The Area Planning Manager (East) introduced the application which concerned a proposal to remove an existing roof structure and construct a mansard style roof extension at Regent's Wharf, Wharf Place London E2.  The Planning Case Officer then presented his report informing the Committee that the proposal was to remove the existing pitched roof and replace with a mansard-style roof extension to provide 4 one-bedroom flats, and 2 two-bedroom flats with associated cycle parking and refuse storage facilities.  Notice had been served on residents. The site was situated in the Regent's Canal conservation area.  Statutory consultation had been undertaken and 25 letters of objection have been received concerned mainly around design.   The relevant planning issues were; land use, design, amenity, and transportation.  An environmental plan which deals with noise during construction had been produced.

The Chair enquired and Members indicated that they had no questions for the Planning Case Officer.

Members then heard from objectors who raised the following concerns:

• The proposal contravened policies DM26 (tall buildings were not displayed correctly), DM24 (the proposal did not demonstrate place sensitive design).
• The proposed development would create noise and disruption to existing occupants of the building.  Additionally there had been much successive development at the premises, much of which had not been delivered efficiently.  Therefore residents were not confident that the current proposal would be delivered in an efficient and timely manner.
• The proposal contained inaccuracies related to the orientation of some of the units which in fact faced East-West.
• The proposal would create new overlooking and exacerbate existing issues around overlooking.
• The additional height that would be created would negatively affect daylight/sunlight into some of the existing flats.
• Existing parking had been lost as the developer had inserted flats in the basement. The additional cycle parking would reduce this further.
• The proposal also prevents occupants from enjoying their own home and working from home because of noise and disruption during development.

Responding to a Member question, objectors informed the Committee that there were concerns around waste storage because the Paladin containers were not accessible.

The Committee then heard from the Architect who highlighted the following elements of the proposal:

• All in all specifications of the proposal complied with all Tower Hamlets policies.
• The design was sympathetic to its location.
• The site offered scope for height adaption for a mansard conversion and the design had been carefully planned to maintain privacy.
• All elements for waste storage had been met.
• Concerns around previous construction works had been noted and there was a construction management plan.
• During the pre-application period, the applicant had worked to improve the scheme to ensure compliance and that the locality was enhanced.

Responding to Members’ questions the Architect provided the following additional information.  In regard to previous applications withdrawn and rejected or dismissed, the architect advised that these had involved other firms; however since his engagement to the project he had worked to achieve an improved proposal/outcome.

The Committee then addressed the Planning Officers and enquired:

• How the Council would ensure that the issues around delays and disruption were not repeated.  Members were advised that the application should be considered on the basis of planning policy on the use of the land.  Additionally it was not the possible to impose conditions on completion times.
• Whether the proposal triggered over development criteria. Members were informed that the density calculation met the planning tests.
• Why daylight and sunlight assessments had not been undertaken.  Members were informed that this had been because the additional height (0.6m) that the proposal would cause was considered negligible.
• What assessments had been undertaken in regard to parking facilities.  Members were informed that relevant data had been checked and cycle parking facilities inspected before bringing forward a recommendation.

The Committee, having considered all of the information provided, remained concerned that the impacts of the proposal on daylight/sunlight had not been assessed and that there was alleged daylight and sunlight impacts on windows in the block

Councillor Salva-Macallan moved a proposal that the application be deferred pending a daylight and sunlight assessments this was seconded by Councillor Bustin and on a vote of 5 in favour and 1 abstention the Committee

RESOLVED

That the application BE DEFERRED pending provision of:

1.    daylight/sunlight assessments and

2.    a briefing detailing build management, in the context of the historic issues around delivery of previous enhancements; what the Developer could offer to mitigate, how it will function and whether it can be enforced