Agenda item

Report of the Chief Planning Officer

(External Comments attached to Annex Pack)

The Committee received a report of the Chief Planning Officer concerning the refurbishment and extension of the existing office building, including the erection of an additional floor of office accommodation and the creation of an amenity terrace at fifth floor level, at 54-58 Bartholomew Close.

The report advised that the proposed alterations and extension were considered acceptable in terms of their bulk, height, massing and design and would enable the building to continue to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Mr Jonathan Brower, John Weeks and Helen Clifford spoke in objection to the application on the grounds of overshadowing and loss of light, increased noise from the proposed terrace, and the fact that during the consultation process the builders had advised that there would not be any further extension.

Mr Gerald Kaye, Chief Executive of Helical, was heard in support of the application which he advised had been submitted and developed entirely in accordance with planning policy and with open and honest dialogue with all relevant parties.

The Committee noted that 51 objections had been received from 37 residents which related to the design of the proposed extension and alterations, the impact on the

Smithfield Conservation Area, increased traffic and congestion, the lack of provision

for people with disabilities and the potential impact of the development on

residential amenity including loss of daylight and sunlight, loss of privacy from

increased overlooking and increased noise from the proposed terrace and

construction works.

Members asked a number of questions in relation to the proposed roof terrace, the daylight and sunlight assessment and any cumulative impact, and the extent to which residents had been consulted.

Debate ensued and several Members spoke in support of the application as officers had concluded that the daylight and sunlight assessment had demonstrated that the majority of windows and rooms in neighbouring properties would not experience

noticeable reductions in daylight and sunlight. The proposed development would provide additional and upgraded office

accommodation

Other Members spoke against the proposal which they considered would impact heavily on residential amenity, especially the proposed roof terrace and the construction works.

Arising from the discussion the application was put to the vote, the result of which was as follows:

12 votes in favour of the application

11 votes against

RESOLVED – That planning permission be granted for the proposal in accordance with conditions set out in the attached schedule.