlighting the site location, the character of the area and surrounding buildings, including the heritage assets. Consultation had been carried out. 67 representations had been raised and the key issues raised were noted. Concerns have been raised about the impact on views from Victoria Park. Officers considered the proposal would have an negligible impact on existing views.

The Committee noted the key issues as set out below:

·       Details of the site layout, including the cycle parking plans and the proposed relocation of the bin storage area to accommodate this. The scheme would be car free.

·       That the standard of accommodation accorded with policy standards.

·       The scheme had been carefully designed to be in keeping with the local area in terms of the hight, massing and design.

·       Details of the heritage assessment. The development should have a minimal impact on the setting of the Conservation Area and heritage buildings, given the location of the development and the modern day alterations to a number of these buildings.

·       The scheme would fully comply with the policy in terms of sunlight and daylight, save for minor failings. Details of this was noted.

·       Transport matters, including parking, access and servicing were acceptable

·       Overall it was considered that the scheme was appropriate in terms of height, scale and design, would have minimal impacts and would deliver good quality homes. It was considered that on balance, the benefits would outweigh any harm. Therefore, Officers recommend that the application was granted permission

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Michael Coplowe and Ellie Smith addressed the Committee  in objection. They expressed concern about:

·       Lack of consultation with by the developer. If granted, the residents should be more involved in the proposals.

·       Harm to amenity, street scape and heritage.

·       Conflict with the Victoria Park Conservation Area Planning policy and the Local Plan regarding the appropriateness  of development in that area.

·       Lack of clarity about elements of the proposals including the height, and construction impacts

·       Sunlight and daylight assessment for neighbouring properties. Finding were inaccurate due to the technique.

·       Potential structural damage to the building.

·       Lack of affordable housing and disabled access homes.

Claudia Mastrandrea, the applicant’s representative addressed the Committee. She highlighted the benefits of the application, including the provision of a development that optimised the development  potential of the site without causing undue amenity impacts. It would also provide new high quality homes within a suitable location given the good transport links amongst other issues.  The height of the scheme would be comparable to neighbouring buildings and had been designed to be in keeping with the area. The applicant had worked with the Council to minimise the impacts on sunlight and daylight impacts.  The applicant’s daylight and sunlight consultant had tested the impacts  and had concluded that the retained internal light levels were policy compliant.  All  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5