Agenda item
Land Between 154-192 Bruce Road, London, E3 (PA/09/02326)
Decision:
Addendum Updated report tabled.
On a vote of three for and five against, it was -
RESOLVED
That the officers recommendation to grant planning permission for the erection of one two storey and one three storey dwelling houses to provide one x two bedroom and one x three bedroom residential unit and landscaped public amenity space not be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of the following reasons -
- loss of housing amenity space;
- loss of sun light/daylight;
- Safety and security issues;
- Overdevelopment of the site;
Minutes:
Addendum Updated report tabled.
Mr Stephen Irvine, (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal), introduced the report regarding the erection of one two storey and one three storey dwelling houses to provide one x two bedroom and one x three bedroom residential unit and landscaped public amenity space.
The Chair then invited representations from persons who had registered for speaking rights in accordance with the procedures for hearing objections, as set out in the Council’s Constitution.
Ms Halima Khanom (Local resident) speaking in objection to the application considered that the site provided a valuable access route for residents. There was no play area near the site. If approved, there would be overshadowing, loss of daylight making the area unsafe. She also considered that Poplar HARCA did not carry out a proper consultation exercise. They did not consult her. There were no residents’ signatures on the supporting petition.
Mr Richard Gray spoke in objection to the application on the grounds that the development would impact on adjoining properties, lead to a loss of open space, crime issues within an enclosed space. He also felt that the location of the development was inappropriate.
Reverend James Olanipekun (Local resident ,Vice Chair Poplar HARCA Board) spoke in support of the application. He considered that he was present to represent the many families in Poplar who supported the scheme. It was true that there were some objections, but the community was crying out for better housing conditions. Families needed rehousing but were leaving due to the serious overcrowding. They have waited a long time for this. Poplar HARCA was a non profit organisation. He urged Member to approve the application.
Councillor Rania Khan, speaking in objection to the application, declared that she was a Board Member of the Poplar HARCA Finance Committee. She acknowledged that one of the Council’s key ambitions was to bring more social housing into the Borough. However, the policy also states that any proposals should be sensitive to the local community and this clearly did not meet this criteria given the concerns. It would adversely affect quality of life, so Poplar HARCA should consider locating the development elsewhere. There would be overshadowing, loss of daylight, sunlight and loss of a valuable access route. If this community open space was taken away there would be children on the streets. On balance the application should not be supported.
Councillor Abdul Sardar speaking in objection stated that he shared and wished to support the views voiced by the many objectors. He acknowledged there were housing needs but considered that the application was unacceptable. He urged Members to listen to the objectors as they were living there.
Councillor Ahmed Hussain speaking in objection also considered that Poplar HARCA should listen to the local residents. He considered that the proposal would turn Poplar into a ghetto. He had visited the site and it was regarded as an open space and it should be left as an open space. He considered that the petition in support was signed by employees of the applicant. He urged the Committee to reject the application.
Ms Ila Robertson (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed reported in which she reported:
- 61 neighbouring properties were notified about the application, and the application was publicised on site. A petition containing 297 signatories was submitted in support together with 4 separate petitions opposing the development containing 211 signatories in total.
- Addressed the material concerns around loss of amenity, open space trees and the creation of crime.
- The proposal was situated in an appropriate location for the development.
- The site was not formally designated as a play area so an objection on these grounds could not be justified.
- The safe access thought to Rainhill Way would be maintained.
- Given the position and design of the proposals, there would be no amenity impact on the adjacent properties or noise nuisance.
Overall, it was considered that the proposal would provide a much needed residential development with a safe access route to Rainhill Way.
In response to the representations and the report, Councillor Alibor Choudhury stated that he had been lobbied by concerned parties but this had not influenced him in anyway. He stressed the importance of open space and questioned, if lost, how this would be mitigated. He also questioned whether the proposal exceeded the maximum density requirements for the site.
Councillor Harun Miah questioned the scope of the consultation exercise given the concerns over non receipt of consultation letters. Councillor Muhammad Abdullah Salique queried the degree of loss of light and the impact on adjacent properties.
Councillor Peter Golds also raised questions regarding the consultation given there were only two letters of objection yet the public gallery contained many objectors and the four petitions opposing the development contained 211 signatures. He expressed concern at the failure to acknowledge the site as a play area as it was regularly used by local residents as a play area. Councillor Golds also requested that the issues around loss of light and obstruction be clarified and queried how it was proposed that they be mitigated.
Councillor Helal Abbas also expressed reservations about the proposal. He considered that the site had been used as a play site so this warranted itself to official use. He referred to the rising number of dwellings in the area due to the new nearby housing development. There was only a limited amount of open space in the Borough and the Council should look to protect this. He acknowledged that whilst there was a shortage of housing in the area, taking away open space would create tensions and cause anti social behaviour. For theses reasons he considered that the development was inappropriate.
Members also expressed concerns regarding the distance between the development and the existing properties.
It was also considered that there was no input from the Metropolitan Police.
Officers answered each of the points raised by Members explaining;
- The scope of the consultation exercise exceeded the minimum requirements in the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.
- The proposal fell well within the density requirements in the key policies.
- The secure by design officer had provided measures to mitigate the safety concerns and loss of trees and a condition was recommended to ensure the landscape treatment was acceptable.
- Officers had to consider all objections no matter where from.
- The application was reviewed by the Council’s Crime and Prevention Officer who considered that there would be no adverse impacts. Officers placed a lot of weight on their comments.
- The Council had a Metropolitan Police Safety Officer who visited the Planning Department on a regular basis and their views were fully taken into account.
After consideration of the representations and the officers report, Members were minded to refuse the application and on a vote of three for and five against, it was -
RESOLVED
That the officers recommendation to grant planning permission for the erection of one two storey and one three storey dwelling houses to provide one x two bedroom and one x three bedroom residential unit and landscaped public amenity space not be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of the following reasons -
- loss of housing amenity space;
- loss of sun light/daylight;
- Safety and security issues;
- Overdevelopment of the site;
Supporting documents: