Agenda item
1-26 Emmott Close, London, E1 4QN (PA/12/00706)
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
On a vote of 3 in favour and 1 against with 0 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/12/00706) beGRANTED at 1-26 Emmott Close, London, E1 4QN subject to conditions.
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report.
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Jerry Bell (Applications Manager) introduced the report.
Pieter Zitman spoke in objection. He drew attention to the 30 representations in objections from residents, which he stated were from Emmott Close. He referred to the letter from the Twentieth Century Society regarding the proposed PVC windows and a letter from Councillor Amy Whitelock sent to Committee members criticising the consultation process with residents. In his mind, it was done just to secure the developers position. The existing building, built in the 1970s was an elegant building and the windows allowed in a good quality of light. PVC windows would restrict natural light into the flats, be high maintenance, would only last 15 years compared to wooden frames that would last a lifetime and were more costly. He disputed the cost assessment in the report. Indeed, he had recently received a letter from the Wates Group saying that they were only an estimate.
He also considered that front doors of all units should be part of the works.
In response to Members about the local consultation, Mr Zitman considered that residents had sent a number of representations to get the applicant to speak to them but with little response. The applicant had only held one meeting where they primarily pushed their case. In relation to the costing, Mr Zitman referred to expert advice indicating that wood window frames were less expensive than in the report and PVC windows.
Mr Gary Tidmarsh spoke in support of the scheme. The scheme was in line with the applicant’s wider programme of works for blocs of flats in the area. The site had no designation. Therefore the proposed windows in this context were acceptable and would vastly improve the appearance of the building. In view of the objections, the Council had asked that the applicant reconsider all options, including the maintenance of wooden window frames. It was found that none of the alternative options were feasible given the costs and the high maintenance requirements. The scheme proposed was the best scheme available on such grounds. The applicant had undertaken consultation with residents. They had held events with residents where no objections to the plans were raised. Residents had also been given the opportunity to influence the design of the front doors, as part of the consultation.
In reply to Members about the links with the Decent Homes Programme and the consultation, Mr Tidmarsh stated that every resident affected had been given the opportunity to comment. None of the residents from the other blocs in the Ocean Estate subject to refurbishment plans had raised any objections to the plans. It was proposed to refurbish the windows of all units but not the doors of the leaseholder units.
In relation to the costs, Members were advised that the service charge impact was not a material consideration.
Benson Olaseni (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report assisted by a power presentation. He explained in detail the planned refurbishments. He considered that the PVC windows were appropriate in this location given the site had no designation. He referred to the cost assessment that supported the scheme. There were conditions to regulate the hours of works. The applicant had also given an undertaking that no work be undertaken in the Olympic period to allay those concerns.
He also explained the number of applications approved in the surrounding area for similar works raising no objections.
Overall the plans would significantly improve the appearance of the building, complied with policy therefore should be granted.
On a vote of 3 in favour and 1 against with 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/12/00706) be GRANTED at 1-26 Emmott Close, London, E1 4QN subject to conditions.
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report.
Supporting documents: