Agenda item
4 Wilkes Street, London E1 1QF (PA/11/02495)
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
On a vote of 2 in favour 0 against and 4 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at 4 Wilkes Street, London E1 1QF (PA/11/02495) be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning permission because of Members’ concerns over
- Loss of light to the surrounding neighbours (In particularly 6-10 Princelet Street and the garden of 6 Wilkes Street).
- The cumulative impact on residents in terms of overlooking and the lack of environmental benefits.
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.
Jerry Bell, (Applications Team Leader) introduced the application regarding 4 Wilkes Street, London E1 1QF.
David Gadd spoke in objection. He stated that he lived near the proposed terrace and that it would directly affect the nearby properties amenity. It gave priority to the office workers at the expense of residents. There was no policy support for roof terraces for office workers. There was already large ground floor gardens. Therefore the roof terrace was not needed. It was also feared that it could be turned into a bar area. Boards had been displayed on the premises advertising the space as such. The applicant proposed screening, but his neighbours feared this would impact on their light. If granted, there would be difficulties in controlling use of the terrace for such activities as barbeques. In response to Members, he clarified that hoarding had been put up suggesting it could be a roof top bar. Therefore he expressed unease about the true purpose of the application.
Jason Zeloof (Applicant) spoke in support. He disputed that the roof terrace was a new development. In relation to the fire door, he considered that it was an unauthorised development. The applicant had consulted residents and had as a result made changes to the design and size. There was screening to protect overlooking and conditions protecting amenity. No amplified music would be permitted on the terrace. Office uses tended to be quite. The sunlight report was considered acceptable as stated in the report. It would regenerate a disused building, create employment and provide a high quality amenity space for staff. In response to Members, he envisaged that the terrace would act as a break out area for employees - for eating lunches and smoking etc. This was better than people standing on the street to smoke that would cause more pollution at street level. It was planned that the building would be multiple occupancy and each would have their own amenity area. The office space was currently empty but there was a lot of demand for office space in the area. He was satisfied that the proposed conditions could be enforced by the Council and they would be included in any lease granted. It was noted that they could use the existing building for offices without planning permission being required.
Richard Murrell (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report assisted by a power point presentation. He described the site location and details of the scheme. Overall it was considered that the proposal would fit in with the area and the surrounding mansard roofs. Officers had carried out an in depth assessment of the impact on amenity and light levels. It was considered that the impact from use of the terrace to the neighbouring properties was acceptable. There was also measures to prevent overlooking.
A key issue was the impact on the adjacent fire door of 6 Wilkes Street. Officers had carefully considered this and had visited the property. Whilst the impact on light through the door was significant, (as the door was its primary source of light), the use of the room (as a type of dressing room) had to be considered,) the house had a number of other sources of light, and as a result it would receive adequate light. Therefore, on balance officers felt this did not warrant refusal.
Members then raised a series of questions and concerns regarding:
- The loss of light to 6-10 Princelet Street and the garden of 6 Wilkes Street. Members requested further details of this.
- The reasons why the 2007 application had been withdrawn.
Mr Murrell reported that the impact on 6-10 Princelet Street had been carefully considered. The analysis showed that the impact complied with policy with minimal loss of light (A maximum of 8%). The gardens of 6 Wilkes Street were already relatively enclosed due to the high walls. Therefore light levels were already restricted. The addition of the mansard roof in this context would not have a major additional impact. The 2007 scheme generated a number of objections. It lacked appropriate screening and was much larger than the application scheme. As a result, the applicant decided to withdrawn it. Officers were satisfied that the application overcame these issues.
On a vote of 2 in favour 0 against and 4 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at 4 Wilkes Street, London E1 1QF (PA/11/02495) be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning permission because of Members’ concerns over
- Loss of light to the surrounding neighbours (In particularly 6-10 Princelet Street and the garden of 6 Wilkes Street).
- The cumulative impact on residents in terms of overlooking and the lack of environmental benefits.
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: