Agenda item
Site at 60-61 Squirries Street & 52 Florida Street, London, E2 6AJ
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for the erection of 2 x 2 bed duplex residential units on the roof space of the existing four-storey flatted building be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of concerns over:
- Overdevelopment of site.
- Impossibility of enforcing the Car Free Agreement.
- Overlooking of nearby residential properties.
- Loss of daylight
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.
Mr Owen Whalley, (Service Head, Planning and Building Control Development and Renewal), presented details of the site and proposal for the erection of 2 x 2 bed duplex residential units on the roof space of the existing four-storey flatted building
The Chair invited statements from persons who had previously registered to address the Committee.
Mr Will Vote, spoke in objection to the scheme. He considered that there would be a loss of sunlight, direct overlooking to the nearby private amenity space including habitable rooms, overdevelopment The drawings for the western and southern elevation in the report were inaccurate as they omitted key buildings. He considered that the Ivy screening would be impossible to maintain.
In addition, the scheme falls below the Council’s private amenity space standards and the proposed measures to compensate this in the report were inadequate. He also considered that the fire escape plans were inadequate. He also considered that the proposal would lead to overdevelopment.
Mr Russell Vaught spoke in objection to the scheme and commented that his property would be seriously affected by the scheme. Since the developer had purchased the free hold of the building, residents had been subjected to a continuous stream of ever growing unacceptable planning applications.
Since the previous application, the external floor space had been increased and the internal floor space had decreased. There would be more rooms with less amenity space
There would be serious overlooking to his property and most of the neighbouring properties. The terrace would be completely overlooked. There would be a serious impact on day light contrary to planning policy.
Councillor Anna Lynch spoke in objection to the application as a ward Member for the local ward (Weavers). She commented that she was present to represent the local residents. She considered that this represented aggressive and unnecessary overdevelopment. The residents had been continually subject to ever increasing unsuitable proposals. The plans for the ivy screening were inadequate would not adequately screen the extension. She had visited the site and had witnessed the problems first hand. Therefore the application should be refused.
Mr Charles Moran (Applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the application. The Committee granted a similar application for this site. This was merely an amendment and it followed the principles of this scheme. Therefore there would be no new impacts. In fact it marked an improvement on the previous scheme.
The application included measures to protect neighbours privacy. The windows on the upper floor would be set back to protect privacy. The Architect had reviewed the ivy screening and was confident that it could be fully maintained.
Jerry Bell (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. Mr Bell explained the details of the scheme, the difference between this and the previous scheme, addressed the key issues raised in response to the consultation regarding loss of amenity space, employment, density, design, access, waste arrangements, loss of daylight, overlooking and privacy. Mr Bell also outlined the scope of the Section 106 Agreement.
Overall Officers and the relevant Council experts had considered that the scheme was acceptable and complied with all relevant planning policies and therefore should be granted.
In response, Members expressed concerns over the following issues:
- The assertion that the plans omitted key buildings.
- The impact on the surrounding residents.
- Overlooking to the nearby gardens, habitual rooms, loss of privacy.
- Difficulties in enforcing the Car Free Agreement.
- Loss of daylight. The availability of the daylight/sunlight report.
In reply, Officers drew attention to the submitted plans showing all adjacent buildings and those significantly beyond. Accordingly, the plans did in fact show all affected buildings. It was also confirmed that the daylight/sunlight report could be made available as it was a public document. Environmental Health were satisfied with the assessment.
Mr Bell also clarified the distance between the scheme and the nearest residential properties. The concerns of the residents had been taken into account. There would be no adverse impacts. The design was in keeping with the surrounding area.
Councillor Jackson moved an amendment to the conditions requiring that windows in the properties be obscured to address overlooking issues which was agreed.
However, in view of the concerns, the Committee were minded to refuse the application and as a result:
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for the erection of 2 x 2 bed duplex residential units on the roof space of the existing four-storey flatted building be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of concerns over:
- Overdevelopment of site.
- Impossibility of enforcing the Car Free Agreement.
- Overlooking of nearby residential properties.
- Loss of daylight
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.
Supporting documents:
- 7.4 - 60 to 61 Squirries Street and 52 Florida Street FINAL, item 7.4 PDF 225 KB
- 7.4 - Site Plan PA_10_01479, item 7.4 PDF 427 KB