Agenda item
Bath House, Dunbridge Street, London (PA/12/02632 & PA/12/02633)
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 0 in favour and 5 against the Officer recommendation the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/12/02632 ) and Listed building consent (PA/12/02633) at Bath House, Dunbridge Street, London be NOT ACCEPTED for the removal of existing hipped roof to Block E and replacement with new mansard roof to provide 2 x 1 bedroom flats and 1 x 2 bedroom flat including raising the stairwells and associated works to refuse and cycle stores.
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over the following issues:
- Overdevelopment of the site from pressure on existing facilities.
- Noise and disturbance during the construction period especially for the occupants living directly underneath the scheme.
- Appearance of the scheme in relationship to the existing building.
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.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Khales Uddin Ahmed, Anwar Khan, Craig Aston and Shiria Khatun).
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader) introduced the report regarding Bath House, Dunbridge Street, London for the removal of existing hipped roof to Block E and replacement with new mansard roof to provide flats.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the meeting.
Adam Wilkinson addressed the committee in opposition to the application. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of the residents of the development as a planning consultant. One of the main concerns was the increased height. This would make the building unattractive and would over dominate the listed building. The extension would obstruct visibility of the listed chimney. The drawings were inaccurate as they did not show the full extent of the overshadowing. This should be explained. He referred to the poor quality of the existing building as reported by the residents. (Poor damp proofing, defective roofing, inadequate emergency escape routes). These issues had yet to be addressed, despite requests, and should be - given this was a listed building. There was also outstanding enforcement action with previous planning conditions.
Jarred McGinnis spoke in opposition to the scheme. He was a resident of Bath House. He reported on the problems with accessing the existing development as a wheelchair user and gave a specific example of this. He questioned what could be done about this. (Officers subsequently confirmed that that there were no specific proposals for step free access in this application).
Terrance Kearney (Applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the application. He reported on the history of the Bath House and that the subject building was built in the mid 1990s. The current roof was out of keeping and the proposed roof would be more traditional in appearance. The applicant had sought specialist advice on the impact on the listed building and the response was positive. The applicant had engaged in pre - application discussions with Officers and had amended the design in light of the Council’s Conservation Officers advice. The scheme would enhance the historic building, provide new houses and facilities for the existing residents. Therefore, should be granted. In reply to Members, he explained the benefits for existing residents in terms of new recycling facilities and cycle spaces.
Richard Murrell(Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and the update. The application was reported to the committee due to the number of objections. Mr Murrell explained the site location and nature of the existing building. He explained the outcome of the local consultation. The objections covered such issues as impact on amenity, design, waste and the construction impact on residents. It was considered that the quality of the proposed flats was acceptable and complied with policy. The design as amended related well with the development. It was proposed to increase the roof height by 2.2 metres which was comparable to the height of the main building. The roof slopped away from residential properties with good separation distances. Therefore, the scheme would protect amenity. It was noted that there would be a minor impact on views of the chimney from the immediate area. However, the views of the chimney would generally not be obstructed. Mr Murrell also explained the proposed recycling facilities and new cycling spaces.
In reply to Members, he clarified the measures to protect amenity, especially the impact on sunlight and daylight.
On a vote of 0 in favour and 5 against the Officer recommendation the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/12/02632 ) and Listed building consent (PA/12/02633) at Bath House, Dunbridge Street, London be NOT ACCEPTED for the removal of existing hipped roof to Block E and replacement with new mansard roof to provide 2 x 1 bedroom flats and 1 x 2 bedroom flat including raising the stairwells and associated works to refuse and cycle stores.
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over the following issues:
- Overdevelopment of the site from pressure on existing facilities.
- Noise and disturbance during the construction period especially for the occupants living directly underneath the scheme.
- Appearance of the scheme in relationship to the existing buildings included listed buildings.
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.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Khales Uddin Ahmed, Anwar Khan, Craig Aston and Shiria Khatun).
Supporting documents: