Agenda item
Vic Johnson House Centre, 74 Armagh Road, London, E3 2HT (PA/15/01601)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 25th November, 2015 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.1)
- View the background to item 6.1
Proposal:
Part demolition, part refurbishment, part new build (extension) to total 60 age restricted apartments (over 55s) sheltered housing scheme, including new communal areas (lounge, function room, hair salon and managers office), and associated landscape gardens. The proposed use remains as existing. The scheme is on part 2, part 3 and part 4 storeys.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Shiria Khatun (Chair) for this item.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal for the part demolition, part refurbishment, part new build (extension) to total 60 age restricted apartments (over 55s) sheltered housing scheme.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Marcus Cook, resident of the property and Councillor Marc Francis spoke in objection to the scheme. They expressed concern about:
· Impact on the amenity of the existing residents especially during the construction phase.
· Loss of valuable community space and green space in view of the proposed increase in units and loss of green space generally in the area.
· Appearance of the proposal – unsightly appearance
· Affordability of the new units.
· Impact on the health and wellbeing of the elderly residents arising from the stress of moving.
· Overdevelopment of the site in view of the above.
In response to questions, they reported that whilst there had been a series of consultation meetings, there was a lack of engagement on the substance of this scheme (i.e. the doubling of the number of units, the demolition work and the relocation of tenants). They also clarified their concerns about the loss of amenity space (including the part at the back of the warden’s house and along the bungalows), that was much used by residents. There was a lack of detail in the report about what exactly was being lost. Concern was also expressed about the displacement of the occupant of the warden’s house.
Maureen Jackson(resident) and James Wallace (Applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the application. They stated that many of the residents supported the proposal given the proposed improvements to their living environment. The scheme would also delivery a number of good quality new apartments. Consultation had been carried out with residents and support provided to help them fully understand the plans. There were measures to mitigate the impact on the existing residents, intending to stay, during the construction phase (such as the provision of a separate day lounge and day visits with free transport). One of the reasons why the warden’s houses needed to be removed was to address the drainage problems that it was causing.
The speakers then responded to questions from Members, explaining that the new units would be at affordable rents, the main entrance would be relocated and the vehicle and emergency access points would remain as existing.
They also explained the number of existing residents that would remain on the scheme and that those who had moved would have option of coming back. There would be a net increase in amenity space and private amenity space in the form of balconies.
Jane Jin (Team Leader, Development and Renewal) presented the report and update explaining the nature of the proposal including the number of new units and those to be retained. Consultation had been carried out and the issues raised were summarised in the presentation slide and in the Committee report.
Members were advised of the existing and proposed layout of the Vic Johnson House including the proposed extension. They were also advised of the proposed height of the proposal, design, the range of new facilities and the significant improvements to the amenity space. In terms of the housing, the new units would be at the borough framework rents levels and the existing units would remain social rent units. The new units complied with the London Plan in terms of quality.
Consideration had been given to the amenity impact of the scheme both on residents of the development itself and also neighbouring amenity. No adverse impacts were anticipated in terms of sunlight/daylight and privacy as shown by the technical assessment. Careful consideration had been given to the impact from the construction phase in view of the concerns about this. To minimise the impact, there were a range of measures to mitigate the impact, during each phase of the scheme, that would be secured by condition.
In view of the merits of the scheme, Officers were recommending that the application be granted planning permission.
In response to the presentation, Members asked questions about:
· The impact on the green space given the proposed increase in residents units.
· Loss of the communal gardens and the quality of the replacement space.
· The consultation carried out with residents to see if they were supportive of the changes.
· The petition in objection.
· Construction impact on residents.
· Quality of the units (existing and new) in terms of wheelchair accessibility
· Design and scale of the scheme.
In response, it was emphasised the plans would deliver a good standard of amenity space, that exceeded the minimum in policy for a scheme of this nature. It would be of a much superior quality space to that there now and far easier to access. The layout of the reconfigured space and proposed features was noted. All of the new units would be wheelchair adaptable. Details of the arrangements were set out in the Committee report and were explained at the meeting.
As described in the presentation, the applicant had submitted a mitigation framework to alleviate the impact of the construction works on residents, based on similar successful scheme. These measures were listed. It was also considered that the design of the scheme was consistent with others in the area and there would be minimal impact on the setting of Conservation Area.
On a vote of 0 in favour, 5 against the Officer recommendation and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Shiria Khatun proposed and Councillor Sabina Akhtar seconded a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a unanimous vote it was RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at Vic Johnson House Centre, 74 Armagh Road, London, E3 2HT (PA/15/01601) for the part demolition, part refurbishment, part new build (extension) to total 60 age restricted apartments (over 55s) sheltered housing scheme, including new communal areas (lounge, function room, hair salon and managers office), and associated landscape gardens. The proposed use remains as existing. The scheme is on part 2, part 3 and part 4 storeys.
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns relating to:
· Loss of amenity space in view of proposed increase in units and the loss of the communal lounge that would not be replaced like for like
· Overdevelopment of the site.
· Bulk and size of the proposal that would be out of character with the surrounding area.
· Impact on the amenity of the existing residents of the development in terms of noise and disruption during the construction phase.
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: