Agenda item
Land Adjacent To Bridge Wharf, Old Ford Road, London
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 0 for 4 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for the erection of 2 no. three storey, four bed houses be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of concerns over:
· The scale of development/overdevelopment and the impact of proposal on the openness of the immediate area;
· Loss of open space;
· The overall sustainability credentials of the proposed development;
· Concerns over highway safety, caused by the close proximity of front doors to the back edge of pavement, overall pavement widths in the vicinity of the site, poor visibility on Old Ford Road and the potential for increased accidents.
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.
The Chair reported that she had received a number of late requests to speak however they could not be accepted as they had been submitted after the deadline for registering to speak.
Mr Pete Smith (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application regarding the land adjacent to Bridge Wharf, Old Ford Road.
The Chair invited statements from persons who had previously registered to address the Committee.
Ms Emily Greaves spoke against the application. She considered that she had bought a flat and was a resident of Bridge Wharf. When the occupiers bought the flats they were investing in unique open space. She considered that it made the nearby residents feel safe andsecure and should be preserved. The scheme would result in overlooking to their properties, loss of privacy, particularly as it was directly opposite balconies. It would restrict natural light and obstruct the sights of Victoria Park and Regents Canal. The old wall would be destroyed. The dust produced from construction would impact on health. It would also affect potential owners and would impact on house prices.
This small plot was unsuitable for any development let alone this. It would not address the housing shortage as it was too small. The buildings had a unique curved design . The proposal would be out of keeping with the area. Quality of life would be compromised.
Councillor Bill Turner also spoke in objection. He considered that he was speaking on behalf of local residents. The Cranbrook Estate was already a well developed area. The scheme was for private rather than affordable housing. The developer had not carried out any consultation with the residents. If they had of done so, they could of mitigated the concerns.
Councillor Turner also objected to loss of amenity. The site was located within two Conservation areas near the Regents Canal and Victoria Park conservation area and was connected by the canal. It was an essential visual amenity and this would be affected by this.
In addition, no one on the Crandbrook Estate had their own gardens so this provided a nice quite place for them to visit.
He also objected to the impact on the willow trees which were very valuable and some of the oldest in the Borough. He also expressed concerns regarding highways amenity and noise amenity as it was a quite area.
Andy Punchers spoke on behalf of the Applicant. He had worked closely with the Council and the relevant experts to develop a suitable scheme. The site was a brownfield site and had been identified as a future development site. There had previously been construction on site. The height of the property was lower than the nearby properties due to the staggered design. Therefore there would be no overlooking to Bridge Wharf. Furthermore, the design would increase openness. The developer recognised the importance of the willow trees and were working with the abulculturists to ensure they were protected. They had submitted a report to them which was being evaluated. The materials proposed would complement the area. The landscaping would ensure there would be no loss of open space and would preserve the canal. In relation to parking, the plans approved by Officers showed there would be adequate parking. In summary the scheme would provide high quality housing, would preserve the surrounding area, complied with policy so should be granted.
Mr Richard Murrell (Deputy Team Leader, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. Mr Murrell explained the planning history, the proposal, the site and surrounding area.
The application had been subject to statutory consultation. To which 42 objections had been received. The main objections centred around overdevelopment, loss of amenity, access issues, parking, impact on the trees.
Mr Murrell addressed the key issues.
The scheme had been carefully designed to minimise impact. It was in keeping with the surrounding area which was of mixed character. The development fell below the threshold for affordable housing provision.
Mr Murrell explained the position regarding the out of date S.106 agreement for the Bridge Wharf development. He also explained the works to the trees to facilitate development and to enhance their potential. The trees were protected by being in a Conservation Area, so any request for further works would require consent from the Local Authority.
Furthermore, the evidence indicated there was no problems with parking in the area. Therefore, the existing provision could accommodate the scheme.
In reply to the presentation, Members raised comments /concerns around the following matters-
- Width between the exits and the highway. It was considered that there was only a narrow piece of pavement separating the properties and the highway. The doors therefore would be opening straight onto a very narrow pavement onto a busy road with a history of accidents. The safety implications of this should be carefully considered.
- Anti social behaviour issues.
- The impact on the trees. The location of the one at risk.
- Distance between the site and Bridge Wharf.
- The construction history.
- Implications of the Bow Wharf Planning Inquiry. Had this been taken into account?
- Concerns around the design, size of the houses, the lack of living space.
- Overdevelopment. It was considered that the properties would be substantially higher than the previous developments on the site.
- The need for additional parking. It was felt that there was already a shortage of spaces in the area.
- Sustainability. Due to the design, the properties were likely to be leased for short term lets rather than as family housing. The proposal therefore conflicted with the aim of building a sustainable community.
- Loss of open space. It was feared that the Borough would be loosing green spaces for ‘tiny high cost homes’ without proper living space. The Borough wouldn’t gain anything from the scheme. It would not improve the area
In reply officers clarified the following points –
- The Council’s Highways experts had considered the proposal and did not consider that there were any highway safety issues.
- The distance between the front doors and the highway exceeded minimum requirements in the policy. The front doors would open inwards. In addition, the site would widen due to the removal of the wall.
- In relation the Planning Inquiry, Officers had considered the objections regarding the Planning Inspectors points. However they considered that there were no fundamental conflicts between the findings and the proposal.
- Drew attention to the circulated maps showing previous constructions on site.
Accordingly, on a vote of 0 for 4 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for the erection of 2 no. three storey, four bed houses be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of concerns over:
- The scale of the development/overdevelopment and the impact on the proposal on the openness of the immediate area.
- The overall sustainability credentials of the proposed development.
- Concerns over highway safety, caused by the close proximity of the front doors to the back edge of the pavement, overall pavement widths in the vicinity of the site, poor visibility on Old Ford Road and the potential for increased accidents.
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: