On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED

(1)   That planning permission be GRANTED at the car park to rear of 2 – 82 Russia Lane, off Robinson Road, London, E2, for the erection of four x five bedroom residential houses and associated landscaping on existing area of car parking/landscaping; amendments to entrance of Russia Lane Daycare Centre; associated works to existing hard landscaping and soft landscaping, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and any other conditions considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.

(2)   That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose the conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the report.

Mr O. Whalley, Service Head Major Projects, introduced the site and proposal relating to the scheme for provision of residential homes and associated landscaping at the car park to rear of 2-82 Russia Lane, off Robinson Road, London, E2.

Mr Oliver Mezger, a local resident, spoke in objection to the scheme, commenting that:

• Many old people and families would be adversely affected by the proposals, especially where they did not have access to a wide space between their homes and the proposed development.
• The development should not encroach on an area of public open space and privacy would be seriously impacted for existing residents. The local community had fought to retain the space over a period of years.
• The playspace was likely to attract anti-social behaviour.
• Other residents had wanted to speak but were prevented from doing so by the short notification period given.

The Chair queried the notice given and Mr Whalley commented that residents had been consulted in accordance with appropriate procedures. He added that the Council’s Constitution did not allow for further written material to be introduced during the Committee meeting, in response to Mr Mezger’s request to submit a further petition to the meeting .

Mr Gavin Redfern of Stock Woolstencroft, speaking for the applicant, commented that his organisation had worked on various sites around the Borough with the key objective of maximising the provision of larger houses without affecting existing residents’ facilities. The scheme aimed to provide five-bed homes to standards of high sustainability. The technical details in the application showed that there would be no unacceptable effects on access to light and existing trees would be kept.  There had been a formal consultation event for residents on 23 February 2010, and subsequently only green open space would be provided as requested by local people. Tarmac would be replaced by greenery and would meet Borough playspace requirements.

Councillor Marc Francis declared a prejudicial interest in the items due to his position as a Cabinet Member and indicated that he would leave the meeting after making his statement in support of the application.  Councillor Francis then commented that:

·        Members had to take account of tensions arising from the need to provide housing in the Borough and the requirements of existing residents but it was essential to provide good quality homes for children.

·        He wanted to protect the Borough’s heritage and would ensure that no unnecessary developments would be implemented on sites owned by the Council. However, people must be given better living conditions. The proposals represented the first Council new build in 20 years and would help alleviate housing need in the East End.

·        The play area, which had long been dead space, was now being renewed to provide better amenities for children.

·        There were 1,000 families on the waiting list for larger homes and their needs had to be balanced against effects of the scheme on other residents.

·        There was no reason to suspect that anti-social behaviour would arise.

·        The north flank of the development was well away from other residents and the impact of the scheme was mitigated by the desperate need for additional houses.

Councillor Francis then left the meeting room.

 Ms I. Robertson, Applications Manager, gave a detailed presentation of the proposals, as contained in the circulated report and commented that land use, design, amenity housing and transport were key issues that had been addressed.  She referred to points raised by local people on these matters as also included in the report, adding that the scheme employed a number of sustainable measures such as green roofs and solar power and was far enough away from existing listed buildings so as not to have a detrimental impact. There was no adverse impact on daylight and made the best use of an underused car park.

Mr Whalley commented that use of obscure window glass ensured there would be no overlooking or loss of privacy for other residents.

Members then asked questions relating to the following matters, which were answered by Planning Officers: the advantages or otherwise of dedicating the scheme as a car free development; impact of the application on the views from residents’ homes; separation distances between the new and existing houses; assessment of daylight impact; car park permits for existing residents; landscaping and provision of ambulance bays. During consideration of these issues, the Chair warned that continued disturbance from the public gallery might result in members of the public being asked to leave the meeting.

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED

(1)   That planning permission be GRANTED at the car park to rear of 2 – 82 Russia Lane, off Robinson Road, London, E2, for the erection of four x five bedroom residential houses and associated landscaping on existing area of car parking/landscaping; amendments to entrance of Russia Lane Daycare Centre; associated works to existing hard landscaping and soft landscaping, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and any other conditions considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.

(2)   That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose the conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the report.