Agenda item
281-285 Bethnal Green Road, E2 6AH (PA/14/03424)
Recommendation:
Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide a residential led mixed use development, comprising the retention of the existing façade to the Bethnal Green Road frontage, erection of two five-storey buildings (with basement) to provide 21 dwellings and 130 sqm of commercial space falling within use classes A1, A2, B1, D1 and/or D2, plus cycle parking, refuse/recycling facilities and access together with communal and private amenity space.
Proposal:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to Any direction by The London Mayor, The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning , obligations: conditions and informatives set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal. The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
David Jode, resident of a neighbouring property, spoke in objection to the application. He objected to the impact on neighbouring amenity from the height of the development in terms of loss of light and overshadowing. He also objected to overlooking from the scheme to neighbouring properties and the impact of noise and disturbance from the proposal
In response to questions, he expressed concern about the lack of consultation by the applicant with immediate neighbours. He clarified his comments on the extent of the overlooking to neighbouring properties. Properties at Bethnal Green Road and Florida Street would be overlooked. Windows would directly overlook existing windows. A key issue was the separation distances and the height.
Tim Gaskell spoke in support of the application. He considered that the existing buildings were low rise so any development of the site would have some impact. The scheme had been carefully designed to maximise light thought the site and to surrounding properties and the scheme complied with the policy guidance for light. The applicant had taken on board the feedback from the consultation (both at pre and post application stage) which was generally positive. Nevertheless, the applicant had amended the scheme to address the concerns. There was no commercial interest in the site in its current use as shown by the marketing evidence. The shortcomings of the site and existing building in this regard were explained. The proposed development would include good quality affordable housing. The plans would also restore lost features and the design would reflect the history of the building.
In response to questions, it was explained that there had been widespread local consultation, (leaflets, public meetings). In response, steps had been taken to reduce the height, remove the bar use and to minimise the impact on neighbouring amenity including the impact on the speakers property. There would be also obscured glazing and views at oblique angles only. He also answered questions about the scope of the marketing exercise and the method used. The scheme had been marketed for a number of uses but due to the site constraints, it did not lend itself to other uses. There was no interest in the building in its current form.
Adam Hussain, (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal), presented the report explaining the site location carrying no specific site designations in policy. The subject building was not in a Conservation Area or protected through statutory or local listing. The surrounding area was mainly residential. The site had excellent public transport links. He also explained the history of the building and the outcome of the local consultation and the objections received.
He described the nature of the application including: the layout, the housing mix, the appearance and height and the measures to retain the original features. He explained the outcome of the sunlight and daylight assessment of the surrounding properties and the amenity space including the objector’s property. The findings broadly met the requirements in policy save for some minor losses. Overall, the impact on amenity was acceptable (including the impact on privacy and sense of openness amongst other issues). Highway Services had no objections. Officers were recommending that the scheme was granted planning permission.
In response to Members questions, it was explained that the neighbouring terrace would actually benefit from increased levels of sunlight due to the removal of the obstruction caused by the deep building roof ridge and replacement with two buildings and an open courtyard. It was felt that the separation distances were acceptable measuring 13 metres at the closest point. They were not uncommon for an urban setting and complied with the guidance in local policy for separation distances (there were no statutory guidance for separation distances). Furthermore, there were measures to minimise any impact on privacy as set out in condition 13 and additional measures could be added to this if necessary.
In response to further questions, it was reported that the applicant had fully met and exceeded the requirements in terms of marketing. It was found that due to the many issues with the location, that other sites were more appealing for the existing use. Whilst the marketing evidence was convincing, the Chair questioned whether more could be done to test the evidence and whether a proactive approach should be taken to this. Officers suggested that this could be taken into account as part of the Local Plan refresh.
The internal layout of the building had been substantially changed. Many of the original features had been lost as shown by English Heritage’s assessment.
It was considered that the housing mix was acceptable noting the differences in the number of habitable rooms per unit type (particular amongst the three bed units). It was noted that the differences could be attributed to the different room sizes. The larger units tended to lend themselves to a variety of different layouts. In addition, for certain unit types, the kitchen had been classified as a habitable room.
The Applicant had submitted additional information confirming the location of the ground floor waste storage. LBTH Environmental Services were satisfied with the plans. The previously submitted floor plan omitted this in error. The Fire Authority had no concerns about the scheme subject to the clarification of the water supplies that was a building regulation issue. The scheme could not go ahead without this.
The scheme had been designed to blend in with the local area. The measures to ensure this were noted.
On a vote of 5 in favour and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That Planning Permission at 281-285 Bethnal Green Road, E2 6AH be GRANTED for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide a residential led mixed use development, comprising the retention of the existing façade to the Bethnal Green Road frontage, erection of two five-storey buildings (with basement) to provide 21 dwellings and 130 sqm of commercial space falling within use classes A1, A2, B1, D1 and/or D2, plus cycle parking, refuse/recycling facilities and access together with communal and private amenity space (PA/14/03424) Subject to:
2. Any direction by The London Mayor
3. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the Committee report.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within normal delegated authority.
5. 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 Committee report.
Supporting documents: