Issue - meetings
55 Brierly Gardens, Location E2 0TF (PA/15/01832)
Meeting: 19/11/2015 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 6)
6 55 Brierly Gardens, Location E2 0TF (PA/15/01832) PDF 2 MB
Proposal:
Erection of rear extension and demolition of existing ramp to be replaced with a new ramped access.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informative as set out in the Committee report.
Additional documents:
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 4 in favour 0 against and 2 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be GRANTED at 55 Brierly Gardens, E2 0TF for the erection of rear extension and demolition of existing ramp to be replaced with a new ramped access (PA/15/01832) subject to the conditions and informative set out in the Committee report and the updates.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the item for erection of rear extension and demolition of existing ramp to be replaced with a new ramped access.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Alison Russell and Geoff Browning (local residents) spoke in objection about the impact of the proposal in terms of:
· Poor design out of keeping with the well planned existing development.
· Lack of consultation with residents by the applicant.
· Impact on the green space.
· Harm to neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of outlook and increased sense of enclosure (together with the extension at 47)
· Increased crime risk from the scheme due to the flat roof and the loss of surveillance.
In response to questions from Members, the speakers referred to recent incidents of anti social behaviour in the area, successfully addressed according to the speakers by neighbourhood surveillance. The application would prevent such action in the future.
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.
Mariola Viegas (Applicant’s agent)and Muhammad Shahid (Tower Hamlets Homes) spoke in support. They stressed the need for the extension to alleviate overcrowding at the property in view of the occupants medical needs. No suitable alternative property for the occupants could be found under the THH scheme. The occupant was currently on the housing waiting list. They also referred to the planned internal changes to provide wheelchair accessible accommodation, the stepped back design minimising the impact of the scheme and to potential ant-climb measures. If approved, further consultation would be carried with residents about the details of the scheme.
In response to questions, they outlined the criteria for selecting properties for this scheme and why this property was considered suitable. They also answered questions about the consultation including the applicant’s own consultation and the wider consultation carried out by planning.
Officers reminded Members that the application must be determined on the planning merits rather than the occupants individual circumstances.
Esha Banwait (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and update.
She explained the application site and surrounds including listed buildings and Conservations Areas.
She also described the proposed scale of the extension, the flat roof design, the internal layout, the replacement ramp enabling access to the garden and the amount of green space to be retained. It was considered that a sufficient level of amenity space would be retained for residents.
The Committee also noted the position of the new windows and door, the proposed materials in keeping with the area and the separation distances with the Conservations Areas. The results of the consultation was also noted.
Overall given the above, it was considered that the extension would be an appropriate form of development that would be subservient to the main building and preserve the setting of the area.
In terms of amenity, no adverse impacts were expected in terms of overlooking, privacy, overshadowing, daylight and sunlight. The measures ... view the full minutes text for item 6
Meeting: 19/11/2015 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 6)
The Committee is recommended to:
(i) Accept that the decisions of the Development Committee of 3 September 2015 in respect of applications PA/15/01337 and PA/15/01832 were procedurally flawed and invalid; and
(ii) Consider the applications afresh.
Decision:
Councillor Dave Chesterton (Chair) for items – 6.1- 6.3
Graham White, Deputy Monitoring Officer, presented a report on the reasons why these items should be considered afresh.
1. That it be accepted that the decisions of the Development Committee of 3 September 2015 in respect of applications PA/15/01337 and PA/15/01832 were procedurally flawed and invalid; and
2. That the applications be considered afresh.
Minutes:
Councillor Dave Chesterton (Chair) for items – 6.1- 6.3
Graham White (Deputy Monitoring Officer and Interim Service Head Legal Services) presented the report. He advised that at its meeting on 3 September 2015, the Development Committee considered and granted the above applications submitted by Tower Hamlets Homes. Since that meeting, a Judicial Review pre-action protocol letter had been received about an alleged conflict of interest by two of the Committee Members that participated and determined the item given they were Directors of Tower Hamlets Homes. The letter asserts that due to this, there was a procedural irregularity and the decision was unlawful.
It was reported that whilst their actions satisfied the requirements of the Members’ Code of Conduct (only requiring the disclosure of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests in accordance with law), the Members were still required to follow the Council’s own Planning Code of Conduct. This Code defines a personal and prejudicial interest as one where:
‘a member of the public who knows the relevant facts would reasonably think that the personal interest is so significant that it is likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest when taking a decision and it is a decision that effects the financial interest of a body with which the Member is associated with or relates to a regulatory matter such as determining a planning application’
The effect of having such an interest is that the Member must leave the meeting room and not try to influence the debate. It is arguable whether the Councillors’ interests were a personal and prejudicial interest as defined above. However to test this matter in court would be a high risk approach. The Council would incur significant costs in the event of not being successful.
The situation could be remedied without incurring costs by this application being considered and determined afresh at this Committee and for those Members’ affected to step aside.
The terms of reference of the Strategic Development Committee provides that it may consider any matter listed in the terms of reference of the Development Committee where legal proceedings in relation to the matter are in existence or in contemplation.
On a unanimous, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That it be accepted that the decisions of the Development Committee of 3 September 2015 in respect of applications PA/15/01337 and PA/15/01832 were procedurally flawed and invalid; and
2. That the applications be considered afresh.
Meeting: 03/09/2015 - Development Committee (Item 6)
6 55 Brierly Gardens, Location E2 0TF (PA/15/01832) PDF 2 MB
Proposal:
Erection of rear extension and demolition of existing ramp to be replaced with a new ramped access.
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 agreed.
On a vote of 4 in favour 2 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be GRANTED at 55 Brierly Gardens, Location E2 0TF for the erection of rear extension and demolition of existing ramp to be replaced with a new ramped access (reference PA/15/01832) subject to the conditions and informative set out in the Committee 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 the erection of rear extension and demolition of existing ramp to be replaced with a new ramped access.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Alison Russell and Geoff Browning(neighbouring residents) spoke in opposition to the application. They objected on the grounds of poor design out of keeping with the well thought out existing estate, lack of consultation with residents over the plans, increased crime due to the design and the flat roof that was also likely to attract vermin. They also objected to the overdevelopment of Brierly Gardens in view of the impact of the previous scheme (47 Brierly Gardens development), the oppressive nature of the two proposals, loss of privacy and outlook and loss of green space. Overall the proposal would adversely affect residents quality of life and enjoyment of properties. In response to questions, they commented on the merits of alternative options including a pitched roof and referred to existing problems with anti social behaviour in the area. They also expressed concern about the application of unsightly anti climb measures.
Mr Omar Ramadan (occupant) and Mariola Viegas (Applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the application. They stressed the need for the additional space to accommodate the occupant’s special needs and medical equipment and for the occupant to remain close to the Royal London Hospital as there was a lack of alternative accommodation for the occupant. They explained the nature of the adaptations including space for medical supplies, wheelchair manoeuvrability and a ramp. Anti - climb measures could be provided. The neighbours had been consulted and would be notified prior to the commencement of works. In response to questions, they commented on the difficulties of installing a pitch roof at the site and the merits of the flat roof, purposely chosen to minimise the massing of the proposal
Esha Banwait (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report describing the site and surrounds, the proximity to the Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings. The proposal would be in keeping with the setting of the area and out of view. She also described the height and scale of the extension that would be subservient to the main building, the design, materials, the internal configuration and adaptions, the replacement ramp and the proposals to retention most of the rear garden. Consultation had been carried and the outcome of this was noted (similar to that for the previous application at 47 Brierly Gardens) including concerns about crime from the development. To address this, anti - climb measures could be added. Due to the orientation of the windows, there would be no noticeable loss of privacy, outlook or any impact on sunlight and daylight following assessment. Officers were recommending the scheme for approval
In response to questions, Officers clarified the depth and height of the extension and the position of the fence in relation to the extension given the concerns about crime ... view the full minutes text for item 6