Agenda item

Proposal: Partial demolition of rear extensions and construction of 5 x part two, part three storey mews dwellings. Demolition of three storey front projection, demolition and re-construction of existing 2^nd floor of ‘Social Club’ building and change of use of first floor from Community use to C3 (Residential) with balcony areas and internal re-configuration of existing 5 no. residential units within 3 & 4 Stuart Crescent and creation of an additional 9 no. residential units with associated landscaping works and parking.

Recommendation: GRANT

The Committee considered an application for the partial demolition of rear extensions and construction of 5 x part two, part three storey mews dwellings. Demolition of three storey front projection, demolition and re-construction of existing 2nd floor of ‘Social Club’ building and change of use of first floor from Community use to C3 (Residential) with balcony areas and internal re-configuration of existing 5 no. residential units within 3 & 4 Stuart Crescent and creation of an additional 9 no. residential units with associated landscaping works and parking.

Matthew Gunning, Planning Officer, introduced the report and responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In relation to the storeys proposed, it was noted that unit 5 would be single storey and the remaining units would be between two and four storeys. It was added that the bulk of the proposals had been minimised during the application period.

·         In relation to the distance between the proposal and the existing properties on Ewart Grove, the Planning Officer commented that the distances varied slightly depending on where measurements were taken from but were between 19.5m and 20.5m. It was acknowledged that this would be a close relationship but it was considered to be acceptable in an urban context.

·         It was queried whether the height of the wall at the rear of the Social Club would be higher or lower than the existing building. The Planning Officer noted that the heights depended on where the measurements were taken due to the variation of the ground level and the heights of different sections of the proposal. It was explained that, because the wings of the proposed building were angled downwards, or chamfered, and the main form was further from the boundary, the resulting relationship was considered to be acceptable.

·         In relation to the proposed mews house known as Mews 5, the Planning Officer noted that the existing wall was 3.4m high and that the proposed wall would be 6.4m high in total. It was explained that the aspect had been changed during the application process to minimise the bulk of the proposal, particularly in relation to 13 Ewart Grove. It was explained that the garden was considered to be sufficiently deep to mitigate the impact of the wall.

·         It was noted that the locally listed building did not have statutory protection but that the changes would be modest. It was commented that a low wall and soft landscaping would also be introduced at the front of the building and that large structure to the rear of the building would be removed; these were considered to improve the appearance of the building.

·         It was confirmed that the bin storage area on site would be for all units, including the mews houses and the semi-detached element.

·         In relation to parking, it was clarified that it was proposed for the scheme to be car free as there was considered to be capacity in the area. It was stated that paragraph 6.69 of the report should state that it was not considered unreasonable to request that car parking permits be restricted by the applicant entering into a section 106 agreement for that purpose. It was added that the council’s policies sought to minimise car use as much as possible and that the threshold set out in the Parking Policy for car free developments was four additional units.

Aneesha Noonan spoke in objection to the application. She explained that she was a resident of Ewart Grove and lived in a property that would be directly affected. She stated that she supported redevelopment of the site but expressed concerns that there was no commitment to social or affordable housing and did not feel that the report addressed the concerns that had been raised in relation to loss of privacy, amenity, massing, and density of occupation from the mews houses. It was considered that the proposals did not comply with Policy DM1 as they would not ensure that there was an appropriate amount of privacy for neighbouring properties to avoid overlooking, loss of privacy, and detriment to amenity.

Aneesha Noonan expressed specific concerns in relation to the design of mews houses 3 and 4 which were proposed to have three storeys above ground. It was acknowledged that there would be a 1.45m screen but it was not believed that this would prevent overlooking. It was considered that the drawing was unrealistic and appeared to be measured from the living room window rather than terrace itself. It was noted that residents would be able to look into the windows and gardens of properties on Ewart Grove and it was suggested that either the screens were too low or that the building heights were excessive. It was added that 1.7m high, sandblasted, glazed panels were proposed to protect privacy from second floor bedroom windows but it was asked that this condition be preserved in perpetuity to prevent overlooking and so that the glazing could not be changed by future residents. Aneesha Noonan also noted that the Construction Management Plan did mention any protection for gardens and boundaries during demolition and construction or any responsibility for repairs necessary as a result.

