Agenda item
Bath House, Dunbridge Street, London (PA/12/02632 & PA/12/02633)
Decision:
On a vote of 3 in favour and 0 against the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission (PA/12/02632) and Listed building consent (PA/12/02633) at Bath House, Dunbridge Street, London be REFUSED 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 for the following reasons:
Planning Permission
The proposal by reason of overdevelopment of the site resulting in the increased pressure on the existing facilities such as adequate provision for the storage of refuse and recycling and cycle parking. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy SP05(1b) of the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy (Adopted 2010), policies DM14(2) and DM22(4a) of the Managing Development Document (2013), which require development to make adequate provision for waste and cycle storage.
The proposal by virtue of noise and disturbance created by the demolition of the existing roof and the construction of a mansard roof would be detrimental to the amenity of existing residential occupiers within the building. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate how impacts on residents would be mitigated to acceptable level and as such the proposal is contrary to policy SP10(4b) of the Core Strategy (Adopted 2010) and DM25(e) of the Managing Development Document (2013).
The proposed roof extension appears excessively bulky compared to the form of the building below and those surrounding in the bathhouse complex. The addition increases the prominence of Block E, and in doing so means it does not appear subsidiary to the original Bathhouse building. The proposal is therefore considered to detract from the setting of the original Grade II Listed Bathhouse, and the other surrounding Listed Buildings. The benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm caused to a designated heritage asset and the proposal is contrary policy SP10 of the Core Strategy (Adopted 2010) and policies DM24 and DM27 of the Managing Development Document (2013).
Listed Building Consent
The proposed roof extension appears excessively bulky compared to the form of building below and those surrounding in the bathhouse complex. The addition increases the prominence of Block E, and in doing so means it does not appear subsidiary to the original Bathhouse building. The proposal is therefore considered to detract from the setting of the original Grade II Listed Bathhouse, and the other surrounding Listed Buildings. The benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm caused to a designated heritage asset and the proposal is contrary to policy SP10 of the Core Strategy (Adopted 2010) and policies DM24 and DM27 of the Managing Development Document (2013).
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.
Richard Murrell (Planning Officer) presented the report. At the last meeting of the committee in April, Members were minded to refuse the application for a number of reasons. Since that time, Officers had drafted suggested reasons for refusal based on Members initial views as set out in the report. The report also detailed the implications of such a decision. The Officers recommendation remained unchanged to grant permission.
On a vote of 3 in favour and 0 against the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission (PA/12/02632) and Listed building consent (PA/12/02633) at Bath House, Dunbridge Street, London be REFUSED 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 for the following reasons as set out in paragraph 4 of the May committee report :
Planning Permission
The proposal by reason of overdevelopment of the site resulting in the increased pressure on the existing facilities such as adequate provision for the storage of refuse and recycling and cycle parking. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy SP05(1b) of the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy (Adopted 2010), policies DM14(2) and DM22(4a) of the Managing Development Document (2013), which require development to make adequate provision for waste and cycle storage.
The proposal by virtue of noise and disturbance created by the demolition of the existing roof and the construction of a mansard roof would be detrimental to the amenity of existing residential occupiers within the building. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate how impacts on residents would be mitigated to acceptable level and as such the proposal is contrary to policy SP10(4b) of the Core Strategy (Adopted 2010) and DM25(e) of the Managing Development Document (2013).
The proposed roof extension appears excessively bulky compared to the form of the building below and those surrounding in the bathhouse complex. The addition increases the prominence of Block E, and in doing so means it does not appear subsidiary to the original Bathhouse building. The proposal is therefore considered to detract from the setting of the original Grade II Listed Bathhouse, and the other surrounding Listed Buildings. The benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm caused to a designated heritage asset and the proposal is contrary policy SP10 of the Core Strategy (Adopted 2010) and policies DM24 and DM27 of the Managing Development Document (2013).
Listed Building Consent
The proposed roof extension appears excessively bulky compared to the form of building below and those surrounding in the bathhouse complex. The addition increases the prominence of Block E, and in doing so means it does not appear subsidiary to the original Bathhouse building. The proposal is therefore considered to detract from the setting of the original Grade II Listed Bathhouse, and the other surrounding Listed Buildings. The benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm caused to a designated heritage asset and the proposal is contrary to policy SP10 of the Core Strategy (Adopted 2010) and policies DM24 and DM27 of the Managing Development Document (2013).
Supporting documents: