Issue - meetings
Balmoral House, 12 Lanark Square, London E14 9QD (PA/16/1081/A1)
Meeting: 10/05/2017 - Development Committee (Item 4)
4 Balmoral House, 12 Lanark Square, London E14 9QD (PA/16/1081) PDF 195 KB
Proposal:
Erection of three additional storeys to building to create nine new residential units (4 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) plus external amenity space, associated refuse storage and secure cycle storage provision
Recommendation:
The Committee resolves to Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions
Additional documents:
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 5 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the Committee report dated 10 May 2017 and on a vote of 5 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be REFUSED at Balmoral House, 12 Lanark Square, London E14 9QD for the erection of three additional storeys to building to create nine new residential units (4 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) plus external amenity space, associated refuse storage and secure cycle storage provision(PA/16/1081) for the following reasons as set out in the Committee report, dated 10 May 2017:
1. The proposed development will result in unacceptable level of overlooking to the habitable rooms on the northern elevation of Aegon House, due to the proximity of the blocks. The proposal will therefore be contrary to policy SP10 of Tower Hamlets Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DM25 of the Managing Development Document 2013.
2. The proposal extension of the building would have detrimental impact in terms of noise and nuisance from the construction noise to the existing residents within the building and nearby, and therefore the proposal would fail to safeguard existing residential amenity, contrary to Policy DM25 of the Managing Development Document 2013.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the erection of three additional storeys to building to create nine new residential units (4 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) plus external amenity space, associated refuse storage and secure cycle storage provision
It was noted that at the 8th February meeting of the Committee, the Committee voted not to accept the application due to concerns over:
· Overlooking from the proposal to neighbouring properties and the failure to mitigate this
· The approach to incremental development across the site in terms of affordable housing, communal amenity space and child play space.
· Density of the proposal
· Adverse impact on residential amenity during the construction phase
Jane Jin (Planning Services) reminded the Committee of the site location and the application. She then addressed each of the proposed reasons for refusal.
In relation to the first reason, it was considered that the scheme had been designed to prevent overlooking. However there would still be some loss of privacy. Therefore, Officers considered that a reason on this ground could form a basis for refusal.
In relation to incremental development, there was no policy basis for seeking amenity space or affordable housing for the development, given the number of proposed units and that the existing units in the building were considered under a different part of legislation and different set of policies, as other consented residential units within this building was done through prior approval process and planning approval in 1996. The applicant had explored whether some play space and communal space could be provided on site but found that due to the freeholder issues, this was not practical. Therefore, Officers considered that this reason could not be defended on appeal.
In terms of the density of the application, this fell within the recommended range for a scheme of this size with a PTAL rating of 4 in the London Plan. Therefore, Officers did not consider that a refusal of the scheme on the grounds of excessive density could be justified.
Regarding the construction impact, the applicant had submitted a construction management plan to mitigate the impact. The design of the building also included measures to minimise the construction impact. However, Officers were also mindful of the precedence set by a recent appeal case at 37 Millharbour in relation to the difficulties in overcoming noise disturbance during the construction phase. On balance Officers considered that despite the submission of the plans, there was still some uncertainty about how the construction impact would be mitigated. Therefore it was considered reasonable to refuse the planning permission on the basis of noise and disturbance during the construction phase.
Whilst Officers remained of the view that the application should be granted, they had drafted two suggested reasons for refusal for consideration by the Committee. If the Committee were minded to refuse the application, they were invited to base their decision on these reasons.
Members asked questions about the planning history and the quantum of ... view the full minutes text for item 4
Meeting: 05/04/2017 - Development Committee (Item 5.1)
5.1 Balmoral House, 12 Lanark Square, London E14 9QD (PA/16/1081) PDF 195 KB
Proposal:
Erection of three additional storeys to building to create nine new residential units (4 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) plus external amenity space, associated refuse storage and secure cycle storage provision
Recommendation:
The Committee resolves to Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions
Additional documents:
Meeting: 08/02/2017 - Development Committee (Item 5)
5 Balmoral House, 12 Lanark Square, London E14 9QD (PA/16/1081/A1) PDF 3 MB
Proposal:
Erection of three additional storeys to building to create nine new residential units (4 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) plus external amenity space, associated refuse storage and secure cycle storage provision
Recommendation:
The Committee resolves to Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions
Decision:
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 6 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 6 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission atBalmoral House, 12 Lanark Square, London E14 9QD be NOT ACCEPTED for the erection of three additional storeys to building to create nine new residential units (4 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) plus external amenity space, associated refuse storage and secure cycle storage provision (PA/16/1081/A1)
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
· Overlooking from the proposal to neighbouring properties and the failure to mitigate this.
· The approach to incremental development across the site in terms of the affordable housing, communal amenity space and child play space issues.
· Density of the proposal and the steps taken to mitigate this.
· Adverse impact on residential amenity 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:
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the erection of three additional storeys to building to create nine new residential units (4 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) plus external amenity space, associated refuse storage and secure cycle storage provision
The Chair then invited the registered speaker to address the Committee.
Local residents and Councillor Andrew Wood spoke in objection to the proposal. They highlighted the level of opposition to the proposal amongst residents and local Councillors and expressed concern about the risk to the structure of the building should the development go ahead. The health and safety implications of this for residents were unacceptable. Furthermore, the marketing evidence showed that the new units would not be for local people. They also expressed concern about the lack of consultation by the developer with the residents, noise disturbance during the construction phase, adding to the existing impacts from the work on neighbouring developments.
Concern was expressed also about incremental development of the block and the cumulative impact from this. This approach meant that no affordable housing could be required. It was considered that was a relatively unique project and there was no planning policy covering this type of development. Therefore, it was at the Committee’s discretion to reach their own decision on the application. Concern was also expressed about the lack of local amenities to accommodate the dwellings arising from the fact the development was originally a commercial premises. It was also questioned whether there was a need for additional housing in this area given the number of new developments. Concern was also expressed about the waste plans.
In response to questions from the Members they explained in further detail their concerns about the adequacy of the consultation during the Christmas period and noise disruption during the construction works. They also clarified their concerns about the structural issues, the lack of amenities to accommodate the development, and incremental development of the site given the planning history in respect of the lower floors.
George Georgiou (Applicant) John Dowland (Resident of Balmoral House) and David Mansoor (Agent) spoke in support of the application. They considered that the issues raised had been addressed in the Officers report. An ample amount of consultation had been carried out with LBTH and also with residents. The proposal had been well advertised and many of the residents saw the advantages of the proposal. Objections had been raised. But most of these concerned structural issues and tenant and landlord matters that were not planning matters. In any event, the structural issues could be dealt with through party wall agreement to ensure that the interests of residents were safeguarded. It was also stated that the plans would deliver nine high quality new homes in an accessible location in terms of public transport links. The mix of units complied with policy. The plans mirrored the nearby Marina Point development and the Council’s Urban Design Officer considered that it would be in ... view the full minutes text for item 5