In response to the points raised in the objections and subsequent questions, the following responses were provided:

·         In relation to overlooking, the Head of Development Management explained that this had been assessed from both the windows and the terraces and it was considered that sufficient safeguards were in place. It was noted that the suggested condition for the 1.7m high panels would not be unacceptable to supplement condition 11. The Committee agreed that a condition to require obscured glazing be included and that this should be excluded from permitted development rights.

·         It was explained that any issues of damage during construction were covered under the Party Wall Act and this would be a civil dispute which was outside of the remit of the planning regime.

·         In relation to affordable housing, it was explained that there would be an additional floorspace of 800sqm and that the threshold for securing affordable housing was 1,000sqm.

Glyn Emrys (Emrys Architects), applicant team, addressed the Committee. It was stated that the applicant had tried to create a balance that worked well for the site and for everyone. It was noted that the ground varied and that there had been some confusion about the storey heights as the existing building was higher than a storey. It was highlighted that the design of the proposal on the north side of existing houses had been careful to ensure that sufficient light would be provided to existing houses and that the applicant was trying to be sensitive with the design and screening proposed. In relation to parking, it was added that the applicant would like to keep the car parking arrangements as proposed in paragraph 6.69 of the report. It was also noted that there would be a small level of additional area which would amount to 1,150 square feet.

The applicant team and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         In relation to a question about whether it would be possible to provide adaptations for the mews houses, Glyn Emrys stated that houses would always be able to be adapted but that this would be a question of when and to what degree, particularly if buildings were Listed or locally listed.

Cllr Mitchell moved to reject the application on the grounds that it did not comply with Policy DM1 and London Plan Policy D6 as it did not relate positively to neighbouring properties, would result in a loss of privacy and overlooking, and would be detrimental to the amenity of surrounding housing. It was also noted that, under Policy DM7, this was partly a backland site, would not safeguard privacy and amenity for surrounding houses, and would not have any street frontage. It was added that the proposal would also result in harm to the conservation area. As it was not seconded, the motion was not passed.

The Head of Development Management confirmed the recommendations and the amended conditions as follows:

11. Prior to occupation the windows in the rear elevation as shown on plan X shall be fitted with obscure glazing to a height of 1.7 metres and retained in perpetuity. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details of the terrace balustrades and obscure glazing at a minimum of 1.45m shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development and the details shall be retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority

20. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 2015 or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, no additional windows, no roof extensions, rear extensions, outbuildings, means of enclosure (walls/fences), shall be erected without the grant of planning permission having first been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Following a vote with 9 votes in favour, 0 votes against, and 1 abstention, it was

RESOLVED

1.    To GRANT planning permission and that the Head of Development Management is authorised to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives.

2.    That delegated authority be granted to the Head of Development Management or the Assistant Director Planning, Building Standards and Sustainability to make any alterations, additions or deletions to the recommended heads of terms and/or recommended conditions as set out in this report and to further delegate this power provided this authority shall be exercised in consultation with the Chair (or in their absence the Vice-Chair) of the Sub-Committee.

Conditions (the full text of recommended conditions is contained in Appendix 1 of the report)

1)    Development begun no later than three years from date of decision

2)    In accordance with approved plans

3)    Materials submitted for approval

4)    Construction management plan (CMP)

5)    Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

6)    Green walls

7)    Roof restrictions as balconies

8)    Central Satellite dish

9)    Hard and soft landscaping

10) Cycle Parking

11) Details of balustrades including an amendment relating to obscure glazing

12) Electric vehicle provision

13) Section 278 Agreement

14) Retention of parking spaces

15) Fit out of community use

16) Part M4(2) Accessible and adaptable dwellings

17) Land contamination

18) Site specific geotechnical investigations and method statement for construction of basement works

19) Qualified engineer to oversee construction of basement works

20) Removal of permitted development rights including an amendment relating to obscure glazing

21) Hours of use / community

22) Waste collection