Issue - meetings
47 Brierly Gardens, London E2 0TF (PA/15/01337)
Meeting: 19/11/2015 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 6)
6 47 Brierly Gardens, London E2 0TF (PA/15/01337) PDF 1 MB
Proposal:
The proposed works are for a new 4.6m x 4.1m single storey rear extension which facilitates the provision of two new bedrooms, alongside a reconfigured living/dining/ kitchen.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Additional documents:
Decision:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Denise Jones proposed and Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed seconded a condition requiring that the roof light be obscure glazed. This was agreed.
On a vote 5 in favour and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be GRANTED at 47 Brierly Gardens, London E2 0TF for a new 4.6m x 4.1m single storey rear extension which facilitates the provision of two new bedrooms, alongside a reconfigured living/dining/ kitchen (PA/15/01337) subject to the conditions and informative set out in the committee report and the update reports and an condition requiring that details of the roof light to include obscured glazing be submitted to the Council for approval.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the item for a new single storey rear extension which facilitates the provision of two new bedrooms, alongside a reconfigured living/dining/ kitchen.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Stephen Smillie and Mary Smillie (local residents) spoke in objection. They objected to the impact of the extension on their property with regard to:
· Loss of amenity in terms of outlook and privacy due to the scale of the proposal, design, position of the roof light and proximity to neighbours.
· Safety and security issues given the position of the handrail in relation to the extension allowing easy access to their property. This conflicted with planning policy promoting safe and secure schemes. It was considered that the measures suggested at the last meeting (anti climb spikes and anti - climb paint) would be ineffective and unsightly.
· Out of character with the appearance of the neighbouring properties and the wider estate.
· Lack of consultation with neighbours as stated by the ward Councillor.
· Insufficient consideration to the objectors petition.
Overall, they considered that scheme would adversely affect their quality of life.
At the request of the speakers and agreement of the Chair, Officers circulated the representations submitted by the local residents from the planning file to Committee Members.
The speakers then replied to questions of clarification from Members on the above points. In terms of the consultation, Officers drew attention to the statutory consultation carried out by the Council. However they could not comment on the scope of the applicant’s consultation.
Muhammad Shahid, (Tower Hamlets Homes) and Mr Abdul Kadir Mohamoud (occupant) spoke in support. The stressed the need for the extension to alleviate overcrowding at the property in view of the occupants medical needs. They also described the proposed layout, the impact on the garden and the stepped back design to reduce the impact of the scheme. The speakers considered that incidents of anti - social behaviour in the area were relatively few and far between.
In response to Members’ questions, they referred to the problems with overcrowding at the property. They considered that the site could accommodate the additional rooms, avoiding the need for the occupants to find alternative accommodation. They also referred to the reasons why the property met the criteria for improvements under the THH extensions programme and the consultation carried out by the Council. In response to further questions, Officers informed Members that rent issues were not a material planning issue in this case since the scheme did not trigger the Council’s affordability policy. Members must consider the material planning issues only.
Esha Banwait (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and update.
She explained the application site and the surrounding area including listed buildings and Conservation Areas.
She also explained the flat roof design providing the shortest possible height for the scheme, the dimensions of the proposed extension that would be subservient to the main building (whilst slightly visible at street level). She also explained the proposed internal ... view the full minutes text for item 6
Meeting: 03/09/2015 - Development Committee (Item 6)
6 47 Brierly Gardens, London E2 0TF (PA/15/01337) PDF 1 MB
Proposal:
The proposed works are for a new 4.6m x 4.1m single storey rear extension with seeks to provide two new bedrooms, alongside a reconfigured living/dining/ kitchen.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.
Decision:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Marc Francis proposed and Councillor Chris Chapman seconded that an additional condition be added to the permission in the interests of crime prevention. This was unanimously agreed.
On a vote 6 in favour and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be GRANTED at 47 Brierly Gardens, London E2 0TF for a new 4.6m x 4.1m single storey rear extension which seeks to provide two new bedrooms, alongside a reconfigured living/dining/ kitchen (reference PA/15/01337) subject to the conditions and informative set out in the committee report and the update report and the following condition requiring
· Application of anti - climb paint and installation of anti - climb spikes
· That the above measures be maintained
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Applications, Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for a new 4.6m x 4.1m single storey rear extension which seeks to provide two new bedrooms, alongside a reconfigured living/dining/ kitchen.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Stephen Smillie and Mary Smillie, (local residents), spoke in opposition to the scheme. They objected to the lack of consultation with residents, costs of the scheme to the leaseholders, the design and scale of the scheme that would be out of keeping with the area, overcrowding at the subject building and the threat to residents safety given the proximity of the extension to neighbouring windows. In view of these issues, the scheme would adversely affect the residents quality of life. In response to Members, they answered questions of clarity about the lack of consultation with the Brierley Gardens residents, the worries over the flat roof acting as a platform for intruders aided by the position of the fence and the lack of safeguards to prevent this. Alternative sites that could accommodate a pitched roof should be considered instead. They pointed to the fact that a Councillor had expressed concerns about the scheme.
Mr Abdul Kadir Mohamoud (occupant of the property) and Yasmin Ali (Tower Hamlets Homes) spoke in support of the scheme. They spoke of the need for the extension to accommodate the family’s needs in keeping with the aims of the wider programme to mitigate overcrowding. They also talked about the assessment process for the programme, the factors taken into account, that the quality of the accommodation complied with design guidance and the steps taken to mitigate the impact on neighbouring properties. Further measures could be introduced such as anti - climb measures. Meetings had been held with residents and they would be notified when work commenced. In response to questions, they referred to the local consultation that complied with the statutory consultation and also reiterated their willingness to provide additional security measures. They also reported on the difficulties with providing a pitched roof given the site constraints and the likelihood that such a change would affect the quality of the development.
Esha Banwait (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report and the update describing the site location, surrounding area including the proximity to historic buildings. The Committee were advised of the key features of the scheme, including the location of the proposed extension, the quality of the accommodation and internal reconfiguration, the design of the scheme, including the proposed flat roof and the expected improvements in the distribution of light across the site. She also explained the impact on the rear garden. The majority of which would be retained.
The proposal would be in keeping and would preserve the setting of the area and be subservient to the host building. Assurances were also provided on the impact on neighbouring amenity.
The outcome of the local consultation was explained. Concerns had been expressed about the potential for the flat roof to ... view the full minutes text for item 6