Agenda item

5.         Unit 3 Ashby Mews, SE4 1TB (DC/17/104640) (item 5 on the agenda)

The presenting officer outlined the facts of the case as a change of use of a Gallery (Use Class B1) to a Live/Work unit (sui generis). He stated that there were several examples of live/work units in the immediate vicinity, and that the development was acceptable in planning terms and had in numerous instances recently been considered to be acceptable in the local area. The proposal had been recommended for approval by officers.

Councillor Adefiranye sought clarification on the existing and proposed uses and asked whether a site visit had been carried out and when. The presenting officer clarified the proposed use would be live/work ancillary to each other, and the existing approved use was as an artist gallery/studio and that a site visit had been carried out – he also stated that the property was the subject of an enforcement case, and an enforcement officer had also visited.

Councillor Paschoud raised concern that the introduction of a residential dwelling to a generally industrial area may have a negative impact on the continued functioning of the area as industrial because residents may complain about disturbance from the industrial units, which could lead to their loss. The presenting officer stated that other units within the immediate area have permission for residential usage already. Furthermore the area is of generally light industrial usage, which is not as noisy as other heavy industrial uses.

Councillor Till asked whether there were restrictions to the proposed working hours and whether this could be conditioned. The presenting officer stated that it could potentially be conditioned. 

Christina Brandenburg, the agent for the application then spoke in support of the scheme. She started by reminding the committee that there are existing live/work units on Ashby Mews.

She stated that the applicant and current owner had owned the unit for 7 years, and is looking to move on, but all interested parties desire a live/work unit, as the existing gallery usage is very specific to the current owner.

They confirmed there would be no external alterations, and there is a already kitchen and bathroom at the unit. They believe the proposal would fit in well with the area.

They stated that the Council’s enforcement team had confirmed the unit is not currently in residential usage and that a Non Material Amendment permission had been granted for external alterations in 2015. She concluded by stating the proposal exceeds all minimum standards of internal accommodation for a residential dwelling.

Councillor Adefiranye asked whether the existing usage of the gallery was for 24 hours a day. The applicant’s response was that the hours of use had never been restricted at the unit. The Councillor then asked if the unit was currently used as a dwelling, as he suspected it was, to which the applicant replied it was not.

Councillor Walsh stated that there would be a legal obligation based on the 1996 Noise Act to limit noise between the sensitive hours of 11pm and 5am. He then sought clarification that there were no external alterations, which was confirmed to be correct.

James Paul and John Morgan both spoke in objection of the scheme as near neighbours to the property.

James Paul acknowledged that Units 1, 2, 4 and 5 currently have permission for use as a live/work units but stated that unit 3 (the application property) is unique because it directly adjoins a residential garden, and has openings directly onto that garden. Further to this they stated that currently there are often lights on at the property all night, which causes quite harsh light pollution out of the rooflights, he suspects people are already living there.

He requested conditions to block up the door and window which open into his property, as these directly overlook his garden, and effectively cause trespassing on his land. The applicant claims the window is fixed shut but it is not.

Some photographs showing the open window, as well as a print out of what appeared to be a web-page marketing the unit as a residential unit were distributed to Councillors and officers.

He concluded by asking the committee to ensure proper means of emergency escape and to impose the requested condition.

John Morgan stated that the unit is currently being used as a residential unit, and the application was only submitted after his intervention. He stated that the windows overlook his garden, and claimed the agent had lied to the committee when speaking.

Councillor Till asked who owned the fence shown in the photographs belonged to (which was adjacent to the window openings), to which James Paul replied it was him.

Councillor Walsh stated that the windows opening onto neighbouring land was a civil dispute, and only the planning considerations can be considered. He raised concern over the lightspill issue that had been raised, as well as heat loss and overlooking from those windows. 

Questions to the presenting officer from members followed:

Councillor Paschoud raised concern, based upon the marketing web page presented by the objector, that the unit is currently being used as only residential, and queried what would stop the future owner using the property is purely residential. The presenting officer stated that it would be a condition of development that it is retained as a live/work mixed use class unit. The councillor followed up by asking if officers would investigate in the future to ensure the mixed use, to which the officer replied any enforcement complaints would be investigated.

Councillor Walsh sought clarification on the window positioning, and the officer obliged, by bringing up the elevation drawing on the screen. Councillor Walsh then asked if a condition could be added to frost the windows to which the presenting officer stated that the change of use would be unlikely to result in any additional lightspill or overlooking, so that would not be appropriate. He also noted that residential lighting is likely to be less intense, with lower illumination levels than that use in a gallery/studio, so the impact would likely be lessened due to the change of use.

Councillor Walsh then asked what could be done about the boundary dispute issues. The presenting officer replied that this matter was not material to the matters to be decided by members within this application.

Councillor Adefiranye sought confirmation as to whether the enforcement case (EC/15/00266) highlighted in paragraph 2.4 of the committee report was related to the host property, the officer confirmed it was. He then went on to state that the nearby developments shown in the relevant planning history section of the report had all been completed by the same developer who is causing ongoing issues within the area, which is a conservation area. He suggested the committee all go on a site visit to the property, so they can see for themselves exactly what is going on there.

The presenting officer replied that officers had undertaken site visits, and that it was not a material consideration of this application whether or not the property is currently being used unlawfully.  What was of relevance was the use proposed within this application.

Deliberations from members followed where they discussed that this was an enforcement and not a planning issue.

Councillor Paschoud asked the Council’s legal representative whether members could consider the boundary dispute, as it seems odd that they couldn’t. The Council’s Legal officer stated that these were private legal disputes rather than planning matters, because this application is considering only a change of use.

Councillor Kennedy accepted that the boundary dispute and enforcement issues were not planning considerations, but stated that they were still alarming. He asked whether the planning department would refer the property to the relevant authority within the Council. The presenting officer reiterated that the boundary dispute was a private matter, but that this would be verified with building control.

Councillor Paschoud moved to accept the officers recommendation for the change of use with the caveat that there is a lot of concerning information that has come to light about the property, and requested an informative be added to the permission that the relevant Council authorities be made aware of these.

Councillor Kennedy seconded the motion.

Votes as follows:

FOR RECOMMENDATION: Councillors Amrani (Chair), Paschoud, Kennedy, Raven

AGAINST RECOMMENDATION: Councillor Adefiranye

ABSTAINED:            Councillor Walsh

RESOLVED:    Grant the application, as per the officers’ recommendation, and including an informative stating that officers within the Council will review again what powers they have or do not have in regard to the areas of concern raised in this debate. 

Meeting Closed at 21:50.