Agenda item
Harley House and Campion House, Frances Wharf, London (PA/15/03433)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 28th September, 2016 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.2)
- View the background to item 5.2
Proposal:
Roof extensions at 7th floor and 9th floor levels to provide 6 new residential units along with the reconfiguration of 1 existing unit
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for roof extensions at 7th floor and 9th floor levels to provide 6 new residential units along with the reconfiguration of 1 existing unit
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Angus O’Callaghan and Laurence Coman spoke in opposition to the application. They were occupants of the existing building. They expressed concern that the proposal failed to respect the design of the existing building. Constructing apartments on top of an existing development was a very unusual concept. The proposal would also adversely affect the existing occupants amenity. They would see reductions in sunlight and daylight levels from the proposed balconies. The property most affected by the proposal had been excluded from the light assessment so it was inaccurate. There would also be loss of access to properties due to the planned works to the lift and the lack of an appropriate alternative. Occupants would also experience privacy issues and overlooking particularly from the new communal terrace. The plans would also put a strain on the existing buildings infrastructure and the density of the plans exceeded the London Plan density guidance so the plans would result in the overdevelopment of the site. The plans also conflicted with the LBTH policy in respect of roof extensions. The consultation carried out by the developer was inadequate.
In response the Members questions, they further discussed the perceived omissions from the sunlight and daylight report, the lack of consultation by the developer, the planning history of the site involving a number of different applications that had resulted in substantial changes to the building and a considerable amount of disruption.
Joel Ginn and Mr Hinsely spoke in support of the application. Whilst there was no requirement to provide affordable housing as part of the application, the applicant had offered to provide three one bed intermediate units. They explained the proposed changes to the lift, the steps that would be taken to minimise the disruption impact, the proposed construction methods and the length of time that the lift would be out of action for.
In response to questions, the speakers further explained the methods that would be used to minimise the disruption to residents, the anticipated time it would take to complete the works, that only small number of windows failed the sunlighting and daylighting test and that they were happy to look into the concerns about the ‘missing windows’ from the assessment.
Chris Stacey – Kinchin (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the application brought to the Committee due to the number of objections received in response to the consultation. He explained the site location, planning history resulting in the addition of units to the existing development. Due to the size of the application, it did not trigger the affordable housing policy, but the applicant had volunteered to provide intermediate housing. The plans involved the extension of the lift of both Harley and Campion House and the reorganisation of communal amenity space. Whilst there would be a loss of communal space, the new re - provided space would be of a lot higher quality, would exceed the policy requirements and would for the first time include play space. It was considered that the impact on amenity was broadly acceptable. Steps would be taken to mitigate the impact from the construction phase and there would be conditions regarding the lift to minimise disruption and provide mitigation measures when the lift was out of action. The design would be in keeping with the existing building. The scheme would be car free and there would be additional cycle and refuse storage bins for the occupants, in excess of the minimum policy requirements.
Officers were recommending that the planning permission be granted.
In response to the presentation, the Committee questioned the reasons for the changes at this present time and whether it could be viewed as incremental development given the planning history. They also asked about the housing mix of the previous application. Officers reported that given the time lapse since the original consented scheme, it would be unreasonable to conclude that this was a later stage of that application, therefore would be incremental development as defined in the policy. It should also be noted that a s106 could not be secured on minor developments for affordable housing.
In response to questions about the sunlight/daylight assessment and the concerns about missing windows, it was noted that it was common for north facing windows to be excluded from assessments and given that they were dual aspect properties, they would still receive good levels of light.
In relation to the fears about loss of privacy from the proposal, it was noted that there would be soft landscaping and obscure glazing to protect neighbouring amenity. Furthermore, the separation distances between the communal areas and existing units were acceptable.
In response to questions about the use of the lift, it was confirmed that steps would be taken to ensure it was out of operation for the shortest possible time and to provide a suitable alternative when it was out of operation.
In response to further questions about the density of the application, it was noted that the existing and the proposed developments did exceed the density range in the London Plan density matrix. However the proposal showed no symptoms of overdevelopment.
It was also noted that, in the interests of increasing the affordability of the units, the intermediate units had been secured as one bed units and that the proposal was not an uncommon form of development.
On a vote of 2 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 3 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed and Councillor Andrew Cregan seconded a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on vote of 3 in favour, 0 against and 3 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at Harley House and Campion House, Frances Wharf, London for roof extensions at 7th floor and 9th floor levels to provide 6 new residential units along with the reconfiguration of 1 existing unit (PA/15/03433)
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
· The density of the proposal given the failure to meet the special circumstances criteria in the London Plan density matrix, enabling applications to exceed the recommended density range.
· Impact on the amenity of the existing residents in terms of loss of sunlight and daylight, noise, access to the building and disturbance during the construction phase.
· Incremental development in view of the planning history of the site.
· That the design of the proposal would undermine that of the main development.
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.
On a vote of 2 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 3 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed and Councillor Andrew Cregan seconded a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on vote of 3 in favour, 0 against and 3 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at Harley House and Campion House, Frances Wharf, London for roof extensions at 7th floor and 9th floor levels to provide 6 new residential units along with the reconfiguration of 1 existing unit (PA/15/03433)
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
· The density of the proposal given the failure to meet the special circumstances criteria in the London Plan density matrix, enabling applications to exceed the recommended density range.
· Impact on the amenity of the existing residents in terms of loss of sunlight and daylight, noise, access to the building and disturbance during the construction phase.
· Incremental development in view of the planning history of the site
· That the design of the proposal would undermine that of the main development.
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: