Issue - meetings
Vic Johnson House - First as Dec of interest?
Meeting: 16/12/2015 - Development Committee (Item 5)
5 Vic Johnson House Centre, 74 Armagh Road, London, E3 2HT (PA/15/01601) PDF 3 MB
Proposal
Part demolition, part refurbishment, part new build (extension) to total 60 age restricted apartments (over 55s) sheltered housing scheme, including new communal areas (lounge, function room, hair salon and managers office), and associated landscape gardens. The proposed use remains as existing. The scheme is on part 2, part 3 and part 4 storeys.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
- vicjohnsonhousecommitteereport061115, 25/11/2015 Development Committee, item 5
PDF 648 KB
- Vic Johnson Update, item 5
PDF 76 KB
Decision:
Update report tabled
Councillor Shiria Khatun (Chair) for this item.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 5 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the recommendation.
Accordingly, Councillor Rajib Ahmed proposed and Councillor Peter Golds seconded a motion that the planning permission be REFUSED (for the reasons set out in the Committee report dated 16th December 2015) and on a unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:
That planning permission at Vic Johnson House Centre, 74 Armagh Road, London, E3 2HT (PA/15/01601) be REFUSED for the part demolition, part refurbishment, part new build (extension) to total 60 age restricted apartments (over 55s) sheltered housing scheme, including new communal areas (lounge, function room, hair salon and managers office), and associated landscape gardens. The proposed use remains as existing. The scheme is on part 2, part 3 and part 4 storeys for the following reasons set out in paragraph 5.2 the Committee report dated 16th December 2015.
The proposed development, by way of the design, scale and bulk would appear as a visually incongruous and bulky building within the surrounding streetscene and would harm the visual amenity of the local area. The development would be contrary to policy DM24 of the Managing Development Document (2013), SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010) and policies 7.1, 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2015).
The proposed development by reason of its excessive scale and bulk results in the overdevelopment of the site and this leads to an inappropriate loss of a proportion of the communal amenity space and a pro-rata loss of indoor communal lounge space. This would leads to an unsatisfactory form of development which is contrary to policies DM4 and DM5 of the Managing Development (2013), SP02 of the Core Strategy (2015) and policies 3.1, 3.4 and 3.5 of the London Plan (2015)
The proposed development has not adequately addressed how the construction phase would not lead to substantial impact on the health and welfare of the existing residents. The development would therefore be contrary to SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010) and DM25 of the Managing Development Document (2013) which seek to protect amenity for future and existing residents.
Minutes:
Update report tabled
Councillor Shiria Khatun (Chair) for this item.
Jerry Bell (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the part demolition, part refurbishment, part new build (extension) to total 60 age restricted apartments (over 55s) sheltered housing scheme.
At last meeting of the Committee, Members were minded to refuse this application for a number of reasons. These were:
· Loss of amenity space in view of proposed increase in units and the loss of the communal lounge that would not be replaced like for like
· Overdevelopment of the site.
· Bulk and size of the proposal that would be out of character with the surrounding area.
· Impact on the amenity of the existing residents of the development in terms of noise and disruption during the construction phase.
In accordance with the Development Procedure Rules, the item was deferred to enable the Officers to prepare the supplemental report now before Members providing commentary on the proposed reasons and to set out detailed reasons for refusal.
Jane Jin (Team Leader, Planning Services, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report reminding Members of the site location and the main issues for consideration. In terms of the first suggested reason, it was reported that whilst there would be a reduction in quantum of external communal space, it would be of a much better quality and be a vast improvement of what was currently there. It was also noted that the quality and quantity of internal space would increase.
In view of this, it was considered that the level of community space would be adequate for the development and that a reason on this ground would be difficult to defend at appeal.
In terms of the seconded reason – overdevelopment, whilst the London Plan density range did not apply to specific needs housing, the plans complied with the suggested density range in the plan. Furthermore, in qualitive terms, the scheme bore no symptoms of overdevelopment.
Regarding scale and bulk, it was considered that given the mixed character of the area and comparative heights, the scheme would fit in with the area.
In relation to the impact on residents, the applicant had given a firm commitment to provide mitigation and so had Gateway. This goes beyond what was normally required for construction management plans. Officers were satisfied that the measures could be secured by conditions.
Accordingly, Officers remained of the view that the scheme should be granted permission. However, if Members were minded to refuse the application, Officers were recommending the reasons in the report based on the issues raised at the last meeting by Members.
In response to a question about overdevelopment (given the impact on amenity space and increase in units), Officers reminded Members that, whilst there were no minimum standards in policy for amenity space in sheltered housing, if this were general housing, it would meet the policy standards
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 5 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did ... view the full minutes text for item 5
Meeting: 25/11/2015 - Development Committee (Item 6)
6 Vic Johnson House Centre, 74 Armagh Road, London, E3 2HT (PA/15/01601) PDF 648 KB
Proposal:
Part demolition, part refurbishment, part new build (extension) to total 60 age restricted apartments (over 55s) sheltered housing scheme, including new communal areas (lounge, function room, hair salon and managers office), and associated landscape gardens. The proposed use remains as existing. The scheme is on part 2, part 3 and part 4 storeys.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
Decision:
Councillor Shiria Khatun (Chair) for this item.
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 0 in favour, 5 against the Officer recommendation and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Shiria Khatun proposed and Councillor Sabina Akhtar seconded a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a unanimous vote it was RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at Vic Johnson House Centre, 74 Armagh Road, London, E3 2HT (PA/15/01601) for the part demolition, part refurbishment, part new build (extension) to total 60 age restricted apartments (over 55s) sheltered housing scheme, including new communal areas (lounge, function room, hair salon and managers office), and associated landscape gardens. The proposed use remains as existing. The scheme is on part 2, part 3 and part 4 storeys.
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns relating to:
· Loss of amenity space in view of proposed increase in units and the loss of the communal lounge that would not be replaced like for like
· Overdevelopment of the site.
· Bulk and size of the proposal that would be out of character with the surrounding area.
· Impact on the amenity of the existing residents of the development in terms of noise and disruption during the construction phase.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Shiria Khatun (Chair) for this item.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal for the part demolition, part refurbishment, part new build (extension) to total 60 age restricted apartments (over 55s) sheltered housing scheme.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Marcus Cook, resident of the property and Councillor Marc Francis spoke in objection to the scheme. They expressed concern about:
· Impact on the amenity of the existing residents especially during the construction phase.
· Loss of valuable community space and green space in view of the proposed increase in units and loss of green space generally in the area.
· Appearance of the proposal – unsightly appearance
· Affordability of the new units.
· Impact on the health and wellbeing of the elderly residents arising from the stress of moving.
· Overdevelopment of the site in view of the above.
In response to questions, they reported that whilst there had been a series of consultation meetings, there was a lack of engagement on the substance of this scheme (i.e. the doubling of the number of units, the demolition work and the relocation of tenants). They also clarified their concerns about the loss of amenity space (including the part at the back of the warden’s house and along the bungalows), that was much used by residents. There was a lack of detail in the report about what exactly was being lost. Concern was also expressed about the displacement of the occupant of the warden’s house.
Maureen Jackson(resident) and James Wallace (Applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the application. They stated that many of the residents supported the proposal given the proposed improvements to their living environment. The scheme would also delivery a number of good quality new apartments. Consultation had been carried out with residents and support provided to help them fully understand the plans. There were measures to mitigate the impact on the existing residents, intending to stay, during the construction phase (such as the provision of a separate day lounge and day visits with free transport). One of the reasons why the warden’s houses needed to be removed was to address the drainage problems that it was causing.
The speakers then responded to questions from Members, explaining that the new units would be at affordable rents, the main entrance would be relocated and the vehicle and emergency access points would remain as existing.
They also explained the number of existing residents that would remain on the scheme and that those who had moved would have option of coming back. There would be a net increase in amenity space and private amenity space in the form of balconies.
Jane Jin (Team Leader, Development and Renewal) presented the report and update explaining the nature of the proposal including the number of new units and those to be retained. Consultation had been carried out and the issues raised were summarised in the presentation slide and in the Committee report.
Members were advised of ... view the full minutes text for item 6