Agenda item

Refused.

Applications P1255.15 and P1257.15 were for two identical schemes.

The Chairman agreed to hear the two applications together with a separate vote being taken at the end on each application.

The proposals before Members were for the creation of third floor roof extensions incorporating four two bedroom flats, together with the associated extension/alteration of the existing communal stairwells.

Both schemes raised considerations in relation to the impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, the impact on the residential amenity of the future occupants and of neighbouring residents, parking and access.

Members were advised that a late letter of representation had been received from Dame Angela Watkinson MP opposing both schemes.

Members also noted that both applications had been called-in by Councillor Linda Van den Hende on the grounds that they represented a significant overdevelopment in the town centre. The appearance of the buildings would be significantly changed, thus upsetting the streetscene with the additional bulk and mass. In addition there was no amenity provided in the designs and no parking provision for the eight new dwellings. There would be a loss of privacy to surrounding properties. There was also a school nearby which could be overlooked with potential safeguarding concerns. The blocks were currently occupied by a mixture of owner occupier and rented accommodation. The plans proposed in addition to the additional floor, extensive refurbishment which would make living in the current dwellings very difficult, given there was limited access into and out of the flats.

In accordance with the public speaking arrangements the Committee was addressed by two objectors with an extended response by the applicant’s representative.

The first objector commented that each block had twenty leaseholders present, twelve residential and eight retail units, which provided a cross section of society who would all be affected by the proposed applications. The

Objector also commented that the proposals would impact on the drainage to the properties which was already under pressure and that some of the retail units suffered from rising damp. The objector concluded by commenting that there would also a lack of parking provision and deliveries to the retail units would be hampered.

The second objector commented that the proposals would have an adverse effect on the day to day life of residents whilst the construction works took place. The objector also commented that the proposals would be to the detriment of lives and the fabric of Upminster. The objector concluded by commenting that the buildings were of Art Deco style built in the 1930s and that the proposed extensions would be out of place with the existing streetscene.

In response the applicant’s representative commented that the buildings had an iconic appearance in the streetscene but were not listed either nationally or locally. The applicant’s representative also commented that lessons had been learnt from the previous application and that the architecture of the building would not be harmed. The representative also commented that the new extensions were smaller and reduced the impact on the streetscene with the orientation altered towards the front of the building. Members were also advised that the development was to be marketed as a car free and there had been no objections from the local highway authority. The representative also commented that the applicant had held an exhibition detailing the proposals but very few people had attended. The representative concluded by commenting that the applicant had engaged with residents, was mindful of the disruption that could occur and had offered to refurbish the existing communal hallways. Members were also advised that the extensions would arrive on site in sections that would be put together in situ meaning less noise and disruption for existing residents.

With its agreement Councillor Van den Hende addressed the Committee.

Councillor Van den Hende commented that many of the residents living in the two blocks were strongly opposed to the proposed developments. As had been mentioned previously the blocks were of an Art Deco style and the historic architecture was of a special nature. A previous application had been refused in June 2014 and the new proposals only offered a 0.2m reduction in height.

Councillor Van den Hende also commented on the loss of light that would affect the properties at the rear of the application sites and believed that the proposals were in breach of Planning Policy DC61.

Councillor Van den Hende also commented that no structural surveys had been carried out on the properties and also questioned current resident’s insurance obligations due to the fact that there would be additional properties on top of the current top floor. The communal re-decorations that had previously been mentioned should have been carried out anyway under the landlord’s obligations and previously residents had been advised not to place heavy items on their balconies yet the proposals offered eight more flats on top of the existing flats.

Councillor Van den Hende also commented on the reduced access to the garages located at the rear of blocks and the limited access and egress to the site.

Councillor Van den Hende concluded by commenting that the recommendation stated on balance and there appeared no good reason to approve the applications and more reasons not to do so. The proposals were an inappropriate development in the Upminster area with little or no parking provision and the designs themselves too big, too bulky and out of keeping with the streetscene and would have an impact on resident’s amenity and the nearby school.

During the debate Members received clarification of the previously submitted, and refused, application and how the new proposals differed.

Members also discussed the lack of parking provision and the proposals effect on the streetscene.

Several Members commented on the unnecessary nature of the proposals and agreed that the extensions would look out of place on such buildings of historical character.

The reports recommended that planning permission for both schemes be approved. However, following motions to refuse the granting of planning permission were agreed unanimously it was RESOLVED that planning permission for both P1255.15 and P1257.15 were refused on the grounds that:

·         The proposed extension would by reason of its incongruous design, appearance and position cause material harm to the building's distinctive Art Deco architectural form and integrity and would thereby harm the character and appearance of the streetscene.

·         The complete absence of on-site parking for the new units would create attendant vehicular demands on the adjacent access road and site vicinity materially harmful to amenity and safety.

·         The proposal by reason of the number of new units, their relationship to existing flats within the block, amenity provision and parking represented an overdevelopment of the site harmful to character and amenity.

·         Failure to provide education contribution through absence of a legal agreement.