Author Topic: Urgent-24 hrs left planning application to build extra storey on mews house!!  (Read 1170 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline SJ

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +1/-0
Hi all - urgent
Just come to my attention that a planning application has been made to build an extra storey to the mews house at the front of the development on Jamestown way! Apparently 24 hours left to object.
Can everyone please use the link, register and then raise your objection.

Once one succeeds in the application, no doubt others will follow suit.

https://development.towerhamlets.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=DCAPR_135189

Must object within 24 hours. Thank you

Offline SJ

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +1/-0
Deadline is Wednesday 23 June

Link to register on tower hamlets is below

https://development.towerhamlets.gov.uk/online-applications/registrationWizard.do?action=start


Once registered, search for the application PA/21/01113


Offline taotao

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +2/-0
Thank you for sharing this. I've already registered my objection to this proposal. I think your concern is very valid. If this gets permitted, it is highly likely other owners of the townhouses on Jamestown way will follow suit. Then the residents living in the three blocks behind (BC, AC and SC) especially those on the lower floors would be adversely impacted with natural sunlight and wind being blocked.

I don't think I have been properly informed regarding this proposal on the so-called neighour consultation stage. Thank you again for sharing this information here.

Offline The Dome Ranger

  • Real Resident
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +8/-2
The plan on the Tower Hamlets site looks fairly ridiculous adding an additional storey to the property.
It will ruin the overall appliance of the front. How on earth can that be allowed with any lease.

Offline Peter De La Mare

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Karma: +9/-2
This is hilarious, how on earth can this be approved.  It’ll look ridiculous for a start, not to mention the impact to the blocks behind.  I’m surprised an architect even drew it up. 

I’ve objected, even though I have a townhouse around the corner that could benefit from an extra floor, but I accept it wouldn’t be right.  I have a covenant with mine that I think forbids this sort of development anyway.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2021, 02:44:06 PM by Peter De La Mare »

Offline Peter De La Mare

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Karma: +9/-2
How on earth can that be allowed with any lease.

The houses are actually freehold.

Offline The Dome Ranger

  • Real Resident
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +8/-2
Thanks for the clarification Peter

Offline Peter De La Mare

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Karma: +9/-2
I wonder when the decision will be made on this?  Can’t see a date on the website.

Online jand

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: +1/-0
An identical application (same architect and plans) for 33 Jamestown Way in front of AC has just been refused:

https://development.towerhamlets.gov.uk/online-applications/files/03222EB5D037013A65689385E045103B/pdf/PA_21_01080_NC-DECISION_NOTICE-1745431.pdf

https://development.towerhamlets.gov.uk/online-applications/files/6B859F0FA1CF4B31749EE4F497E6BF52/pdf/PA_21_01080_NC-OFFICERS_REPORT-1745428.pdf

Judging by the Planning Officer’s comments it looks unlikely that this one would be permitted either.


Offline taotao

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +2/-0
Thanks jand for the information.

I’ve done a quick search on council’s planning website. It turns out there’re three identical applications for adding one additional storey for three houses on Jamestown way. Not surprisingly by the same agent at the same time.

It’s good news that one of them has received the refusal. Hopefully the others will receive theirs soon.




Offline The Dome Ranger

  • Real Resident
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +8/-2
Interestingly they will let them convert the garage into a room, though the general intention seems to be to convert an extended property to a HMO. Hopefully any further efforts will fail too.

Some of the objections included...
Nearby owners/occupiers were notified by post.
11 unique letters objection and 1 letter of support were received:

Objection
Poor design, bulk and mass is out of character for the area
HMO concerns
Waste and parking issues
Noise issues
Fire safety issues

Class AA of Part 1 relates to the ‘enlargement of a dwellinghouse by the construction of an additional storey’. It is the conclusion of the LPA that on the balance of probabilities, this property is not used as a C3 dwelling house, but as a C4 (or possibly a sui generis) HMO. The reason being, that the property is listed on the council’s Mandatory HMO Register. The current Licence for the property expires on 08/10/2023.
A mandatory HMO Licence is required where a property contains 5 or more occupiers living in 2 or more households. The floorplans submitted with this application indicate that the property comprises of 3 bedrooms and a number of living rooms. Objections received in relation to this application note that the property is currently operating as an HMO. Therefore, development under class AA of part 1 is not permitted, as it relates to this property.
7.4 In addition, the submitted plans demonstrate that the proposal would provide 5 bedrooms that could be used by up to 10 people (potentially more if the garage is converted as previously approved). The proposed internal layouts with each bedroom containing a bathroom are also consistent with HMO units. Therefore, it is considered likely that following the development, the property would be used as an HMO and not as a C3 dwellinghouse. The proposal as such fails to comply with condition AA.2 (2) (d) listed above.

Some definitions
C3 – Houses, Flats, Apartments
Class C3 is use as a dwelling house (whether or not as a sole or main residence)
* by a single person or by people living together as a family, or
* by not more than 6 residents living together as a single household (including a household where care is provided for residents).
C4 – HMO (Houses in Multiple Occupation)
Class C4 is use as for small shared dwelling houses occupied by between 3-6 unrelated individuals, as their only or main residence, who share basic amenities such as a kitchen or bathroom.

Offline Peter De La Mare

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Karma: +9/-2
It reads like it only failed on the HMO aspect, not that it was look hideous and totally out of place.  Worrying. 

Online jand

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: +1/-0
The second document I posted above  called ‘OFFICERS REPORT’ has a detailed explanation of why the application was refused. The HMO was one aspect as highlighted by The Dome Ranger above but they also mention the design aspect:

7.5 Condition A.A.2 (3)(a) requires the LPA to assess external appearance, including design and architectural features, as they relate to the two, road facing front and rear elevations.
7.6 Local plan policy S.DH1 seeks to ensure that development takes into account the surrounding scale, height and mass, and provides a high-quality design and finish.
7.7 The site sits in a highly visible location. The front elevation of the property is visible from the Thames path and the public space on the riverside; and the rear elevation from Newport Avenue. The site lies within a long terrace of properties of identical style and height. Interventions at roof level are limited to small front and/ or rear dormer windows that sit within the existing roof slopes. No properties have been extended upwards and the consistent eves line of the terrace contributes to its orderly character.
7.8 The proposal would add a full additional storey to the property. The extension would appear entirely out of character with the terrace. It would be over dominant and discordant in views of its front elevation from the river walkway and in views of its rear elevation from the north. The extension would disrupt the consistent eaves line and ridge line of the terrace, to the detriment of its orderly character. Overall its scale, height, mass, bulk, or form are entirely at odds with the surrounding bult form and local context.
7.9 The extension, by reason of its height, bulk and design, would detrimentally alter the character of the existing terrace therefore it is considered to be unacceptable under this GPDO provision.

« Last Edit: July 07, 2021, 07:55:30 AM by jand »

Offline 586

  • Real Resident
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 86
  • Karma: +6/-1
it's a wonder how the architect thought this abomination could get approved...

Offline Peter De La Mare

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Karma: +9/-2
That’s more like it.  Common sense. 

Offline Peter De La Mare

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Karma: +9/-2
it's a wonder how the architect thought this abomination could get approved...

Literally said this myself further up the page, maybe he needed the work. 

Online jand

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Karma: +1/-0
Update:
The applications for all 3 properties (7, 33 and 53 Jamestown Way) have been resubmitted, again all identical and submitted on the same day and by the same agent, with no material changes. They have amended some of the heights on the section drawings which they say were incorrect on the original application but the upshot is still an upward extension of 3.1m for each property.
There doesn’t seem to be any formal consultation period this time but I have commented nonetheless.

Here is the link, if you search for ‘Jamestown’ you can see all the applications:
https://development.towerhamlets.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application

Offline Peter De La Mare

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Karma: +9/-2
The cheek of it. 

I’ve objected to all 3. 

Offline The Dome Ranger

  • Real Resident
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +8/-2
The conclusion from the new application is biased and clearly wrong.

The proposed development is designed in such a way as to be sympathetic to the character of street scene and to have a minimal impact on neighbouring properties.


SCIENTIFIC DESIGNS
53A Azalea Close IG1 2BF - ILFORD

7 Jamestown Way E14 2DE
 
 The additional storeys must not exceed three metres in height or the height of any existing storey in the principal part of the house (measured internally from floor to ceiling)
 Engineering operations must only include works within the existing curtilage of the house to strengthen existing walls and foundations
 The materials used must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the current house
 Windows must not be placed in any wall or roof slope forming a side elevation of the house.
Following completion of development:
 The house must remain in use as a domestic residential property
 No visible support structures must remain on or attached to the exterior of the
house
 The roof pitch of the principal part* of the house must be the same as it was
prior to the development.

LAYOUT
For the application ref. PA/21/01113/NC, there was an error with the existing internal floor heights which has been amended for this application. Please refer the drawings for the same.

APPEARANCE
The finish of the proposed extension will be in accordance to the existing house. The proposal seeks to be sympathetic to the character of the existing street scene, as there will no loss of light and amenity space.
The palette of materials used, such as roof tiles and wall finish, are to match those of the existing building in terms of type and colour. The proposed roof extension would therefore not have material impact on the amenity enjoyed by any neighbouring occupants.

JUSTIFICATION FOR REFUSAL
As mentioned in the refusal letter.

 The floor to ceiling heights of the existing storeys and the proposed storey are shown on submitted section drawing A306. The floor to ceiling height of the existing ground floor is 2.49cm, first floor is 2.34cm and the second floor is 2.15cm. The floor to ceiling height of the proposed third floor would be 2.5m. So, the proposed floor to ceiling height exceeds the floor to ceiling height, measured internally, of all storeys of the principal part of the existing dwelling house. And 2.5m is less than 3m, so part (h) (ii) is applicable here. The proposal fails to comply paragraph AA.1 (h).
The floor to ceiling height of all the floor plans have been amended to 2.3m. in the existing drawing. There was an error from our end in the previous application, which has been rectified.
7 Jamestown Way E14 2DE | 2 of 5

The floor to ceiling height of the proposed third floor would be 2.3m. So, the proposed floor to ceiling height will not exceed the floor to ceiling height, measured internally, of all the storeys of the principal part of the existing dwelling house.

 Policy S.DH1 of the Local Plan (2020) seeks to ensure development meets the highest standards of design and layout. Development should positively respond to its context by demonstrating appropriate scale, height, mass, bulk and form. It should represent good urban design, an architectural language that enhances the wider surroundings, and high-quality materials and finishes.
 The proposal complies with the conditions set down by class AA as they relate to height. However, the external appearance of the proposal is not in accordance with Policy S.DH1 of the Local Plan, which relates to design and layout.

 The property sits within a row of terraced houses of identical height, style and roof form. Both the front and rear elevations of the terrace are highly visible from public views, from the south, from the Thames Path and riverside public spaces and from the north, from Newport Avenue. Existing roof extensions in the terrace are limited to a small number of front and/ or rear dormer windows which sit within the existing roof slope and which do not extend up, above the ridge line. The terraces’ strong uninterrupted roofline and uniformity in elevational design positively contributes to the street scene and to the riverside public realm.

 The proposed roof extension would be an unacceptably tall and bulky addition which would be entirely out of scale with the host property, and which would create a ‘top heavy appearance, to the detriment of its original character. In addition, the proposal would rise up, a storey higher than the established and consistent roofline of the terrace. In so doing, it would disrupt and undermine its coherent character. The extension would be highly visible from the north and from the riverside. It would form a harmful addition to these views, to the detriment of the street scene and public space adjoining the river. It I recognised that the extension has been designed so that it replicates that design of the lower stories, but this factor does not outweigh the harm that would be caused through its height and bulk.

 In a recent appeal decision in relation to a proposed development at 2E Newton Road in London, the Inspector agreed that in the consideration of ‘external appearance’, a range of factors were to be considered, including the impact on the character of the surrounding built form and the street scene. It is considered appropriate and necessary therefore, when assessing ‘external appearance’ in this case, to assess the impact of the proposal to the building itself, on its wider surroundings and in relation to the councils policies relating to good design.
We humbly observe that this is not full a planning permission request but a Prior Approval request for a permitted development. This is a regulatory amendment by Her Majesty’s Government to allow additional floors under the permitted development rights and such addition is designed as per the new approved guidelines set by the government. The addition is neither excessively bulky nor such discretion is conferred under the Planning General Permitted Development Order 2015.
We therefore submit a kind request for approval.

CONCLUSION
The proposal accords with planning guidance. The proposed development is designed in such a way as to be sympathetic to the character of street scene and to have a minimal impact on neighbouring properties. We therefore believe that this is a scheme that the council can support.

Offline Peter De La Mare

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Karma: +9/-2
Refused again. 

1 - The proposed roof extension, by reason of its excessive height, bulk and design, would form an incongruous and highly visible addition which would significantly and unacceptably disrupt the coherent and uninterrupted roofline of the terrace, to the detriment of the appearance of the host property and the surrounding public realm. As such, the proposal does not comply with the requirements of Part 3(a)(ii) in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA.2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), and is contrary to policies S.DH1 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 (2020).

Offline Peter De La Mare

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Karma: +9/-2
Hopefully this will be the end of the craziness. 

Offline The Dome Ranger

  • Real Resident
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +8/-2
Great news about the refusal, crazy they let them reapply in the first place on such a minor change in the application.
It also seemed implausible that they had consulted any of the close neighbours.
A simple photoshop image of what the proposed changes would have illustrated what an eyesore it would have been to the front.
If the owners want a larger property to rent out, they probably need to buy a larger property!

Offline Peter De La Mare

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Karma: +9/-2
It seems this is being appealed to the Secretary of State.

Unbelievable. 


Offline 586

  • Real Resident
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 86
  • Karma: +6/-1
FYI received a notification that a further appeal to the planning rejection has been made to the Secretary of State.

Owner is clearly not giving up.


Offline 586

  • Real Resident
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 86
  • Karma: +6/-1
It seems this is being appealed to the Secretary of State.

Unbelievable.

haha beat me to it

Not sure there is anything further we can do except wait and see?

Offline taotao

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
  • Karma: +2/-0
The email says we cannot make any comment on the appeal. What can we do about it?

Offline Peter De La Mare

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1354
  • Karma: +9/-2
Seems all we can do is sit and wait and see. 

Offline 586

  • Real Resident
  • Jr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 86
  • Karma: +6/-1
Received a further letter regarding the appeal.

To summarise:

If  you  wish  to  make  comments,  or  modify/withdraw  your  previous  representation,  you  can  do so  online  at

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk

Use appeal ref 3288339

If  you  do  not  have  access  to  the internet,  you  can  send  your  comments  to:

Validation  Officer 5
The  Planning  Inspectorate
Temple  Quay  House
2  The  Square
Bristol
BS1  6PN


Any comments need to be made by 10th March