Agenda item
12 Follett Street, London, E14 6LX (PA/16/02786)
Proposal:
Change of use to residential accommodation and associated office (Sui Generis).
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for Change of use to residential accommodation and associated office (Sui Generis).
The Chair then invited the registered speaker to address the Committee.
Taj Uddin Shah spoke in support of the application. He reported that he was requesting that the temporary permission be granted to allow adequate time for his long standing practice to relocate to another premises. The solicitors practice was a community based firm that provided services to the community and local employment. No objections had been received and there was a great deal of support for the application. He also reported that he was unaware of the ‘Council’s zero policy’ in relation to commercial uses in the immediate area given that there were some commercial developments in the surrounding area. The property was currently being used as live/work unit.
In response to questions, he highlighted the strength of support for the proposal and the layout of the premises comprising residential and office space. He also commented on the sites good transport links and explained there was a limited amount of car parking available for staff. He also stressed that the application was for a temporary permission as set out in the update report and if approved it would revert back to residential use once the permission has come to an end.
Gyanerndra Datt (Planning Services) presented the application describing the site location. Permission was being sought to establish a live/work unit in an existing residential site. The site was already being used as a solicitors office which was not authorised.
A similar application was submitted and refused in 2016 on the grounds that it would result in the loss of housing and was against the Council’s policy. An appeal against this decision was refused. The Planning Inspectors reasons for refusal were set out in the report.
Consultation had been carried out on the application. In responses 2 petitions and representations had been received in support along with supporting representation from Councillors.
Officers had carefully considered the merits of the scheme. Based on the findings of the Inspectors about the loss of housing and the concerns about the quality of the living environment, Officers considered that the application should be refused planning permission for the reasons set out in the Committee report.
In response the Committee asked questions about the residential element of the current arrangement. It was questioned whether the fact that it currently provided a live/work unit with intermittent residential use had been taken into account. Members also asked questions about the possibility of imposing a set time limit of the permission.
It was reported that the policy generally discouraged dual use units (as reported above) as in the majority of cases, such arrangements were very difficult to enforce. Furthermore, the temporary nature of the proposal had been considered and the Inspector was of the view that regardless of this, it would still result in the loss of housing space and this should be avoided. There was no evidence to suggest that the unit was unsuitable for residential purposes.
It was open to the Committee to decide whether to grant the permission for a temporary period. But exceptional circumstances should really be demonstrated to justify the proposed deviation from policy especially as there was no evidence that a relocation agreement was in place. It was noted that if refused, a planning enforcement notice would be issued and the applicant could appeal that decision and request that the time set out in the notice for compliance be varied.
On a vote of 3 in favour of the Officer recommendation and 4 against, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to refuse the planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the temporary planning permission be granted for a three year period and on a vote of 4 in favour and 3 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That temporary planning permission be GRANTED at 12 Follett Street, London, E14 6LX for the change of use to residential accommodation and associated office (Sui Generis) for a three year period (PA/16/02786)
2. That Officers be delegated authority to impose conditions on the planning permission.
Supporting documents: