Agenda item

Alterations, alterations to roof, erection of dormer extensions in rear roof slopes and installation of roof-lights to front roof slopes and use of fourth floor (roof-space) as 7x1 bedroom flats, provision of associated refuse and cycle storage (amended description)

Ward: Fairfield

Recommendation: Grant permission

Alterations to roof, erection of dormer extensions in rear roof slopes and installation of roof-lights to front roof slopes and use of fourth floor (roof-space) as 7x1 bedroom flats, provision of associated refuse and cycle storage.

Ward: Fairfield

Following the officers’ presentation, Committee Members asked questions on the impact on Thanet Place as it was a small cul-de-sac. Officers confirmed that residents within Thanet House had submitted an asbestos report, however the control and removal of asbestos fell under separate legislation. It was recommended that a condition be added that required the developer to submit proposals on how to remove the asbestos. Members queried whether there would be any additional amenity space on the site and were informed that no additional space was proposed. The site was within an area where it was proposed more flats be built.

Jan Kool and Ragesh Khahria, speaking in objection, raised the following points:

·         The scheme failed to deliver appropriate new housing

·         It would not be possible to ensure that only the flats remained single occupant

·         The building cannot support the increased massing

·         Will negatively impact upon the lives of residences in contradiction to their leases

·         The construction will lead to residents having to experience large volumes of dirt, dust and debris

·         The developer should look to improving the building before developing additional flats

·         Unacceptable fire risks to residents

·         The proposal would lead to bathrooms over bedrooms

·         There was asbestos in the roof space

Councillor Vidhi Mohan, speaking in objection as Ward Member, raised the following points:

·         The proposal would lead to overdevelopment of the property

·         There would be a detrimental impact on quality of life of existing residents

·         The quality of the habitable space being proposed was not appropriate

·         Query whether the minimum space requirement was being met for every flat

·         Some flats would only have skylights and no proper windows

·         Asbestos was present in the building as outlined in a report from 2004

·         The foundation of the building may not be able to take the additional load

·         No lift would be provided

·         A fire escape was not proposed

·         Previous application had been refused.

The Head of Development Management stated that limited weight should be given to historic refusal due to a change in housing pressure. The site was located within the opportunity area and was felt to be an appropriate development, with amenities in the local area. The Committee were informed that Thanet Place was significantly overlooked by the current building and others in the area, and while additional windows were proposed it was felt the impact would be limited. The Head of Development Management informed the Committee that the presence of asbestos was not a planning consideration, as it fell under environmental health legislation, and fire escapes and loading fell under building control. Development would not be able to progress unless it was considered the building could take the additional load.

Some Members noted that the property was within the opportunity zone and the proposal would provide smaller units. The concerns in relation to asbestos and fire safety were felt to have been addressed as the development would need to meet regulations. It was noted that there would be logistics plan in place for a development which would look to mitigate the impact on residents.

Some Councillors raised concerns that the development would not improve or enhance the area, and there was a lack of amenity space. Further concerns were raised that some of the units would not meet the minimum size requirements and the proposal sought to add too many additional units in the space. The impact of the development on current residents of the block were also raised and it was felt that the residents should be consulted on the proposals.

After consideration of the officer's report, Councillor Sue Winborn proposed and Councillor Luke Clancy seconded a motion for REFUSAL, on the grounds of overdevelopment and the impact of amenity of existing residents, and the Committee voted 4 in favour, 5 against, so this motion thereby fell.

The Committee then voted on a second motion for APPROVAL, proposed by Councillor Humayun Kabir and seconded by Councillor Paul Scott, 5 in favour, 4 against, so planning permission was GRANTED for development at Thanet House, Coombe Road.