Agenda item
Land to the south of Rainhill Way, Bow Cross Estate, London, E3 (PA/14/01486)
Proposal:
Erection of 4 x 3 bedroom residential units on land located south of Rainhill way, Bow Cross Estate, London E3.
Recommendation:
To GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader , Development and Renewal) introduced the application.The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Claire O’Riordan, Councillors Danny Hassell and Khales Uddin Ahmed spoke against the application speaking on behalf of surrounding residents. They expressed the following concerns:
- That scheme would have an overbearing impact on 1-9 Rainhill Way, due to the height of the scheme and the proximity to the boundary. This would make living conditions unbearable.
- The scheme would overshadow the gardens, result in a loss of light to neighbouring properties and generally darken the area.
- The analysis in the report did not fully take into account the impact on sunlight and daylight. The study commissioned by residents showed that many more of the windows would fail the tests.
- That the Planning Inspectorates concerns over the three storey element had not been addressed. There was no consistency in decision making.
- Overdevelopment of the site given the density of the scheme, site constraints and the density of the surrounding area.
- Concerns about the loss of green space that was well used.
- Concerns about the quality of the new growing space due to the lack of natural light amongst other problems.
- That the child yield figures were unrealistic.
- Planning Enforcement issues.
- That the proposal would increase crime.
In response to questions about the consultation, it was felt that there was a lack of consideration of the feedback. The Planning Inspectorate considered that the three storey element would be overbearing. This remained a major concern. The scheme was very similar to the refused scheme in terms of proximity to the boundary wall with only one metre difference.
The applicant’s representatives Lyndon Gill and Tina Khakee addressed the Committee and expressed the following points:
- Referred to the outline scheme for the Estate and the previous planning consents for the site that established the principle of this scheme.
- That the scheme had been amended to address the previous concerns by reducing the height and massing amongst other changes. As a result, there would be no undue impact on amenity.
- The scheme had been amended in response to consultation to provide more growing space.
- That the scheme would sit comfortable with the surrounding area due to the design.
- They outlined the benefits of the scheme including that the scheme would provide good quality housing helping to meet the Borough’s housing needs.
· That the density of the scheme complied with policy.
· That it was planned to provide two areas of food growing space in excess of the current informal arrangements.
· Recognised that mistakes had been made in taking forward the previous scheme, but this scheme was very different.
· That the applicant had run consultation events at pre application stage for residents where the plans for the site would have been explained.
· That the Applicant was willing to defer the application to engage further with Councillors and residents with a view to addressing the concerns.
· Noted that the outline scheme had not expired
In response to questions, it was reported that two consultation events were held on the application. Leaflets were also distributed. However, residents may not have been given an opportunity to see the amendments to the gardens. The scheme achieved the policy tests for sunlight and daylight with no major failures.
Jane Jin (Planning Officer) presented the report explaining the site and surrounds, the planning history including the appeal decisions and the outcome of the local consultation. The principle of housing on the site had already been established and the site was not designated open space. Accordingly, the site was considered suitable for residential use.
She also explained the plans to formalise the food growing area at a much higher standard and the extent of the consultation on the amended plans. The impact on amenity was acceptable in terms of daylight, sunlight, sense of enclosure, with no undue impacts as shown by the submitted assessment.
Overall, Officers considered that changes to the scheme were a significant improvement on the previous schemes and generally complied with policy. In view of the merits of the scheme, it should be granted planning permission.
In response to questions, Officers confirmed that the planning history was a material consideration. Members should take this into account when assessing the planning merits of the application.
It was considered that the impact on the gardens (existing and proposed) was acceptable given the minor nature of the impacts, the existing levels of shading and the quality of the new community gardens.
The separating distance to the nearest properties at 1-9 Rainhill Way was 16.1 metres. It was over a metre in excess of that that for the previous scheme (From the eastern elevation to the nearest windows). Therefore, the impact on the amenity of these properties would be acceptable.
Councillor Sirajul Islam moved that the application be deferred to allow the Applicant to carry out further consultation with a view to addressing the concerns. On being put to a vote, this was lost.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 6 against and 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at Land to the south of Rainhill Way, Bow Cross Estate, London, E3 (PA/14/01486) be NOT ACCEPTEDfor the erection of 4 x 3 bedroom residential units on land located south of Rainhill way, Bow Cross Estate, London E3
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over:
- Scale and bulk of the scheme, impact on sunlight and daylight and overshadowing.
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.
Supporting documents: