Agenda item
65 Tredegar Square, London, E3 (PA/13/633 & PA/123/634)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 9th October, 2013 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.1)
- View the background to item 6.1
Decision:
Update Report tabled.
On a vote of 1 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 3 against and 2 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission and conservation area consent (PA/13/633 & PA/123/634) at 65 Tredegar Square, London, E3 4 be NOT ACCEPTED for the erection of 8 no self contained houses with 2 no on site car parking spaces (Full planning permission) and demolition of existing warehouse (Conservation Area Consent PA/13/634).
The Committee were minded to approve the scheme due to the following reasons:
· That the application would provide much needed family housing with amenity space in accordance with the polices in the Council’s Core Strategy and the Development Plan for Bow that promoted such housing. On balance, this outweighed the failure to provide any one bed units as required in policy.
· The innovative design that related well to the surrounding Tredegar Square Conservation area.
· That there was no objection in principle to the redevelopment of the site and there would be no demonstrable harm to the amenity of the adjoining occupiers, as concluded in the Officers report.
· That any symptoms of overdevelopment were outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.
In accordance with the 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 approval and conditions on the application.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Anwar Khan, Tim Archer, Judith Gardiner, Gulam Robbani and Harun Miah)
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item at 65 Tredegar Square, London for the erection of 8 no self contained houses with 2 on site car parking spaces (Full planning permission) and demolition of existing warehouse (Conservation Area Consent).
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Greg Campbell speaking in objection to the application expressed his support for the Planning Officers recommendation for refusal. He reported that he lived near the development in Tredegar Square. He considered that the future occupants of the development would have poor outlooks and poor quality amenity space. There would be cramped housing that would lead to overdevelopment.
The proposal would also have an invasive impact on neighbours due to the close proximity to their boundary, especially from opening and closing the windows. This would spoil the occupants enjoyment of their properties. The proposal would also result in a loss of amenity space and overlooking at the south side of Tredegar Square.
In reply to questions, he reported that the proposed light well windows would be right next to the boundary. When open, the windows would have an intrusive impact on the neighbours and result in direct overlooking to the neighbours. He also expressed concerns about the construction process and security given the proximity to the boundary and the plans to lower the wall that would make access easier.
Mr Campbell highlighted the quality of the square including pleasant gardens, the traditional wall with plants and charming old brickwork. The scheme was very crowded for the site. Given this, his overriding concern was the impact of the scheme on the Square. Any development of this site should be in keeping with this ‘Georgian gem’.
Councillor Josh Peck spoke in support. The scheme would meet the need for quality family housing with gardens at market levels in the ward. He drew attention to the Council policies that promoted family housing with gardens. He considered that this policy should be given more weight in this case than the shortfall of one bed units given the need for family sized housing. Councillor Peck referred to similar mews developments that were much poorer in terms of amenity space, outlook etc. However these were still desirable places to live. The proposed wall would be the same height as the current wall and the materials would be similar.
Jonathan Freegard (Applicant’s agent) spoke in support. He stated that local residents strongly supported the proposal. The policy requirement for 50% one bed units was not in place when the proposal was submitted so should be given less weight. The scheme would improve access to the site and provide better quality amenity space compared to the present warehouse site. There would be good levels of sunlight/day light as stated in the submitted impact assessment. In response to Members, he reported that the materials would appear very similar to the existing warehouse. There would be a slate roof, replacing asbestos that would match the surrounding area. This would be a major improvement. The Police were satisfied with the proposals given the robust security plans. Access to the site would generally remain the same as would the height of the wall, maintenance of the gutters would be improved by three small indents which would make it easier for the downpipes to be accessed.
Shay Bugler (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report. He explained the site location that fell within the Tredegar Square Conservation Area. He explained the key features of the Conservation Area and that the site had good transport links. The application was acceptable on land use terms and there would be no undue impact on amenity. However, the scheme was deficient in a number of key areas due to the site constraints combined with the number of dwellings. Mr Bugler explained these issues to the Committee. The amenity space would be of poor quality due to the overlooking and the proximity to bin and cycles stores. As a result the space would feel cramped and overshadowed.
He also highlighted the other key shortcoming including: the lack of one bed units contrary to policy; the mono aspect flats; the poor quality outlooks due to the proximity to a wall and surrounding properties, the contrived design features such as internal light wells that was out of keeping with the Tredegar Square Conservation Area. As a result, the scheme showed symptoms of overdevelopment. Officers were recommending that the scheme should be refused.
In response to questions, it was confirmed that some of the units would have poor outlooks at the upper floors as they would be facing 1-3 Lyn Mews and 66 Tredegar Square. Officers would seek to condition the fencing, if approved, to mitigate the impact on the footpath to protect light levels. Officers had held pre-applications with the applicant where better alternatives to this scheme for the site were discussed. Officers explained some alternatives that could overcome the issues given the site constraints. There were no exceptional circumstances to justify the non provision of one bed units given the 50% requirement in policy for market sales. Whilst the density range complied with the London Plan guidance, it clearly presented symptoms of overdevelopment as explained above. Officers also referred to a similar scheme that on appeal the Inspector concluded would lead to an unacceptable impact. Elements of the scheme would be noticeable from 55-56 Tredegar Square and Mile End Road.
In response, Members considered that the objections to this scheme were common to most developments in the Borough, such as the mono aspect units, quality of the amenity space etc. Any residential scheme on the site would face similar problems due to the site constraints (such as the wall). There was also no objection to the land use in principle.
It was also considered that the properties around Tredegar Square were of mixed design and there was no particular character. Therefore the proposal would be in keeping with the area and also had an innovative design. Furthermore, the expectation that the scheme could incorporate some of the design features of the Conservation Area was unrealistic given the size of the development.
Members also questioned the concerns around the lack of one bed units given this could increase overdevelopment further.
The scheme would also provide much needed family sized housing with amenity space and there was no objection to the impact on amenity.
On a vote of 1 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 3 against and 2 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission and conservation area consent (PA/13/633 & PA/123/634) at 65 Tredegar Square, London, E3 4 be NOT ACCEPTED for the erection of 8 no self contained houses with 2 no on site car parking spaces (Full planning permission) and demolition of existing warehouse (Conservation Area Consent PA/13/634).
The Committee were minded to approve the scheme due to the following reasons:
· That the application would provide much needed family housing with amenity space in accordance with the polices in the Council’s Core Strategy and the Development Plan for Bow that promoted such housing. On balance, this outweighed the failure to provide any one bed units as required in policy.
· The innovative design that related well to the surrounding Tredegar Square Conservation area.
· That there was no objection in principle to the redevelopment of the site and there would be no demonstrable harm to the amenity of the adjoining occupiers, as concluded in the Officers report.
· That any symptoms of overdevelopment were outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.
In accordance with the 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 approval and conditions on the application.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Anwar Khan, Tim Archer, Judith Gardiner, Gulam Robbani and Harun Miah)
Supporting documents: