On a vote of 3 against and 1 abstention, the Committee indicated that it did not support the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of 51 residential units within buildings rising from 2 to 6 storeys together with associated cycle parking and accessible landscaped roof garden at 151-157 Gosset Street, London E2 6NR.

The Service Head, Development Decisions advised the Committee that the application would therefore be deferred and the subject of a further report to the next meeting, which would address potential grounds for refusal.  Members indicated that they were concerned about the following matters: 

a)                 the percentage of family-sized homes included in the market element of the proposed development is insufficient; and

b)                 the proposed building would give rise to adverse overshadowing implications for the neighbouring residential properties.

Mr Michael Kiely, Service Head Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of 51 residential units within buildings rising from two to six storeys together with associated cycle parking and accessible landscaped roof garden at 151-157 Gossett Street, E2.  Mr Kiely drew the Committee’s attention to his tabled update report which set out three additional objections received after the preparation of the agenda.   

Ms Sara Dixon spoke in objection to the proposal, stating that whilst the local community welcomed redevelopment of the site, the current proposal was too large and would have an unacceptable impact on the adjacent Conservation Area.  The proposed density was well above guideline figures, room sizes were too small, the mix of dwellings provided too few family-sized units and there was a lack of amenity space.

Ms Kathy Darby spoke in objection to the proposal, stating that the proposed development was too large for the site and would give rise to unacceptable overshadowing to the adjacent Conservation Area and a loss of privacy for neighbouring properties.  Warner Green was a public park and should not be considered as amenity space for the development.   There would also be a loss of creative industry and employment uses. 

Mr Mark Gibney spoke on behalf of the applicant.  He considered that the concerns previously raised by the Committee had been addressed.  The height had been reduced from 10 to 6 storeys, the footprint was smaller, providing more amenity space, the density was reduced and the mix of accommodation adjusted to provide more affordable housing and family-sized units.  Room sizes complied with minimum standards and Housing Corporation requirements.  The site was not within the Conservation Area and was currently vacant and in a state of disrepair.  The Committee had not previously objected to the loss of creative industries and there was not a significant demand for live/work units in this location.

Mr Stephen Irvine presented a detailed report on the application.  He advised the Committee that the proposed development would enhance the adjacent Conservation Area and the 6 storey building would provide a stepped approach between the 11 storey Yates House and the neighbouring 2 storey buildings.  Although the proposed density still exceeded the suggested density range for the site, the design was such as to avoid the adverse impacts typically arising from high density developments.  In relation to overlooking and loss of light/privacy the applicants had amended the proposals which were now acceptable in this regard and in terms of the proposed housing mix and amenity space. 

Members of the Committee expressed concerns that the proposed proportion of family-sized units for sale was still too low and at the potential overshadowing that the development would cause.  They also asked a number of questions about the impact on the nearby Conservation Area, the demand for industrial units, loss of open space, materials to be used, overlooking, parking issues and children’s play space.

Mr Irvine responded to Members’ questions as follows:-

• The proposals would enhance the Conservation Area.  The existing buildings were in disrepair, many of the previous industrial uses were not authorised and the premises did not meet health and safety standards. 
• There was not a high demand for industrial accommodation in this location and the site was more suitable for housing which would give rise to less adverse impact on surrounding residential areas. 
• The development would not have an adverse effect on open space and the amenity space proposed was considered adequate.
• Mr Irvine gave details of the materials to be used and stated that these would be the subject of a condition.
• The roof gardens had been set back and a number of windows moved to avoid any direct overlooking.
• The development would be car-free and residents would not be able to apply for a resident’s parking permit.
• In relation to play space, this was not provided but the site was within 200m of a formal playground and 400m from Ravenscroft Park.

Councillors raised further queries on the distance from the site to the Conservation Areas, the Council’s recommended minimum distance between buildings and whether there was a possibility of a legal challenge to a decision on the grounds set out in the additional objection at paragraph 1.3 of the update report.   

Mr Irvine responded that the proposed development was 10 metres from the Conservation Area to the north and 6 metres at the nearest point to the East.  The standard recommended distance between buildings was 18 metres but this development was designed to fit in with the character of the adjacent Conservation Areas in which buildings were closer together. 

Ms Megan Crowe, Legal Services Team Leader, advised that a successful legal challenge was not likely as the consultation period had closed on 29^th July and all representations received before the end of that period had been put before the Committee.  

On a vote of 3 against and 1 abstention, the Committee indicated that it did not support the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of 51 residential units within buildings rising from 2 to 6 storeys together with associated cycle parking and accessible landscaped roof garden at 151-157 Gosset Street, London E2 6NR.

The Service Head, Development Decisions advised the Committee that the application would therefore be deferred and the subject of a further report to the next meeting, which would address potential grounds for refusal.  Members indicated that they were concerned about the following matters: 

a)                 the percentage of family-sized homes included in the market element of the proposed development is insufficient; and

b)                 the proposed building would give rise to adverse overshadowing implications for the neighbouring residential properties. 

(Note (1) Councillor Denise Jones could not vote on this application as she had not been present for the whole consideration of the item)

(Note (2) Councillors Fazlul Haque, Timothy O’Flaherty and Denise Jones each declared a personal interest in the above item as listed at minute 1)