Issue - meetings
144-146 Commercial Street, London, E1 6NU (PA/15/00044)
Meeting: 08/07/2015 - Development Committee (Item 8)
8 144-146 Commercial Street, London, E1 6NU (PA/15/00044) PDF 441 KB
Proposal:
A new single storey roof extension within the existing roof void to create a 1 x 1 bed residential unit; Construction of four storey rear extension to facilitate
new stair case; Reconfiguration of window arrangement at the rear; Refurbishment of the front façade; Installation of a green roof.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions in the Committee report
Decision:
On a vote of 4 in favour and 2 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission at 144-146 Commercial Street, London, E1 6NUbe GRANTED for a new single storey roof extension within the existing roof void to create a 1 x 1 bed residential unit; construction of four storey rear extension to facilitate new stair case; reconfiguration of window arrangement at the rear and refurbishment of the front façade and installation of a green roof.
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal. By way of context, it was explained that the application was considered at the May 2015 meeting of the Committee and deferred for a site visit. However, given the membership changes at the Annual Council meeting and the unavailability of Members from the May meeting to bring the item back as a deferred item, it had been necessary to bring the application back afresh to avoid a delay in determining the application.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
David Donahue spoke in objection to the proposal representing the adjacent Commercial Tavern public house. He objected to the impact of the proposal on the tavern given it was a stunning asset for the area and its historic importance. In particular, he objected to the impact on the roof line of the tavern and the height difference between the development and the tavern. The images failed to accurately show this. He also expressed concerns about the affordable of the residential units and the displacement of the existing occupants within the development.
Stuart Eaves (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the proposal. He confirmed that the scheme had been amended to minimise the impact on the tavern in consultation with Officers. For example, the height of the building had been reduced and the stairwell altered. The materials would be sympathetic to the host building and the surrounding area. The ground floor use would be retained and improved in compliance with the London Plan. Additional images had been supplied to show the full impact of the development including sky and street views. This showed that the impact would be minimal in this regard. In response to a question about the green roof, it was explained that, given the height of the parapet, that the feature could be concealed.
Beth Eite (Deputy Team Leader, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the application. It was noted that the subject property was locally listed and the Commercial Tavern Public House was a grade 11 listed building. The application had been subject to consultation and the issues raised were explained around intensification of residential accommodation, impact on the surrounding area and neighbouring amenity.
Members were advised of the key features of the scheme including the roof extension that would be largely concealed from view by the existing parapet. They also noted the revised stairwell, the layout of the scheme and the nature of the residential units. All of which would be dual aspect with access to private amenity space. It was also noted that the impact on neighbouring amenity was acceptable in light of the amendments and modest nature of the plans.
In summary, the plans overcame the previous reasons for refusal. In view of the merits of the scheme, Officers were recommending that it be granted permission.
In response to questions, Officers explained in further detail the main changes to the scheme to overcome the previous concerns (in terms of ... view the full minutes text for item 8
Meeting: 14/05/2015 - Development Committee (Item 6)
6 144-146 Commercial Street, London, E1 6NU (PA/15/00044) PDF 927 KB
Proposal:
A new single storey roof extension within the existing roof void to create a 1 x 1 bed residential unit; Construction of four storey rear extension to facilitate
new stair case; Reconfiguration of window arrangement at the rear; Refurbishment of the front façade; Installation of a green roof.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions in the Committee report
Decision:
Update Report tabled.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission at 144-146 Commercial Street, London, E1 6NU be DEFERRED for a new single storey roof extension within the existing roof void to create a 1 x 1 bed residential unit; construction of four storey rear extension to facilitate new stair case; reconfiguration of window arrangement at the rear; refurbishment of the front façade and installation of a green roof to enable a site visit to be held to explore the impact of the scheme on the building and surrounding area (PA/15/00044).
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
David Donahue spoke in objection to the proposal representing the owners of the adjacent public house. They considered that the tavern was a significant heritage asset. The most important in the area. In view of this, they objected that the proposal, given its bland design would harm the fabric of the historic building with little benefit. They also objected to the impact of the proposed staircase on the restaurant, loss of amenity to that property and nuisance from the ventilation system. The report overlooked these issues. The application should be rejected or deferred for a site visit to assess the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. Note: Another objector had registered to speak. However the second slot was not taken up at the meeting.
David Donahue (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the application. He described that the scheme, including the staircase had been redesigned to minimise the impact on the public house. The plans would protect views of the of the public house and aimed to make better use of the layout by providing a separate entrance to the residential unit. The Applicant had carefully considered the objections and had worked with Officers in addressing the issues. Overall, the applicant considered that the scheme was acceptable and should be granted planning permission.
Shahara Ali-Hempstead (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report explaining the site location in the Conservation Area, the existing use and the proximity to the adjacent public tavern.
Consultation on the proposal had been carried out. The issues arising from this were explained along with the key features of the scheme itself.
The proposed extension would sit comfortably behind the existing parapet rising only 45sqm above the parapet edge. The stairwell at the rear had been reduced in height to minimise the impact on amenity. Conditions had been secured including details of a green roof. Overall it was considered that the proposal would preserve the setting of the surrounding area. The proposals overcame the previous reasons for refusal. Therefore, Officers were recommending that the planning permission should be granted.
In response to Councillors questions about the appearance of the proposal, Officers described the proposed materials, including metal cladding and glazing at the front elevation. It was felt that the contemporary design would work well with the area. There was a condition requiring that samples of the materials be submitted for approval.
In response to questions about the impact on the area, it was confirmed that the proposal as amended would preserve the setting of the Commercial Tavern public house including long views from the south along Commercial Street. In view of this, Officers did not considered that images of the long distance views needed to be included in the presentation, but those submitted with the application were circulated to the Committee on request.
In response, Members requested that ... view the full minutes text for item 6