Issue - meetings

Granted planning permission subject to:

(1)  The completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations as detailed within the committee report.

(2)  The conditions and informatives, as set out in the committee report, together with:

• A revision to the privacy condition for Block E (condition 19) to also require privacy screening to the south-eastern edge of the balcony for flat 05 on the first and second floor  of Block E (denoted as flat E-01-05 within drawing HKG-BPTW-B04-ZZ-DR-A-1015 Rev C02) and to require the south-east facing window of the Living/Kitchen/Dining room of this flat to be obscure glazed and non-opening (up to a height of 1.7 m) in order to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy of the neighbouring properties.

• A recommendation for the developers to engage and collaborate closely with ward councillors and resident associations to manage construction impacts.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing garages and redevelopment of the site to provide 5x residential blocks (Use Class C3) and relocation of the existing substation, together with associated car parking, cycle storage, refuse storage, amenity space and landscaping.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement capturing the planning obligations as detailed within the committee report, and the conditions and informatives as set out in the report.

Colin Leadbeatter (Development Management Area Manager) introduced the report, advising members that the application sought full planning permission for the demolition and redevelopment of the existing garages within the site to provide 5 residential blocks, comprising 61 new homes. Each new unit would be social rent in tenure. The scheme would also include ancillary landscaping, cycle parking and refuse stores. The existing substation would also be moved to the north of Kingsgate, between the proposed Blocks D and C.

Members’ attention was then drawn to a minor correction on page 12 of the committee report. Within the Highways and Transportation section, the report stated that the development would provide ‘113 long?stay cycle spaces’. The correct figure was 115 spaces, which exceeded London Plan standards. It was noted that the correct figure was stated elsewhere in the report.

The Chair thanked Colin Leadbeatter for introducing the report. As there were no Committee questions raised at this point, the Chair then moved on to consider a request which had been received to speak on the application and invited Mariana Jalloh (who had registered to speak as an objector) to address the Committee in relation to the application, who objected to the application on the following grounds:

·                The speaker, a resident of Einstein House directly affected by the proposed Block E, stated that the height and position of Block E, located approximately 12 metres from Einstein House, had significantly reduced the daylight and sunlight to habitable rooms, reaching bedrooms and living areas. It was emphasised that this proximity and scale would result in unacceptable overshadowing.

·                The objector reported that, at a separation distance of only 12 metres, balconies and windows within Block E would directly overlook bedrooms and living rooms in Einstein House. This distance was noted as being below the typical 18-21 metres separation standard. Mariana Jalloh further observed that no mitigation measures, such as screening, angled windows, or obscure glazing, had been proposed. It was highlighted that the existing single-storey garage on the site would be replaced by a three-storey structure, thereby intensifying the degree of overlooking.

·                It was further stated that the proposal would remove the secure gated area and introduce a public footpath immediately adjacent to ground-floor bedrooms, raising specific concerns in relation to noise and disturbance, particularly during evening and night-time hours; increased safety risks and potential for anti-social behaviour; and light pollution from pathway lighting shining into ground-floor bedrooms. Mariana Jalloh requested that these matters be fully considered.

·                The speaker asserted that the positioning of Block E would cause disproportionate harm  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3