Agenda item
Land bounded by Watts Grove and Gale Street, London, E3 3RE (PA/11/03577)
Decision:
Update report tabled
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission PA/11/03577 at Land bounded by Watts Grove and Gale Street, London, E3 3RE be GRANTED for the redevelopment to provide three residential blocks ranging from 4-6 storeys to provide 50 dwellings (11 x 1 bedroom, 25 x 2 bedroom, 9 x 3 bedroom and 5 x 4 bedroom) plus bicycle parking, refuse recycling facilities and access together with landscaping including public, communal and private amenity space and creation of an east-west public walkway from Watts Grove to Gale Street subject to the conditions in the report AND the two additional conditions agreed by the applicant at the meeting as set out below:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report.
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
4. 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.
5. That if, within three months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
AND
6. The two conditions agreed by the applicant at the meeting requiring:
- installation of obscured glazing to the windows of the southern elevation of the scheme.
- sound proofing to the southern elevation of the scheme.
Minutes:
Update tabled.
Jerry Bell introduced the item Land bounded by Watts Grove and Gale Street for the provision of 3 residential blocks and associated works.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the meeting.
Michael Druce spoke in objection to the scheme. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of the freeholder of the commercial units near the proposed scheme. He referred to their letter of objection. The first two points had been addressed with the removal of the disabled car parking bay and the conditions regarding the pedestrian route that were welcomed. However the last two concerns in the letter had yet to be addressed. These related to:
- Overlooking. There would be overlooking to the commercial premises from the proposal (the Block C balconies). This could be seen in the submitted drawings. To address this, the windows of the southern elevation of the proposal should have obscured glazing.
- Noise from the commercial units. The noise would severely erode the amenity of the proposed development. To address this, the southern elevation of the proposal nearest the commercial units should have sound proofing.
In response to Members about contact with the applicant, Mr Druce stated that he had not discussed directly with them these specific two proposals. However the application had been amended to address the first two points so they were aware of the letter and it had been made public for some time. Regarding the noise impact, the report failed to address this. The report only referred to the noise impact from construction.
Dirk Peltzer also spoke in objection to the scheme. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Residents Association of David Hewitt House. He was not opposed to the principle of scheme. However he was concerned that the scheme would result in overdevelopment due to the close proximity of the scheme to David Hewitt House and the height and scale. As a result, there would be an increased sense of enclosure; a loss of light to such properties and a loss of privacy. The separation distances (17 metres) fell short of the policy requirements. The sun light levels failed to meet the policy requirements. The density exceeded the policy requirements. It was out of character with the area. The proposal should be reduced in height and moved further away from David Hewitt House.
Charles Moran spoke in support of the scheme. He outlined the applicants strong track record in providing similar housing developments with the Council. He stressed the merits of the scheme. The scheme would provide 100% affordable units at genuinely affordable rent levels.
The applicant had worked closely with the Council’s planning department over the last two years and the application was subject to extensive community. This included 1-1 meetings with neighbours and consultation events with opportunities for feedback. The scheme had been carefully designed to prevent overshadowing and overlooking with set backs to aspects of the design. Whilst there would be some impact on light to a small number of properties, the levels would meet policy standards. He considered that the scheme would not harm in any way the commercial units. However, he was willing to accept the condition suggested by Mr Druce that the windows of the southern elevation have obscured glazing to prevent overlooking.
Furthermore, there were many houses around the area referred to by Mr Druce. It was evident from this that the commercial units could happily co-exist with such properties. However, he was also willing to accept the second condition proposed by Mr Druce regarding the soundproofing of the southern element in view of the concerns around noise from the commercial units.
In reply to Members he confirmed that he was willing to accept the two conditions suggested by Mr Druce.
Benson Olaseni presented the detailed report. He described the site location, the existing land use and proposals. He explained the housing mix and the location of the different tenures. Blocks B and C would comprise of affordable tenures and Block A the shared ownership. He showed views from the surrounding areas and described the proposed pedestrian access route.
A total of 324 neighbouring properties were consulted and 5 letters in objection had been received. The concerns raised were about overdevelopment, overlooking, loss of privacy, noise from the existing units to the proposal.
In terms of land use, Officers considered that the site was suitable for residential use. Many of the surrounding properties were of a similar height. Furthermore, given the housing needs in the Borough and the encouragement to address this in policy, the plans fully complied with both Council policy and the London plan in this regard. It was also considered that the design, scale and massing was acceptable with wheelchair housing. A s106 agreement had been secured and this was explained.
It was considered that the density was acceptable with no signs of overdevelopment. It was not considered that it would have any undue impacts in terms of overlooking and sunlight due to the mitigation (the separation distances and the orientation of the proposal). The sunlight assessment complied with policy with no potential for direct overlooking. There was adequate defensible space.
It was considered that the impact on parking was acceptable. The scheme would be car free and there was an excellent level of public transport in the area. The Council’s Highways Officers were satisfied with the scheme. The new pedestrian access was welcomed and there was a condition to maintain the safety of the route.
In response, Members questioned the loss of light to David Hewitt House. Officers responded that a small number of rooms at the ground floor would be affected. However, this was due to the fact that the site was presently clear. So naturally they would be some loss of light when the site was developed. However, despite the minor losses, the rooms affected still broadly met the BRE requirements.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission PA/11/03577 at Land bounded by Watts Grove and Gale Street, London, E3 3RE be GRANTED for the redevelopment to provide three residential blocks ranging from 4-6 storeys to provide 50 dwellings (11 x 1 bedroom, 25 x 2 bedroom, 9 x 3 bedroom and 5 x 4 bedroom) plus bicycle parking, refuse recycling facilities and access together with landscaping including public, communal and private amenity space and creation of an east-west public walkway from Watts Grove to Gale Street subject to the conditions in the report AND the two additional conditions agreed by the applicant at the committee meeting as set out below:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreementto secure the planning obligations set out in the report.
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
4. 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 and the two conditions agreed by the applicant at the meeting requiring:
- installation of obscured glazing to the windows of the southern elevation of the scheme.
- sound proofing to the southern elevation of the scheme.
5. That if, within three months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Supporting documents: