Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
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.
2
The cheek of it. 

I’ve objected to all 3. 
3
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
4
General Discussion / Re: Ground Rents Virginia Quay
« Last post by Fizz on July 27, 2021, 07:44:21 PM »
I challenged them at the time the 1st 21 year increase was due (this was before the CMA outcome) and they reduced the increase to something just below a 2 fold increase over the 21 year period.  I offered CPI linked increase in future but they would only link to RPI.  I rejected the RPI offer although with the RPI reform which has subsequently been announced this is CPIH from 2030 so I wish I had accepted it.

5
General Discussion / Re: Ground Rents Virginia Quay
« Last post by 586 on July 27, 2021, 06:02:36 PM »
So the Aviva related pledge definitely relates to leasehold flats as it affects a flat development i'm aware of where Aviva have agreed to remove doubling/RPI linked Ground Rent clauses.

I have reached out to E&M for a response regarding VQ.
6
General Discussion / Re: Ground Rents Virginia Quay
« Last post by geoffv on July 26, 2021, 11:59:57 AM »
I suspect that this relates to leasehold HOUSES rather than flats - I would love to be proved wrong.

Geoff
7
General Discussion / Ground Rents Virginia Quay
« Last post by 586 on July 23, 2021, 01:42:22 PM »
For those unaware, the CMA announced it had reached agreement with two major freeholders to remove onerous ground rent increases based on multiplier/inflation linked clauses:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-secures-landmark-commitments-for-leaseholders?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_source=cae35ee3-7206-4b1c-8a27-d5d9b6106880&utm_content=immediately

The freeholder for the majority of blocks in Virginia Quay is (Proxima GR Properties Limited) and the current applicable ground rent clause in most of the leases stipulate a ground rent increase based on the property price increase over a 21 year period.

This methodology has resulted in a substantially higher multiplier than an RPI linked increase (which the CMA have already targeted to remove as per the link above).

I wanted to know if anyone has challenged Proxima on this?

8
You could try listing it on spareroom.co.uk
9
General Discussion / Re: Question for leaseholders.
« Last post by Peter De La Mare on July 17, 2021, 03:23:08 PM »
Thanks Geoff.
10
General Discussion / Re: Question for leaseholders.
« Last post by geoffv on July 16, 2021, 01:33:31 PM »
I refurbed my flat and applied for permission but I was changing the en-suite from a bath to a shower but the permit request said Non Structural Alterations - ask Gerry, he was helpful.

Geoff
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10