Application Number: 19/P3365      Ward: Abbey

Officer Recommendation: GRANT Planning Permission subject to conditions and S106 Agreement

RESOLVED that Planning Permission for Application 19/P3365 is REFUSED.  The reasons will be set out in the minutes.

Proposal: Erection of a 2 storey roof extension comprising of 5 self-contained units (1 x studio 2 x 1 bed & 2 x 2 bed flats)

The Committee noted the planning officer’s report and presentation and the additional information in the supplementary agenda.

The Committee received a verbal representation from an objector who raised points including the bin storage, the accuracy of the drawings submitted, disruption to existing residents and structural integrity.

At the invitation of the Chair, a statement was read out on behalf of another objector who raised points covered by the first objector in addition to the lack of energy statement and the risk to the TfL tunnels below.

The Committee received a verbal presentation on behalf of the applicant, who addressed points raised by the objectors and advised that the owners were working with residents to address some of the building management issues raised.  He asked the Committee to note that many issues raised by the objectors were not planning considerations.  He outlined the effort made by the applicant to create a design that would enhance the building and felt that the proposed height would not be out of keeping with the area.

The Development Control Team Leader (North) responded to the points raised and advised the Committee that the building maintenance issues and the disruption caused to residents during construction were not planning considerations or reasonable grounds for refusal.  He drew Members attention to the supplementary agenda which addressed the issue of the bin storage.

At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor Ben Butler addressed the Committee on behalf of the residents and outlined concerns including the disrepair of the current building, bin storage, and the impact of the construction process on existing residents.

At the invitation of the Chair, a written statement was read out on behalf of Councillor Nigel Benbow, who outlined concerns on behalf of the residents including the failures of the owner in relation to the maintenance of the building, the lack of an energy statement and the height of the proposed building.

In response to questions from Members, the Development Control Team Leader (North) advised

·         that issues relating to emergency exits would be covered under Building Control regulations and building construction would be dealt with by condition requiring a construction logistics plan and additional conditions recommended by TfL.

·         TfL had not raised an objection to the application but had recommended a number of conditions and informatives which had been included in the officer recommendation.

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 7.58pm for Clap for our Carers and resumed the meeting at 8.05pm.

The Chair drew Members attention to the planning considerations on page 18 of the agenda and invited further questions.  In response, the Development Control Team Leader (North) advised

·         that the references to roof terraces were for a previous application.

·         Fire safety would be a Building Control matter and could not be covered by planning condition.

·         No affordable housing had been included in the previous application, and the application had been subject to a viability review.  There was no affordable housing proposed in the current application and the Council was not able to require affordable housing provision in applications of less than 10 units under current the current policy.

·         It was not felt that the application could be turned down based on only including 1 and 2 bed properties.

·         Policy 3.3 of the London Plan applied in this case as the application sought to intensify development on the current site.

The Committee made a number of comments and raised concerns, including:

·         The height, bulk, massing and design of the proposal.

·         The number of conditions recommended by TfL raised questions over safety.

·         The poor workmanship of the cladding on the current building and concerns over building safety.

·         The impact of the construction on the access to the lift and stairways and concerns over fire safety.

·         Forthcoming statutory guidance due to be published on 1 June 2020 would require buildings over 11 metres to have sprinklers installed and the proposed building would be 27 metres.  There was no reference to sprinklers in the report and it was felt that the application should not be approved without addressing this point.

·         The application would have a negative impact on the surrounding area.

A motion to refuse the application was proposed and seconded and carried unanimously.

RESOLVED that

1.    Planning Permission for Application 19/P3365 is REFUSED for the following reasons:

·         Planning Policy DM D2 – The height, bulk and design are out of keeping with the area.

·         Planning Policy DM D3 – The proposal would not make a positive contribution to the area.

2.    Authority be delegated to the Director of Environment & Regeneration to make any appropriate amendments in the context of the above to the wording of the grounds of refusal including references to appropriate policies