Agenda item

The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the construction of four rear elevation balconies at 16-18 Sunderland Road, SE23 together with the conversion of the roofs of two single outriggers from pitched to flat, and the replacement of four existing windows with glazed doors.

The committee noted the report and that the main issues were:

·       Principle of Development

·       Urban Design

·       Standard of accommodation

·       Impact on Adjoining Properties

Following members’ enquiries relating to the change of use of the ground floor units and, the loss of useable kitchen space.

The Officer confirmed there would be a change in use due to the sub-division of the existing restaurant into units.

The Officer also confirmed that the proposal would reduce the existing useable kitchen space by providing the access to the doors serving the balconies. The Officer stated the application created a trade-off between a minor harmful change to the internal living space, in what was already a small apartment and, the benefit of adding outdoor amenity.

The agent, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee describing the proposed balconies layout and measurements, stating careful attention was paid to the design and materials used. The agent advised that the principle of adding rear balconies to improve residential living standards, was previously established by the appeals scheme that was allowed by the Planning Inspectorate in June 2018. The proposed balconies would introduce private amenity space, which the current building failed to do. It was advised that the balconies would have no ‘inverse impact’ on the character or appearance of the surrounding area. The agent also confirmed that the applicant no longer intended to construct the ‘zinc clad external rear staircase’, approved by the Planning Inspectorate. The agent noted this would have been a more prominent feature to the application site. The agent concluded the presentation by stating that the proposal complied with regulations and, would be subservient to its surroundings.

Following members’ enquiries relating to the omitted external staircase from the current application, kitchen size and, the Inspectorates consent for the external staircase, the agent advised that due to ‘party wall’ discussions that were ‘pragmatic’, viability of the external staircase was assessed and, it was felt it was no longer a viable option as this stage. It was stated that the applicant still wanted to improve the quality of the units and the balconies were the best way of doing so. The agent advised that the existing kitchen and the proposed kitchen floor area remained ultimately the same, yet there would be a reduction by the use of the door. The agent stated the loss in kitchen space was to be balanced against the external amenity space provided for residents.

A resident, addressed the Committee, advising that she was representing the immediate neighbours to the application site. Residents were opposed to the proposal because of concerns relating to the design and materials being incongruent to the character of the host building and wider terrace, the impact on neighbours in terms of loss of privacy, increased noise levels and loss of security, residential quality of subject apartments, level of detail on submitted plans and, no established precedent of balconies on the rear elevation of this terrace.

Questions were raised regarding the internal living room space, the balconies and, the material difference between the Inspectorates decision and the current proposal. The Officer confirmed that there was no living room space, and that the kitchen space took the place of a living room.

The DMTL advised on the complexity of the circumstances leading up to the current application and, outlined the sequence of events. It was stated that the allowed Planning Inspectorate appeal established the concept of the ‘fall back option’. The fall back option was a minor material amendment to the original application, to add four balconies across the first and second floors and extend the staircase. It would increase the internal floor areas of the apartments by moving the existing internal staircases to the extension. Therefore, the fall back option increased both the internal and external spaces of the apartments. When this decision was made, the Inspector advised of the ‘improved living conditions the balconies would provide the future occupants of these quite small apartments’. It was noted that although the fall back option was provided, the current proposal before the members now omitted the staircase and, extended the balconies to fill in the gap where the staircase was meant to be. The harm of the internal staircase was the reason the Inspectorate allowed the balconies. It was advised that this was a material consideration and, great weight should be given to this by the Committee due to the circumstances advised of around the current application. It was advised that on balance, the loss of internal kitchen space would be minimised by the proposed doors opening outwards onto the balconies and, the weight given to the benefits of outdoor amenity space outweighed the harm posed by the minimal loss of kitchen space. Therefore, the proposal would result in an improved standard of accommodation for the apartments. It was also considered that the current proposal would have a better appearance than the fall back option would. The DMTL advised that the material consideration was whether the loss of kitchen space was significant enough to outweigh the merit of the balconies to the overall amenity added to the standard of accommodation.

The Legal Representative confirmed the advice provided by the DMTL, stating Committee members would be minded to consider whether the improved appearance outside was enough to outweigh the loss of useable internal space. It was also advised there existed the legitimate fall back option, allowed on appeal, which could be implemented by the applicant, if the current application was refused.

During the member discussion, the Chair expressed great concern with regard to the application. He felt the Planning Inspectorate saw a ‘tacit improvement’ in amenity by moving the staircase outside. The payoff would have been liveable accommodation. Now the liveable part was removed, leaving behind living space that was substandard. The Chair advised the Committee he felt ‘awkward’ and ‘difficult’ in accepting the proposal and felt it was a ‘bad planning decision’.

A member stated it was felt the proposal would not enhance what was already there. Therefore, there was no justification to approve the proposal.

Members also commented that if the applicant was minded to provide more space, then the proposal would have been to construct 1 bed units, as opposed to 2 bed units.

There was a concern amongst the Committee members about the quality, size and design. In addition, the general consensus was that the buildings had been allowed to fall into disrepair and, any further work done to them would have to be of a restorative gesture, rather than adding to their decline.

All members agreed with the views expressed.

The Committee

RESOLVED – Unanimously

That it be noted that the Committee agreed to REFUSE planning permission for the construction of four rear elevation balconies at 16-18 Sunderland Road, SE23 together with the conversion of the roofs of two single outriggers from pitched to flat, and the replacement of four existing windows with glazed doors for the following reasons:

Residential quality of subject apartments impact on the standard accommodation would on balance, be negative.

The proposal would:

o Reduce the existing useable kitchen space.