Agenda item

SW outlined the facts of the case as the construction of an additional storey roof extension to The Glasshouse, 2A Morley Road, SE13, to provide a two bedroom self-contained flat, together with provision of bin and bicycle storage. She stated that the application has been revised to remove a balcony, and the scheme was now considered acceptable, and is therefore recommended for approval by officers.

CK noted that the extension would make the building taller than No.4, one of the adjoining properties and also queried the overlooking impact on that property. SW stated that this was true but that the impact would be acceptable, as there are no windows affected at that property, regarding the overlooking issue, the windows to that side would be high level and serve a kitchen/diner.

CR queried how planning policy has changed since 1996 when the original building was granted permission. SW replied that there is a new context of policies and built form now, with a greater emphasis on the delivery of new homes so if an additional residential unit can be achieved within a new storey that is well designed, then it would be supported in principle.

CJF raised safety concerns regarding fire escape from the new flat, and queried whether there would still only be 1 escape route with an additional storey being added. SW replied that fire safety is a building control matter so not a material planning consideration, and that yes, there would still only be 1 means of escape.

CC asked whether hours of construction could be conditioned, and SW stated that they could should the application be approved.

The architect of the scheme, Richard Hodgekinson and the developer Barry McKevey were then invited to speak in support of the scheme. They stated that they had strived to improve the proposal based upon previous refusal reasons. They claimed there would be no overlooking and that they wanted to work with existing residents, whilst ensuring there is no cost to them.

CR asked the applicants to clarify how the previous refusal reasons had been addressed, they answered that the revised scheme is more in keeping, steps back, has smaller balconies – concluded that it is a very different scheme this time.

Michael Park, the owner of the existing top floor flat and the tenants of the flat were then invited to speak. He stated that the consultation had been flawed and biased, giving just 3 weeks to comment on the proposal. He stated that his property would be the most impacted during construction works and by the addition of a new flat above his, ruining the general enjoyment of the flat. Also that the flat would not be suitable for a family.

He stated that the previous refusal reason had not been overcome, and that it was unfair that he would suffer the brunt of the impacts for a development of which the sole purpose is to make money for a private developer.

CR queried whether the applicants could come back for questions, CC stated that would be irregular.

CR stated that only material planning considerations could be considered when making a decision, and asked which conditions could ease the construction period for the applicants.

The objector expressed concern at the planning process, stated that they do not understand the process, but the planning department and developers do,making it unfair. CC replied that unfortunately that is how the planning process works nationally.

The objector stated that the impact on neighbours had not been considered, i.e. additional noise and disturbance from having people live above, and during construction.

Councillors deliberated over the controls that could be put in place by the construction management plan, and how this could manage the impacts during construction although noted they could not consider the impacts during construction when coming to a decision.

CC noted that standing orders had been suspended at 21:50. The applicants were called back to answer some questions on the construction management plan, and how they would mitigate impacts on other residents of the building.

The applicant stated that the construction management plan could detail everything down to specific time-scales. They noted that as it is not a planning issue, they hadn’t worked out specific construction timings yet, but can add as much details as required prior to starting construction. The architect added that they have a good track record, but was cut off by CC who stated that only the current application is to be discussed.

CC asked what the disruption of taking the roof off would be. The applicant stated that the roof would not be open, there would be weather proofing in place, and they would be very careful, as they do not want unhappy neighbours.

CC then asked about soundproofing and the applicant confirmed it would be installed.

Further deliberations between members followed, where they noted that there didn’t appear to be any material considerations to refuse the proposal on, although it would surely be disruptive and expressed their sympathy.

Members stated that they would leave the construction management plan in the hands of officers, but that they wanted to require the developer to engage existing residents at every stage. SW stated that the condition could be strengthened to require the developer to notify residents  prior to commencement of the works and to provide a programme of works.

CR stated that the strongest possible conditions were required, and CC stated that members would entrust this to officers.

Councillor Rathbone moved to accept the officers’ recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Johnston-Franklin.

Members voted as follows:

FOR RECOMMENDATION: Councillors Clarke (Chair), Anwar, Franklin, Kelleher, Muldoon, Paschoud and Rathbone.

AGAINST RECOMMENDATION:              None

ABSTAINED:            None

RESOLVED:   Unanimously accept officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission.