Agenda item

Proposed mansard extension with dormer windows to create 7 self contained flats (3no. x 2 bedroom 4-person units, 2no. x 2 bedroom 3-person units and 2no. x 1 bedroom 1-person units) on the existing flat roof, plus associated amenity space, lift shaft extended and reinstated, existing chimneys to be extended above proposed roof level, water tanks replaced and cycle storage and refuse storage.

(Planning application number: P2021/2101/FUL)

In the discussion the following main points were made:

·       The location of the proposed bin store and cycle store was discussed.

·       In response to a member’s question about how amenities on site would be shared among new and existing residents, the applicant stated that although the proposed cycle store and refuse store would be for new residents, if existing residents wanted cycle storage, this could be provided. The refuse store was a new provision for new residents as there was no intention to extend the existing refuse chute provision to the new flats. There would be no change to communal amenity space and although more people would be sharing the space, the new residents would be contributing their share of the service charge.

·       Concerns about possible structural issues were made by objectors attending the meeting plus one objector who had been unable to attend the meeting but had provided the committee with a written statement. Further to a question from a member, the applicant confirmed that existing residents would not bear the costs of the scheme.

·       A planning officer stated that structural issues were building control issues, issues relating to service charges were civil matters and the integrity of the building was covered by building control regulations.

·       An objector stated that whilst existing residents had not requested cycle storage, there was concern that the proposed location of the store would remove vehicular access and providing cycle storage would reduce amenity space.

·       In response to a question from a member about whether there could be a financial obligation to improve amenities, the legal adviser stated that the contribution would not meet the tests.

·       In response to a member’s question about why the applicant had not provided the £25,000 financial contribution requested by TfL for a safer junction, the applicant stated that they had not refused to contribute but they had asked TfL for clarification on how the figure had been reached as they had concern that it was based on the whole building and not the additional flats. They had not yet heard back from TfL. A planning officer also stated that officers had assessed the request and were of the view that it was not reasonable for a scheme of this size.

·       The applicants confirmed that they were willing to look at other locations for the cycle store and provide lockers for foldable bicycles.

·       The chair stated that in relation to the previous application which was refused, no issues were raised about the design or extension on roof.

Councillor Khondoker proposed a motion to add a condition that consultation on the location of the refuse and bicycle stores take place with the Parkhurst Court RTM Company to reduce the impact of the loss of amenity space and visual amenity. The wording was delegated to officers. This was seconded by Councillor Clarke and carried.

Councillor Khondoker proposed a motion to add an informative that dialogue between the applicant and Parkhurst Court RTM Company be encouraged in relation to the proposal and building integrity. The wording was delegated to officers. This was seconded by Councillor North and carried.

RESOLVED:

That following consideration of the case officer’s report (the assessment and recommendations therein), the presentation to Committee, submitted representations and objections provided verbally at this meeting plus one objection provided in writing, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report with the additional condition and informative as set out above, and subject to the prior completion of a Deed of Planning Obligation made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 securing the heads of terms as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer report.