Agenda item
Balmoral House, 12 Lanark Square, London E14 9QD (PA/16/1081/A1)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 8th February, 2017 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.1)
- View the background to item 5.1
Proposal:
Erection of three additional storeys to building to create nine new residential units (4 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) plus external amenity space, associated refuse storage and secure cycle storage provision
Recommendation:
The Committee resolves to Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions
Minutes:
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the erection of three additional storeys to building to create nine new residential units (4 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) plus external amenity space, associated refuse storage and secure cycle storage provision
The Chair then invited the registered speaker to address the Committee.
Local residents and Councillor Andrew Wood spoke in objection to the proposal. They highlighted the level of opposition to the proposal amongst residents and local Councillors and expressed concern about the risk to the structure of the building should the development go ahead. The health and safety implications of this for residents were unacceptable. Furthermore, the marketing evidence showed that the new units would not be for local people. They also expressed concern about the lack of consultation by the developer with the residents, noise disturbance during the construction phase, adding to the existing impacts from the work on neighbouring developments.
Concern was expressed also about incremental development of the block and the cumulative impact from this. This approach meant that no affordable housing could be required. It was considered that was a relatively unique project and there was no planning policy covering this type of development. Therefore, it was at the Committee’s discretion to reach their own decision on the application. Concern was also expressed about the lack of local amenities to accommodate the dwellings arising from the fact the development was originally a commercial premises. It was also questioned whether there was a need for additional housing in this area given the number of new developments. Concern was also expressed about the waste plans.
In response to questions from the Members they explained in further detail their concerns about the adequacy of the consultation during the Christmas period and noise disruption during the construction works. They also clarified their concerns about the structural issues, the lack of amenities to accommodate the development, and incremental development of the site given the planning history in respect of the lower floors.
George Georgiou (Applicant) John Dowland (Resident of Balmoral House) and David Mansoor (Agent) spoke in support of the application. They considered that the issues raised had been addressed in the Officers report. An ample amount of consultation had been carried out with LBTH and also with residents. The proposal had been well advertised and many of the residents saw the advantages of the proposal. Objections had been raised. But most of these concerned structural issues and tenant and landlord matters that were not planning matters. In any event, the structural issues could be dealt with through party wall agreement to ensure that the interests of residents were safeguarded. It was also stated that the plans would deliver nine high quality new homes in an accessible location in terms of public transport links. The mix of units complied with policy. The plans mirrored the nearby Marina Point development and the Council’s Urban Design Officer considered that it would be in keeping with the area.
In response to questions from the Committee, they outlined the nature of the consultation. Every effort had been made to reach out to all the tenants and leaseholders. Many of the residents of the development itself supported the application and felt that the benefits would offset any issues. They also reported that the plans had been amended to address the concerns.
In response to further questions, the speakers confirmed that it was intended that the communal areas would be upgraded as part of the work at no cost to the leaseholders. The Committee were advised that this was not a planning matter.
The speakers also answered further questions about the quality of the proposed units and private amenity space, the structural issues, the measures to prevent overlooking to neighbours and preserve the occupants’ wellbeing during the construction phase. They also addressed the concerns about incremental development.
Jane Jin (Planning Services) presented the application, explaining the site location and the nature of the area. The building formed part of a cluster of buildings. Permission was granted in 2013 to convert office space on the ground floor to residential space as detailed in the Committee report.
In terms of the background to this proposal, consultation was originally carried out in mid 2016. The application was then amended and a second round of consultation was carried out in December 2016. Turning to the assessment, the provision of nine additional housing at the site was welcomed to meet the Borough’s housing demand. The plans did not trigger the Council’s affordable housing policy given the number of units. In addition Officers did not consider that the plans could be considered as incremental development given the nature of and timing of the previous consents as set out in the Committee report. Eight of the nine units would benefit from private amenity space. Given the overall standard of the units, this slight shortfall in private amenity space was considered acceptable. The height and design of the proposal would be appropriate for its context and there would be measures to minimise the impact on the neighbouring buildings especially at the ‘pinch point’ between buildings. Officers also explained the refuse plans and the impact on car parking at the site. Given the merits of the application, Officers were recommending that it was granted permission.
In response to the presentation, Members asked questions about the policy guidance for assessing the application. Officers confirmed that there were a range of policies for assessing this application in respect of the density of the application, design, sunlight and daylight impacts amongst other matters.
Members also asked about the changes to the scheme to address the concerns and about the lack of any affordable housing. It was reported that changes had been made to the design and further information had been submitted about the daylight and sunlight impacts. As explained in the presentation, due to its size, the application did not trigger the Council’s affordable housing policy.
The Committee also asked about the planning history. It was noted that at the time of the recent Marina Point consent, there were no indication that a further application would come forward at this site. Furthermore, given the lack of any physical links between the two developments, Officers did not consider that the incremental development policy could be applied in relation to this aspect of the plans. The policy stated that there needed to be a link between the functioning of the two developments for it to be relevant and in this case there was not.
Members also asked questions about the density of the application and the lack of any additional child play space or communal space to cater for the new occupants. It was confirmed there was no requirement in policy to provide this for schemes of this size.
In response to further questions, Officers outlined the waste management plans, the New Homes Bonus funding and the construction management plans that would mitigate the impact of the works. The Committee also discussed the lack of LBTH Environmental Health comments and the reasons for this.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 6 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 6 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission atBalmoral House, 12 Lanark Square, London E14 9QD be NOT ACCEPTED for the erection of three additional storeys to building to create nine new residential units (4 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) plus external amenity space, associated refuse storage and secure cycle storage provision (PA/16/1081/A1)
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
· Overlooking from the proposal to neighbouring properties and the failure to mitigate this.
· The approach to incremental development across the site in terms of the affordable housing, communal amenity space and child play space issues.
· Density of the proposal and the steps taken to mitigate this.
· Adverse impact on residential amenity 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: