Agenda item
Balmoral House, 12 Lanark Square, London E14 9QD (PA/16/1081)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 10th May, 2017 7.00 p.m. (Item 4.1)
- View the background to item 4.1
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:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham 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
It was noted that at the 8th February meeting of the Committee, the Committee voted not to accept 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 affordable housing, communal amenity space and child play space.
· Density of the proposal
· Adverse impact on residential amenity during the construction phase
Jane Jin (Planning Services) reminded the Committee of the site location and the application. She then addressed each of the proposed reasons for refusal.
In relation to the first reason, it was considered that the scheme had been designed to prevent overlooking. However there would still be some loss of privacy. Therefore, Officers considered that a reason on this ground could form a basis for refusal.
In relation to incremental development, there was no policy basis for seeking amenity space or affordable housing for the development, given the number of proposed units and that the existing units in the building were considered under a different part of legislation and different set of policies, as other consented residential units within this building was done through prior approval process and planning approval in 1996. The applicant had explored whether some play space and communal space could be provided on site but found that due to the freeholder issues, this was not practical. Therefore, Officers considered that this reason could not be defended on appeal.
In terms of the density of the application, this fell within the recommended range for a scheme of this size with a PTAL rating of 4 in the London Plan. Therefore, Officers did not consider that a refusal of the scheme on the grounds of excessive density could be justified.
Regarding the construction impact, the applicant had submitted a construction management plan to mitigate the impact. The design of the building also included measures to minimise the construction impact. However, Officers were also mindful of the precedence set by a recent appeal case at 37 Millharbour in relation to the difficulties in overcoming noise disturbance during the construction phase. On balance Officers considered that despite the submission of the plans, there was still some uncertainty about how the construction impact would be mitigated. Therefore it was considered reasonable to refuse the planning permission on the basis of noise and disturbance during the construction phase.
Whilst Officers remained of the view that the application should be granted, they had drafted two suggested reasons for refusal for consideration by the Committee. If the Committee were minded to refuse the application, they were invited to base their decision on these reasons.
Members asked questions about the planning history and the quantum of amenity and child play space that could have been requested if the units in the development had come forward as one application. It was reported that this would have depended on the number of units provided and child yield. It was noted that the various application for the wider site all came forward at different times by different applicants under different planning policy. So there was no policy basis for requiring infrastructure. Members also asked about the freeholder issues (noting that the applicant did not own the freehold) and Officers explained in further detail how this had impacted on the plans.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 5 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the Committee report dated 10 May 2017 and on a vote of 5 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be REFUSED at Balmoral House, 12 Lanark Square, London E14 9QD 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) for the following reasons as set out in the Committee report, dated 10 May 2017:
1. The proposed development will result in unacceptable level of overlooking to the habitable rooms on the northern elevation of Aegon House, due to the proximity of the blocks. The proposal will therefore be contrary to policy SP10 of Tower Hamlets Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DM25 of the Managing Development Document 2013.
2. The proposal extension of the building would have detrimental impact in terms of noise and nuisance from the construction noise to the existing residents within the building and nearby, and therefore the proposal would fail to safeguard existing residential amenity, contrary to Policy DM25 of the Managing Development Document 2013.
Supporting documents:
- Balmoral House Draft Report Updated -FINAL, item 4.1 PDF 195 KB
- Balmoral House Report, 08/02/2017 Development Committee, item 4.1 PDF 907 KB