Agenda item

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director

The Committee considered two reports of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director, seeking approval for planning permission, and listed building consent, to convert part of the ground floor to three flats (one, one bedroom and two, two bedroom) that would be let on a social rent basis.

The Chief Planning Officer and Development Director introduced the application to Members and presented the officer’s report, informing the Committee about the details of the scheme and its wider implications. The Committee was advised that Historic England had confirmed that they were not required to be consulted on the application. Officers also wanted to add a condition that an electric vehicle charging point must be provided alongside the disabled car parking bay.

The facilities that would be lost by approving the applications would be mitigated by the approval of the Golden Lane Community Centre application, as it provided replacement facilities in accordance with Policy DM22.1. Both applications were recommended for approval in accordance with the details set out in the schedule attached to the report.

Tim Godsmark, on behalf of the Golden Lane Residents Association, addressed the Committee in objection to the scheme. Whilst residents were not opposed to social housing, the scheme was fundamentally flawed, unsafe and unworkable, with substandard accommodation. The units had rooms backing on to the car park, and the main pedestrian routes which would expose the occupants to noise and exhaust fumes, and inhibit their privacy, with further implications for security. The design of the units also raised issues with regards refuse disposal, fire safety and escape routes.

It was rumoured that one unit was to be commercially rented for respite care. This was an arrangement already in place in two other City social housing units and was not appropriate. This would also represent a different use and would require a further application. The building had also not properly been surveyed, and the current storeroom which was planned to be a bedroom would have inadequate ceiling space due to the podium it was built on, the ceiling height being below two metres.

Chamoun Issa, a resident in Great Arthur House, also addressed the Committee in objection to the scheme. The scheme violated the listed building management process and went against guidelines. There was a need to preserve the architecture of Great Arthur House and the alterations were ill-considered and inconsistent with the rest of the building. Great Arthur House was designed for one-bedroom flats and the size of the units were therefore inappropriate.

The consultation process had been flawed and there had only been one meeting with residents, in 2017, and the plans had not changed since then. The Committee was urged to reject the application for the residents of the estate, and to approve it would demonstrate a willingness to engage in a flawed process.

Andrew Carter and James Ilsley then addressed the Committee in support of the application. Members were aware of the ongoing housing crisis, and the lack of affordable housing was most acute in London. The waiting list for social housing was very long, and the wait for a two-bedroom, fully accessible flat was an indefinite wait as there were currently no units of this type in the Square Mile. Tenants had previously left the estate due to a lack of accessibility. Residents demanded more social housing, and this was a rare opportunity to support vulnerable families and individuals.

The unit to the north-east by the car park would have planters in defendable space, in keeping with the character of the building and with enough distance to mitigate noise and pollution concerns. The closest parking space would be designated as a disabled space. As the flats were on the ground floor, the fire escape route would be through the main doors. Doors would also be built in to give access to the refuse chute.

With regards to the listed building management, the window frames were not changing, and the building had recently been double-glazed. The film that would be applied to the windows was not new to the estate, and frosted windows were already in place in Stanley House. The applicant was not aware of the ceiling height issue and assumed this was something the architect had considered. The unit could be turned into a one-bedroom flat if the room in question was deemed unsuitable for a bedroom or bathroom. There was no proposal to rent one of the units on a commercial basis.

Members of the Committee then debated the application. A Member asked why the application was under consideration if it could not be done. A Member asked for clarification on the ceiling height issue and whether it was in accordance with the London Plan. The Committee was advised that it was only one room that was in question with regard to ceiling height.

A Member stated that a two-bed, fully accessible flat was much-needed, but was better for long-term use, and there were concerns about it subsequently being used for a different purpose. The Committee did not need to consider the application, as the application was for a two-bedroom flat which would not work with the application as it is, and the scheme was therefore flawed.

A Member added that Great Arthur House had a special place in architectural history, and flats were not built on the ground floor for a reason. The concept of the building was centred on quality accommodation and to squeeze substandard accommodation in would compromise the vision of Great Arthur House.

The Comptroller and City Solicitor advised the Committee that there was no need for a different permission to change a unit from a two-bedroom flat to a one-bedroom flat, but there may be an issue relating to Listed Building Management. The Committee was still able to approve the application if it was so minded, and if further permission or a further application was needed this could be done later.

Arising from the discussion, both the planning application and the listed building consent were then put to the vote amongst eligible Committee Members, with 16 voting for and 5 voting against the applications, with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED –

a)            That planning permission be granted for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule, with an added condition electric vehicle charging point must be provided alongside the disabled car parking bay; and

b)            (1) That listed building consent be granted for the above proposal in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule subject to the provision that no objection be received from Historic England or the Twentieth Century Society; or

(2) Should an objection be received from Historic England or the Twentieth Century Society, that the Chief Planning Officer be authorised to make an application to the Secretary of State for determination in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 (as amended) informing the Secretary of State that the City of London would be minded to grant listed building consent in accordance with the details set out in the attached schedule if it were determining the application.