Agenda item
Ability Place, 37 Millharbour, London (PA/12/00023)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Tuesday, 10th July, 2012 7.00 p.m. (Item 7.1)
- View the background to item 7.1
Decision:
On a vote of 3 in favour 0 against and 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
1. That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/12/00023) at Ability Place, 37 Millharbour, London be NOT ACCEPTED
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning permission because of Members’ concerns over:
- Given the existing high density of the site, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site resulting in a loss of communal amenity space.
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:
Jerry Bell introduced the proposal regarding Ability Place, 37 Millharbour, London.
HolgerWessling spoke in objection. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Ability Place Residents Association. The residents had strongly objected to the scheme as detailed in the consultation response in the report. There were concerns over impact on amenity space, loss of light and of the construction work on occupants of Ability Place. The anticipated impact of which was unacceptable. He doubted that a site visit took place to fully assess the impact of the scheme. The scheme put the needs of the 7 additional penthouses ahead of the 500 plus units. It was a political decision. There were no benefits for the community. Only the developer and the additional units.
Richard Washington spoke in support of the application. He considered that the report fully address the concerns raised by the objectors regarding loss of privacy and also loss of amenity space. The light and overshadowing impact fell within acceptable levels despite minor failings as demonstrated in the technical report. There was a condition to implement a construction plan to ensure the impact from this phase was acceptable.
In response, Members queried the plans to provide compensation to residents for loss of amenity during the construction phase. They asked for specific details of the plans. (For example to mitigate for any dust impact, the need to close windows during construction).
Mr Washington confirmed that there was a code of conduct required by a condition which would control this. (The Construction Management Plan). However he could not provide the exact details of this.
Regarding the consultation, Mr Washington confirmed that the applicant did consult with local residents.
Amy Thompson (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report assisted by a power point presentation. She explained the consultation carried out by the Council and the applicant. The latter included the distribution of leaflets and meetings with residents to discuss the concerns. She explained in detail the proposed plans. The separation distances complied with policy with no directly facing habitable rooms. As a result the scheme protected privacy. Despite some loss of light, the light levels met the key tests. All windows would receive adequate light.
Given the benefits and lack of impact, the scheme should be granted.
Members then raised questions/comments around the following issues:
- The lack of affordable housing.
- The benefits to the existing occupants of Ability Place.
- The impact on services charges arising from the works to the amenity space.
- The loss of amenity space given the high density and shortage of such space in the area. It was commented that the loss of just a small area of amenity space in such circumstances was a major loss.
- The measures to control the construction work and potential health risks from it. For example the dust damage to the occupants below that could include children.
- The absence of a Council policy for incremental development.
In reply, Officers explained the threshold in policy for providing affordable housing. The number of new housing units fell under this threshold. Therefore, none was sought in compliance with policy. Nevertheless the plans would provide much needed additional housing that would help ease the housing shortage.
Officers described the impact on amenity space. The proposed space was of a much better quality than the existing space. Given this and the provision of the additional units, Officers felt that on balance, the benefits outweighed any loss.
Officers could not comment on the impact on services charges. However it was understood that the levels of which would be reviewed to take into account the loss of amenity space during the construction phase. The proposal would be car free.
It was required that a detailed Construction Management Plan be submitted prior to construction to mitigate the impact of construction. It was also required that this be subject to approval by the Council’s relevant experts prior to construction taking place.
In addition, there were measures within Environmental Health legislation to prevent any health risks from the construction phase. Any concerns about such issues could be taken up by Environmental Health under this law.
On a vote of 3 in favour 0 against and 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
1. That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/12/00023) at Ability Place, 37 Millharbour, London be NOT ACCEPTED
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning permission because of Members’ concerns over the following:
- Given the existing high density of the site, the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site resulting in a loss of communal amenity space.
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: