Agenda item
1 - 7 Mears Close, London, E1 1AS (PA/18/01538)
Minutes:
An update report was tabled.
The Area Planning Manager (East) introduced the report which concerned an application to create an additional upper storey to an existing terrace of properties at 1 – 7 Mears Close; the proposal also included a roof terrace, associated privacy screens and skylights. Its purpose was to provide extended living accommodation to the existing properties plus roof terraces and the creation of a top floor flat.
The Planning Case Officer then presented the report informing the Committee of the relevant planning considerations related to the application. These were; land use, design, quality of residential accommodation, amenity, transport and services.
He advised that there had been statutory planning consultation comprising 73 notification letters, site notice and a press notice. 23 objections had been received concerned with potential amenity impact, daylight/sunlight impacts, enclosure, overlooking and potential noise disruption during construction.
In relation to the setting of the proposed development on the Committee was informed that the surrounding buildings in Settles Street were four storeys plus basement and properties had been assessed for impacts on amenity; namely daylight/sunlight privacy, overlooking and separation. Upon assessment some impacts around enclosure were noted however these were mitigated by design features which would break up the mass and mitigate the sense of enclosure. Daylight/sunlight assessments had been undertaken in accordance with BRE standards and results indicated that the proposal did not breach these guidelines. Additionally the scheme met tests for public transportation and waste removal.
Responding to Members’ questions the Planning Case Officer provided the following additional information:
- There would be no impacts on the nearby conservation area as the application site was not located within it and, apart from some areas of Fieldgate Street, there would be no public views of the development from the conservation area.
- External spaces and balconies had been designed to protect privacy. Overlooking would be mitigated by the installation of fixed opaque glass screens.
- The amenity space proposed was in excess of policy requirements.
- The additional rooms that would be created in each of the properties would be accessed from existing stairwells; these would be extended into the new areas.
- Waste bins for the additional property would be located in the same area as that provided for the existing properties and accessed via Settles Street.
- Noting an observation that a property in Greenfield Street did not have residential unit status, Members were informed that, since it has been inhabited for some time, this could be attained by submissions of specified evidence.
The Committee heard from two objectors. They submitted their statements raising the following concerns:
- Residents of properties in Settles Street already experienced overshadowing from the current development and this would be exacerbated by the addition of the roof extensions.
- The BRE tests described by the Planning Case Officer did not properly reflect the levels of sunlight/daylight experienced by those occupying the properties. These properties were all flats and included some basement units.
- Some properties are presently overlooked a 2 metre wall; should the development go ahead, this would become a 6 metre wall.
- The site was first redeveloped in 2007 and those inhabiting the properties surrounding, used their private premises for a mixture of work and residential purposes. The proposal would be detrimental to them in terms of amenity.
- The proposal would render those already living in the surrounding properties boxed in.
- The proposal would result in much reduced light levels especially in winter. Additionally, properties in Settles Street were East facing therefore the loss of afternoon/evening light would be exacerbated by the additional storey proposed.
- The proposed development would not significantly enhance the quality of the existing surroundings.
Having heard these submissions, Members indicated that they had no questions they wished to ask objectors but wished to enquire further of the Planning Case Officer. They received the following additional information:
- Concerning impacts of the proposal on the views from Greenfield Road, all present were shown presentational slides by the Planning Case Officer to highlight the distance between the existing properties and the proposed development.
- Offering clarification on how the daylight assessments were undertaken, Members were informed that BRE guidance was used to assess how the proposal might impact surrounding dwellings. The 25° line specified in the BRE assessment framework was a pivotal criteria to determine if there would be detriment.
The Committee then heard from 2 parties acting on behalf of the applicant. These were architect/agent for the current proposal and the engineer/architect who was involved with the development in 2007. They informed the Committee that:
- The scheme had had been carefully designed to ensure that it can be delivered without detriment to surrounding residents.
- The design to extend the roof line had been proposed to meet the requirements of the neighbourhood and there had been work with the community to shape the proposal.
- The new structures would not be seen from the road.
- To mitigate noise construction, much of the structure would be fabricated off-site and assembled on location. Therefore disruption arising from construction would be reduced.
Members questioned the applicant's representatives and they provided the following additional information:
- Elevation issues in the direction of Greenfield Road had been addressed through provision of a translucent white glass screens which would permit light to travel. Additionally it was noted that the terraces at Greenfield Road were at second floor level.
- Concerning a query that the proposed roof additions would create more density, the Committee was informed that the proposed additions were set back from the original elevation of the Mears Close properties and therefore there would be no detriment.
- Concerning whether there had been sufficient consultation and engagement with residents, Members were informed that the Council had engaged with the public through the normal processes.
The Committee, noting that the material planning considerations at issue were design heritage and waste, then discussed the proposal taking into account the written and verbal information presented to them. They considered the information provided around:
- The potential vista impacts of the development on the nearby conservation area.
- Concerns about the daylight assessment and the application of the BRE test.
- The height of the development in relation to the height of other buildings which surround it.
- The impact of the development on the sense of enclosure and density.
The Committee noted that prior to development in 2007 there had been no residential units at this site and wished to receive fuller information on how the development at 1 – 7 Mears Close had affected density and also how the proposal might affect this. Officers advised the Committee that assessments indicated that the proposal would cause no additional detrimental impacts related to the matters at issue.
Following discussion, Members proceeded to consider the officer recommendation. They indicated that they did not support the recommendation set out in the report. Councillor Gabriela Salva-Mcallan proposed and Councillor Mufeedah Bustin seconded that the application be deferred for a site visit and on a vote of 3 in favour and 1 against the Committee:
RESOLVED
That the application for planning permission at 1 – 7 Mears Close, London E1 1AS be DEFERRED for a site visit.
The Committee was minded to defer the application for a site visit for the following reasons:
· Members were concerned about the potential impacts of the proposed development on daylight/sunlight levels to the properties adjacent to the mews.
· Members were concerned about density.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED in order to undertake a site visit.
Supporting documents: