Agenda item

Report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director.

The Committee considered a report of the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director seeking approval for the extension of the existing building to provide a proposed fourth, fifth and sixth floor of office (Class B1) floorspace plus removal of existing plant at fourth floor level, installation of plant and plant enclosures at sixth floor and roof level, a terrace at roof level and cycle parking at ground floor level. (436sq.m GIA).

 

The Assistant Director, Planning drew Members’ attention to a correction at paragraph 19 of the report which should refer to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the NPFF and not paragraph 14.

 

The Committee were informed that 12 Well Court was currently a seven storey residential premises containing eight flats. Objections to these plans had been received from residents of this building and also from the freeholder. The Assistant Director clarified that the planned roof terrace would be for the use of office workers within the building only. Members were also informed that the daylight/sunlight assessment within the report had been independently reviewed. The Officer recommendation on this application was that permission should be granted.

 

The Deputy Chairman invited the registered objectors to address the Committee. Grant Winton stated that he spoke on behalf of all residents of 12 Well Court, all of whom were opposed to this application and had jointly taken professional advise on the plans submitted which, to date, had already undergone five separate revisions yet still remained factually incorrect in a number of ways. Mr Winton went on to explain that 12 Well Court had been a residential building since 2011 and that these plans, should they be approved would result in an overbearing structure that was visually detrimental to residents living here.

 

Mr Winton went on to refer to the critical loss of residential sunlight and daylight should the application be granted. He referred to the fact that the BRE guidelines confirmed that there was clearly a negative impact on sunlight and daylight to his home, other residents and also the public walkway. He added that this was even more critical when considering winter sun. He highlighted that the proposals ignored the Eastern impact of 13 Well Court on morning light and used only favourable mirror imaging for 8-9 Well Court. He stressed that this had been raised with the applicant on multiple occasions and was yet to be addressed.

 

Mr Winton referred also to additional noise and light pollution from the proposed building once completed as well as unavoidable noise from demolition and construction works. Something which seemed to be in direct contravention with the City’s Local Plan which highlighted a need to protect the homes of City residents.

 

Mr Winton informed the Committee that it was his view that the applicant had failed to fully consult on or discuss the plans with residents in a meaningful way. They did not, for example, seek the views of residents on their plans until their applications were submitted and it was too late to impact the proposal in any way.

 

Mr Winton concluded by stating that he felt that the proposals were incomplete, false and inaccurate and conflicted with multiple planning policy points in the City of London Local Plan and Adopted London Plan. He therefore asked that the Committee refuse this application.

 

Mr Mark Winton introduced himself as the freeholder of 12 Well Court. He agreed with the points already made and the fact that this application fell short in terms of the loss of daylight/sunlight and amenity. He went on to uphold the view that the information before the Committee was misleading. He referred to the BRE guidelines and the conclusion that the proposals would constitute a material impact on the light currently enjoyed by residents at 12 Well Court. The impact of an additional two floors at 13 Well Court had not been addressed at all despite objections from every one of the 8 flats in 12 Well Court about this. There had also been no offer of compensation from the developer in recognition of the serious negative impact of the building.

 

The Deputy Chairman thanked the objectors for their contributions and invited questions from Members.

 

A Member questioned the photographs provided by the objector of the view from the master bedroom of flat 7, 12 Well Court. Mr Winton confirmed that the master bedroom was situated on the 5^th floor of 12 Well Court and that the view depicted was of the plant room on the existing fourth floor of 8 and 9 Well Court. 13 Well Court was visible to the left of the photograph and both the southern and eastern impact of the additional height here had not been clarified. It was also unclear as to whether the view of the Church would be retained.

 

The Deputy Chairman invited those speaking in favour of the application to address the Committee. Peter Bovill of Montagu Evans, acting as agent for the developer explained that the application before Members had been through two rounds of pre-application discussions with Officers. Revisions to reduce the bulk and mass of the proposed extension had been made as a result and it was now intended that the windows of the new building would be fixed shut.

 

Ian McKenna of Malcolm Hollis spoke to clarify points raised around the impact on daylight/sunlight. He highlighted that BRE had looked at all of the revisions within the application a total of three times to date and had confirmed that these met the required guidelines. All windows within the new building would be opaque glass windows which was a protection not currently afforded to residents within the existing building.

 

Mr McKenna went on to state that BRE guidelines needed to be applied flexibly and pragmatically. He added that the City’s own Local Plan also allowed for some reduction in daylight/sunlight. He stated that he believed that the reduction within the proposals submitted was not at an unacceptable level particularly after concessions had been made in terms of remodelling the upper floors and pushing these back further.

 

Members were informed that, in terms of daylight distribution, 32 windows had been assessed and all met the requirements with residual affects that were small in nature.

 

The Deputy Chairman thanked those speaking in favour of the application for their contributions and invited questions from Members.

 

A Member questioned whether consideration also needed to be given to the use of the rooms where windows would be affected by reduced day/sunlight. Officers responded that it was legitimate to consider the room use as permitted in the planning permission but that there was only one set of target criteria that had to be met and that it was a judgement call for Members in terms of whether or not they wanted to take into account room usage when considering the acceptability of any loss of daylight/sunlight.

 

A Member stated that he had visited the site last week and, after having spent some time in one of the second floor flats at 12 Well Court, he was surprised that the conclusion reached was that the impact here in terms of loss of daylight/sunlight would be minimal. He clarified that, as the top floors of the new building would now be set back, the reduction here would be within BRE tolerances as the skyline from the lower floors of 12 Well Court would be largely unchanged.

 

A Member questioned why there seemed to be some confusion and disagreement from objectors as to the fact that the assessment carried out had failed to cover the impact of 13 Well Court. Mr McKenna stated that he was unsure as to where the confusion had arisen as this matter had been clarified with residents weeks ago. He reiterated that 8 and 9 Well Court would impact the Southern Aspect of 12 Well Court and number 13 includes the whole site.

 

A Member highlighted that the report suggested that the level of impact on daylight/sunlight was not compliant with BRE guidelines. He asked if those speaking in support of the application disagreed with this point. Mr McKenna responded that there was full compliance in terms of mirror image of the existing building. He went on to refer to Appendix F of the BRE guide which suggested that the approach set out here was to be adopted where standard targets could not be met. It was worth bearing in mind that the targets had been developed for suburban settings. Against the standard BRE, existing guideline, the revised proposals put to the Committee were deemed to have only a minor adverse impact.

 

In response to questions around the points raised by objectors on the accuracy of the daylight/sunlight assessment and the inaccuracy of the plans in terms of building layout, Mr McKenna stated that the buildings had been modelled according to approved planning drawings.

 

The Deputy Chairman asked that Members move to debate the application.

 

A Member referred to the BRE guidance concept of a ‘bad neighbour’ and the suggestion within the report that 12 Well Court could be classified in this category. He questioned whether this had been determined either way as, if so, it was not clear within the report. The Member went on to question what alternative route would be used for fire evacuation as this was not made clear on the recent site visit and the plans also appeared to be vague on this.

 

Another Member questioned whether the approach adopted within the report whereby any loss of daylight/sunlight could be offset in terms of winter/summer sun was common practice. He also questioned what the overall impact would be without adopting this approach. The Assistant Director stated that with regard to impact on sunlight the BRE guidelines set out a target figure of 25% of sunlight across the whole year,  5% of which should be during the winter months.  It was the intention that a flexible approach should be taken to this when calculating overall impact.

 

A Member highlighted that the conclusion had been reached that any loss of daylight/sunlight incurred as a result of the proposals would be marginal and that he therefore felt that the proposals should be accepted. He added that residents in the City chose to live in a crowded, compact, multi- purpose City environment.

 

A Member stated that the questions raised here around daylight/sunlight matters further highlighted the need for additional training for Members around this. She went on to state that it was difficult, from the plans submitted, to determine where the roof terrace would be situated. She also agreed that it was not clear where any alternative fire escape route might be. The Member added that she was disappointed to see just one small paragraph within the report on the accessibility of the building. She went on to highlight that, according to plans submitted, there were no toilets whatsoever available on the fifth floor and no disabled toilet provision on the sixth floor.

 

A Member referred to the ambiguous wording in the report under the heading ‘Daylight and Sunlight Conclusions’. Within this section, Members were informed that any impact would be mostly minor in nature. He felt that this disguised the true impact of the proposals overall. He added that it was evident that BRE guidelines had not been met for all flats at 12 Well Court and that he was unconvinced that there was any significant commercial justification for the impact the new building would have.

 

The Member stressed that the Committee needed to be clear as to whether or not they would have regard to BRE guidelines in future regardless as to whether or not the application concerned was in a highly developed area.

 

Another Member referred to the fact that the proposals centred on the premise that 12 Well Court is a residential block. She stated that it should, however, be noted that this served as an office block until 2011. It was therefore situated in a mainly commercial area. The Member added that the proposed office building here would provide much needed accommodation for SME’s. She referred to the points made by objectors regarding light pollution and stressed that this worked both ways. Residents overlooking office accommodation may also be able to see content on screens which could have implications in terms of data protection.

 

A Member stressed that whilst the area in question was not deemed to be residential it was very much a mixture of office buildings and residential units including many short-term lets. She went on to suggest that more information was required around the roof terrace and its proposed usage and opening hours.

 

A Member suggested that in terms of the daylight/sunlight standard Members were asked to apply, an application that resulted in minor, adverse losses should be resisted. He stated that this application seemed to be on the borderline in terms of meeting these standards. He added that he would be grateful for any further advice around the policy on daylight/sunlight and how an application such as this should be approached.

 

The Assistant Director clarified that the mirror image referred to within the report was an element of existing BRE guidelines around daylight and sunlight. Whilst this approach could be used in this case, it was not relied upon in the Officer assessment and it was therefore concluded that the minor adverse impact was considered to be acceptable.

  

Members were informed that, in terms of fire evacuation, a new escape ladder leading upwards to a newly built flat roof terrace and a second ladder leading down again from there would form the new escape route from 12 Well Court. The proposed route was therefore essentially the same as at present.

 

The Assistant Director clarified that it was intended that the roof terrace area would be for office use only. He was, however, uncertain as to the intended capacity. The hours of use of the terrace had been restricted so that it would not be in use or accessed between the hours of 23:00 on one day and 08:00 on the following day and not at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays other than in the case of emergency. He added that this could be tightened further if it were the wish of the Committee.

 

In terms of the approach to be taken regarding loss of daylight and sunlight, Members were informed that the policy around this referred to unacceptable levels and not minor, adverse impacts specifically.

 

At this point, the Deputy Chairman sought approval from the Committee to continue the meeting beyond two hours from the appointed time for the start of the meeting, in accordance with Standing Order 40, and this was agreed.

 

A Member proposed that the hours of use for the roof terrace be further restricted so that it could not be in use or accessed between the hours of 20:00 on one day and 08:00 on the following day as it was felt that 23:00 was too late in terms of office use only. The proposal was seconded and unanimously supported by Members, should the application be granted.

 

Members then proceeded to vote on the recommendation, with 12 Members voting in favour of the recommendation and 13 Members voting against the recommendation.

 

RESOLVED – That, planning permission for the proposal be refused.

 

The Committee confirmed that the reason for refusal related to unacceptable impacts in terms of loss of daylight and sunlight and delegated authority to the Chief Planning Officer and Development Director to draft and issue reasons for refusal reflecting the Committee’s confirmation regarding reasons, in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman.