Committee: Development Date: 8 February 2017 Classification: Unrestricted Report of: Director of Place Case Officer: Gyanendra Datt Title: Applications for Planning Permission Ref No: PA/16/02786 Ward: Lansbury 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS Location: 12 Follett Street, London, E14 6LX Existing Use: C3 – Residential (authorised), A2 – Professional services (currently unauthorised) Proposal: Change of use to residential accommodation and associated office (Sui Generis). Drawings and documents: Supporting statement prepared by MZA Planning, Ref: YM/Shah/0916/aa Location Plan Pre-existing plan Existing plan Proposed plan Applicant and owner: Taj Solicitors Ltd Historic Building: None Conservation Area: None 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 This report considers an application for a change of use of a site from residential accommodation and associated office which would be considered as a ‘live-work’ scheme under the policies within the London Plan (MALP 2016), the Tower Hamlets’ Core Strategy (2011) and Managing Development Document Plan (2013). Officers recommend refusal of planning permission. 2.2 The main planning issues raised by this application that the Committee must consider are: - the establishment of a live-work use contrary to Policy DM15(4) of the Managing Development Document (2013) - the loss of residential floorspace contrary to Policy DM3(5) of the Managing Development Document (2013) - inadequate provision of internal residential space with a shortfall in meeting the minimum space standards in Policy 3.5 of the London Plan and Policy DM4(1) of the Managing Development Document (2013).
Proposal: Change of use to residential accommodation and associated office (Sui Generis).
Drawings anddocuments:
Supporting statement prepared by MZA Planning, Ref: YM/Shah/0916/aaLocation PlanPre-existing planExisting planProposed plan
Applicant and owner:
Taj Solicitors Ltd
Historic Building: None
Conservation Area: None
2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 This report considers an application for a change of use of a site from residential accommodation and associated office which would be considered as a ‘live-work’ scheme under the policies within the London Plan (MALP 2016), the Tower Hamlets’ Core Strategy (2011) and Managing Development Document Plan (2013). Officers recommend refusal of planning permission.
2.2 The main planning issues raised by this application that the Committee must consider are:
- the establishment of a live-work use contrary to Policy DM15(4) of the Managing Development Document (2013)
- the loss of residential floorspace contrary to Policy DM3(5) of the Managing Development Document (2013)
- inadequate provision of internal residential space with a shortfall in meeting the minimum space standards in Policy 3.5 of the London Plan and Policy DM4(1) of the Managing Development Document (2013).
- no provision of cycle parking contrary to Policy DM22(1) of the Managing Development Document.
2.3 Overall, the scheme will result in the creation of development that is contrary to the policies within the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ Core Strategy and Managing Development Plan and the London Plan and as such is recommended that it be refused.
3.0 RECOMMENDATION
3.1 That the Committee resolve to REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:
1. The conversion of the second floor of an existing residential dwelling (class C3) to a solicitor's office (class A2) would result in the net loss of residential floorspace. This is not supported by Policy DM3(5) in the Managing Development Document (2013) and Policy SP02 of the Core Strategy (2010), along with the objectives set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), which seek to provide new housing in line with housing targets and resist the net loss of residential floorspace, residential units or any family housing.
2. The proposal results in the creation of a residential unit which does not meet the minimum internal space standards. This would result in a substandard form of accommodation for any future occupiers and therefore is contrary to Policy DM4(1) of the Managing Development Document (2013) and Policy SP02 of the Core Strategy (2010), along with Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (2016) and the objectives set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) which seek to provide high quality and well-designed housing that will provide an appropriate living environment for future occupants.
3. The proposal fails to provide adequate cycle parking provision. As such the development fails to comply with Policy DM22(1) of the Managing Development Document (2013) and Policy 6.13 of the London Plan and is therefore not considered to adequately meet the needs of future users.
4.0 PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Site and Surroundings
4.1 The application site is a residential building located at the end of a row of terrace housing located on the southern side of Follet Road.
4.2 Part of the ground level area of this building provides access to a parking lot at the rear of the site. The subject building straddles this driveway.
4.3 The application site is also subject to an enforcement notice which is detailed below, under ‘Planning History’.
4.4 The surrounding environment is an established medium-density residential area located in close proximity to the A13 – East India Dock Road. The southern side of the subject block adjoins a ribbon of commercial development along East India Dock Road.
4.5 The site adjoins the edge of the Chrisp Street district centre.
4.6 The subject site is not located within a Conservation Area and the proposal does not affect a Listed Building.
Proposal & Background
4.7 The application seeks to establish a live-work unit within an existing residential site. The proposal comprises the retention of part of the dwelling (C3) on the first floor with the conversion of the second floor into an office associated with the A2 use (professional services – solicitor’s office) in the adjoining building.
4.8 The proposal seeks to employ 3No. full-time equivalent staff.
4.9 The application site is currently being used by Taj Solicitors Limited as an annex to their main office at 243-247 East India Dock Road.
4.10 The subject site is already being used as a solicitor’s office (A2) which is not authorised. The authorised use is C3 (dwellinghouse). The application site was subject to a previous planning application for the conversion of the entire residential unit into an office (discussed below).
The erection of a four storey building containing two ground floor shops and 6 No. one/two bedroom flats together with 5 No. two bedroom dwellinghouses.
Change of use from residential (C3) to solicitor's office (A2). (Retrospective).
4.14 The application was refused for the following reason:
1 - The retrospective conversion of an existing residential dwelling (class C3) to a solicitor's office (class A2) would result in the net loss of residential floorspace and the loss of one residential unit.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy SP02 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DM3(5) in the Managing Development Document (2013), along with the objectives set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), which seek to provide new housing in line with housing targets and resist the net loss of residential floorspace, residential units or any family housing.
4.15 An appeal against the refusal of the application was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate on 29/07/2016.
4.16 The key difference between the previous scheme and the scheme currently under consideration is that the current scheme now seeks to retain the first floor of this building as residential accommodation and convert the second floor into an A2 use. The previous scheme sought to convert the entire dwellinghouse into an A2 use.
Change of use to A2 solicitors office without permission.
5.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK
5.1 For details of the status of relevant policies see the front sheet for “Planning Applications for Determination” agenda items. The following policies are relevant to the application:
5.2 Government Planning Policy
National Planning Policy Framework 2012
5.3 London Plan 2016
3.3: Increasing housing supply3.4: Optimising housing potential 3.5: Quality and design of housing developments3.14: Existing housing 4.2: Offices4.7: Retail and town centre development 6.13: Parking 7.4: Local character
5.4 Core Strategy 2010
SP02: Urban living for everyoneSP05: Dealing with wasteSP06: Delivering successful employment hubsSP10: Creating distinct and durable placesSP12: Delivering placemaking
5.5 Managing Development Document 2013
DM0: Delivering sustainable developmentDM3: Delivering homes DM4: Housing standards and amenity spaceDM15: Local job creation and investmentDM22: ParkingDM24: Place-sensitive design
6.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSE
6.1 The views of the Directorate of Place are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.
6.2 The following were consulted regarding the application. The responses are summarised below.
LBTH – Transportation & Highways
6.3 The proposed Change of use from Offices (A2) to residential accommodation and associated office (Sui Generis) is within an area of excellent public transport access (PTAL 6B) therefore a car-free agreement, should be secured via a Section 106 Agreement. The minimum London plan for this development is 1 cycle space. The applicant has not shown provision for a cycle space. Once a provision for a cycle space is shown, Highways will have no objection.
7.0 LOCAL REPRESENTATION
Public consultation
7.1 Public consultation took place in accordance with statutory requirements. This included a total of 8 letters sent to occupiers of neighbouring properties. An advert was not published in the local press and site notices were not displayed outside the application site.
7.2 2 letters were received in support of the proposal along with 2 petitions (with a total of 43 signatures) which were in support of the application.
7.3 The submissions in support note the benefits to local residents provided by the business.
8.0 MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Live-work unit
8.1 The proposal involves an employment use (A2) and a residential use (C3) within the same self-contained unit. This is considered to meet the definition of a ‘live-work’ use under council policy DM15.7. Given the layout of the building the employment activity is not considered to be ancillary to the main residential use of the property as it comprises a larger floor area than the residential element. As such it is not considered as a home office use. This type of proposal is expressly not supported by Policy DM15(4) of the MDD.
8.2 The ‘work’ element of the proposal compromises the existing unauthorised A2 use. Whilst Policy DM15 of the Managing Development Document (2013) resists live-work units to safeguard employment uses, in this case, the proposal undermines the consented residential use, resulting in net loss of residential floor space. Nevertheless, live-work units have been considered not to function as they intended and ultimately results in one singular use. There is no particular circumstance or justification to support the proposed live-work unit, in this instance. The proposal would ultimately result in the loss of a residential floorspace which is resisted.
Loss of residential floor space
8.3 The proposal involves the conversion of a two-bedroom residential unit into a (sui generis) part C3 use, part A2 use which would result in a live-work unit. Policy DM3(5) of the MDD states that development that would involve a net loss of residential floor space, residential units or any family housing will be resisted. The proposal is not part of an estate regeneration scheme.
8.4 The scheme proposes to convert the second floor of the building into an office space for the A2 use. This constitutes net loss of residential floorspace and is therefore is not supported by the Tower Hamlets’ Development Plan.
8.5 The previously refused scheme for the change of use to A2 (Council’s ref PA/15/02020), the Planning Inspector in dismissing the appeal acknowledges the services and support the applicant provides to the wider community which is not contested by officers.
8.6 Notwithstanding the above the Planning Inspector notes the policy directive of the council and the aspirations of the development plan. In dismissing the appeal the Planning Inspector made the following comments in relation to the loss of residential floorspace:
The loss of residential accommodation is therefore contrary to one of the key aspirations of the Core Strategy. For this reason, whilst recognising the benefits that the proposal has, and would continue to bring about, I am not persuaded that they justify departing from Policy DM3(5) which is intended to help underpin the Council’s strategy and meet its high targets for new housing.
The Planning Inspector goes on to make the following conclusion:
I therefore conclude that the change of use has directly reduced the provision of residential accommodation in the area contrary to Policy DM3(5) of the Tower Hamlets Managing Development Document. Despite recognising the socio-economic benefits that allowing the appeal would bring about, in this particular case they do not overcome the conflict identified with the development plan, and the proposal would undermine the Council’s housing strategy which seeks to achieve high targets for the provision of new housing.
8.7 The key difference between the current proposal and the one considered by the Planning Inspector is that this proposal does not involve the loss of an entire residential unit to an A2 use. Notwithstanding this the policy wording in Policy DM3(5) states that any proposal should not involve a net loss of residential floor-space irrespective. As such, the proposal is not compliant with the above policy.
8.8 The borough has the highest housing delivery target of all the London borough councils. Given the high targets for the provision of new housing in the borough it is important to ensure housing is not lost through development, thereby having a detrimental impact on reaching these targets. On this basis the proposal is contrary to council’s policy DM3(5) of the Managing Development Document (2013) should be refused.
Internal space standards
8.9 The development involves the reduction of a residential unit to 29m². This does not meet the minimum internal standards prescribed by Policy 3.5 of the London Plan (with a shortfall of 10m²) which is the minimum standard for a one-bedroom/studio dwelling. The minimum internal space standards are paramount in the provision of adequate residential accommodation. Given that this is a significant shortfall the proposal is not considered to provide an adequate living environment for future occupants.
8.10 The proposal is considered to be inappropriately designed as it does not adequately provide an appropriate living environment that will meet the likely needs of future
occupants. It does not accord with the London Plan’s policy (3.5) or the council’s policy on housing standards (DM4(1)) in the Managing Development Document (2013) and therefore should be refused.
Private amenity space
8.11 The building has an existing balcony on the second floor to provide on-site amenity. This is not being altered as part of the proposal.
Design
8.12 There are no design implications as no external changes are proposed.
Transportation & Highways
8.13 The application has been assessed by the council’s Highway Engineers. The development requires the provision of 1No. additional cycle parking space. No cycle parking is provided within the development.
8.14 The provision of cycle facilities is a crucial factor in encouraging more sustainable travel to and from the development. The policy seeks to ensure that a sufficient amount of cycle parking is provided to accommodate current demand and to encourage further use over time. As such the development fails to comply with Policy DM22(1) of the Managing Development Document (2013) and Policy 6.13 of the London Plan and is therefore not considered to adequately meet the needs of future users. The application should be refused on this basis.
Amenity
8.15 Whilst the application property sits directly adjacent to other residential properties, officers do not consider that the amenity considerations of the proposed change of use would be significantly detrimental to neighbouring residents. A2 uses such as a solicitor’s office are unlikely to generate levels of noise and disturbance to a point where they would be incompatible with surrounding residential uses and officers understand that the hours of operation of the proposed A2 (professional service) element would only be 9:30am to 6:00pm Monday-Friday meaning that the proposed use would not be in use during sensitive hours.
8.16 In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal accords with Policy SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DM25 in the Managing Development Document (2013), which seek to ensure that development safeguards the amenity of surrounding existing and future residents and building occupants.
Waste
8.17 The proposal does not provide for any on-site storage of waste. It should be noted however that existing waste storage provision exists within the courtyard to the rear of the property which this building has the right to use and that the proposed office (use class A2) use is unlikely to generate significant levels of additional waste.
8.18 In light of the above, it is therefore considered that the proposal broadly accords with Policy SP05 of the Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DM14 in the Managing Development Document (2013), which seek to ensure that development demonstrates how it will provide appropriate storage facilities for residual waste and
recycling as a component element to implement the waste management hierarchy of reduce, reuse and recycle.
Human Rights Considerations
8.19 Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 prohibits authorities from acting in a way which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The relevant rights include:
- Entitlement to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law in the determination of a person's civil and political rights (Convention Article 6). This includes property rights and can include opportunities to be heard in the consultation process;
- Rights to respect for private and family life and home. Such rights may be restricted if the infringement is legitimate and fair and proportionate in the public interest (Convention Article 8); and
- Peaceful enjoyment of possessions (including property). This does not impair the right to enforce such laws as the State deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (First Protocol, Article 1). The European Court has recognised that "regard must be had to the fair balance that has to be struck between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole".
8.20 This report has outlined the consultation that has been undertaken on the planning application and the opportunities for people to make representations to the Council as a local planning authority.
8.21 Members need to satisfy themselves that any potential interference with Article 8 rights will be legitimate and justified. Both public and private interests are to be taken into account in the exercise of the local planning authority's powers and duties. Any interference with a Convention right must be necessary and proportionate. Members must carefully consider the balance to be struck between individual rights and the wider public interest.
Equalities Act Considerations
8.22 The Equality Act 2010 provides protection from discrimination in respect of certain protected characteristics, namely: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or beliefs, gender and sexual orientation. It places the Council under a legal duty to have due regard to the advancement of equality in the exercise of its powers. Officers have taken this into account in the assessment of the application and the Committee must be mindful of this duty inter alia when determining all planning applications. In particular, the Committee must pay due regard to the need to:
- eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Act;
- advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and
- foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
Other
8.23 There are no other matters of relevance to this proposal.
9.0 CONCLUSION
9.1 All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account. It is recommended that permission should be refused.
10.0 SITE MAP
10.1 Please refer to the next page of this report.
