Cabinet Member Report
Date:
Subject:
11 October 2007
Local residents’ petition against the planning permission
granted by the City Council for development at the site
known as ‘Knighton House’, 52-66 Mortimer Street, 1A
Little Titchfield Street and 48 Mortimer Street, W1 and
the disturbance caused during its implementation.
Summary
1. On 2 May 2007 Councillor Paul Dimoldenberg presented to the City Council a
petition signed by 14 local residents objecting to the City Council’s decision to
grant planning permission on 28 April 2005 to Great Portland Estates for
various alterations and extensions to the buildings in Mortimer Street known as
Knighton House.
2. That planning permission is now being implemented and is causing noise and
disturbance to local residents, and the perceived lack of assistance from the
City Council in this matter is also contained in the petition.
3. The petition also alleges that the development in not being built in accordance
with the planning permission. The Planning Enforcement Team has
investigated the matter and found that a rear fire escape stair had been
erected without the benefit of planning permission. The developer has
acknowledged that this was constructed in error and it has now been removed.
Officers are currently aware of no other current breaches of planning control
and the development appears to be proceeding in accordance with the
planning permission which was determined by the Planning and City
Development Committee after the correct statutory procedures were followed.
4. Whilst officers consider that the City Council has discharged, and will continue
to discharge, its statutory duties in this matter, they are nonetheless
sympathetic to the concerns of the residents and therefore convened a
meeting between the developer and local residents which took place on 2 July
2007. Whilst this meeting resulted in a frank and heated exchange between
the parties, the developer agreed to consider a number of proposals that they
could put forward to improve the situation for local residents and these will be
explored further with residents at future meetings.
5. Following this meeting, the residents, through Councillor Dimoldenberg, have
sent a further letter asking for further points to be addressed by the City
Council on the way the matter has been dealt with, but it is not considered that
this raises any new issues that suggest that the City Council has not acted in
accordance with the statutory requirements.
6. In the meantime, the Cabinet Member for Planning wrote to Great Portland
Estates (GPE) outlining his disappointment that residents had felt compelled to
make such representations and seeking assurances from GPE that they would
take steps to address those concerns.
7. Following that correspondence, a response was received form the Property
Director at GPE explaining the ways in which the developer would endeavour
to improve its communications with residents as well as describing their
proposals to mitigate the effects of the work on residents.
Recommendations
1. That the Cabinet Member for Planning notes the content of the petition and
follow-up letter.
2. That the Cabinet Member notes that the proper procedure was taken in
dealing with the planning application and that planning permission was granted
appropriately with due regard to the provisions of the development plan and all
other material considerations.
3. That the Cabinet Member also notes the Planning Enforcement Team’s
investigation into the unauthorised rear fire escape which following action has
resulted in the unauthorised fire escape staircase being removed. Confirmation
has also been received from Montagu Evans, the developer’s agents,
confirming that a new fire escape will be installed which accords with the
approved plans.
4. That the Cabinet Member also notes the action by the Noise Team in the
Department of Community Protection to date and endorses the proposal to
deal with future noise nuisances caused to local residents by occupiers of the
subject premises in accordance with the appropriate legislation.
5. That the Cabinet Member also notes that following a meeting convened
between the developer and residents by officers the parties may be in a
position to agree some improvements to the situation, whilst acknowledging
that this would not overcome the residents’ fundamental objections.
6. That the Cabinet Member also notes the developer’s response to his
correspondence on the matter and the undertakings given therein.
7. That the Cabinet Member agrees that the Director of Planning & City
Development sends a reply to the lead petitioner and Councillor Dimoldenberg
setting out a full response to the issues raised in the petition and follow-up
letter.
Cabinet Member Report
City of Westminster
Cabinet Member:
Date:
Classification:
Title of Report:
Report of:
Wards involved:
Policy context:
Financial summary:
Planning
11 October 2007
For General Release
Local residents’ petition against the planning
permission granted by the City Council for
development at the site known as ‘Knighton
House’, 52-66 Mortimer Street, 1A Little Titchfield
Street and 48 Mortimer Street, W1 and the
disturbance caused during its implementation.
The Director of Planning and City Development
West End
It is the City Council’s aim as set out in its Unitary
Development Plan to:
 Protect and improve the residential
environment and residents’ amenities and
(Policies STRA 16 and ENV13) and to
encourage the provision of new housing
development (Policies STRA14 and H3)
There are no financial implications arising from
this report
Report Author:
Sarah Gatehouse
Contact details
Sarah Gatehouse
Telephone 020 7641 2507
Fax 020 7641 3158
sgatehouse@westminster.gov.uk
1.
Background Information
1.1 On 28 April 2005 the Planning and City Development Committee considered a
planning application by Great Portland Estates for the following development:
‘Alterations including infill and roof extensions to
Knighton House to provide wholesale showrooms
(sui generis) at basement and part ground floor
level, offices (Class B1) on part ground floor and
upper floors; new mansard roof to fourth and fifth
floors of 48-50 Mortimer Street and rear extension;
refurbishment of wholesale showrooms at
basement and ground floor level and residential use
of upper floors 46-50 Mortimer Street (12 flats);
alterations to 1-3 Little Titchfield Street at ground
floor level to create parking bays, servicing, access
and refuse storage; landscaping works’
1.2 It was clear on receipt of the application that the proposals were likely to affect a
number of flats in neighbouring residential blocks situated in different streets which
back onto the application site. This was especially so with regard to 1-3 Little
Titchfield Street containing 9 flats and 44 Mortimer Street (known as Ames House)
containing 10 flats. All these flats were notified of the proposals by letter, which was
in addition to the statutory public notices erected on site and placed in the relevant
local newspaper.
1.3 In response to public consultation, the City Council received 3 letters of objection to
the proposals. Two of these were from individual occupiers in Ames House (Ms
Charlotte Thorne and Mr Giles Fernando respectively) and one was signed by two
flats owners in 1-3 Little Titchfield Street (Mr K Mikailian and Mr D Mendonca). The
objections mainly centred on the impact of the development on residential amenity
and in particular on potential loss of light and overlooking from new windows.
1.4
As a result of receiving these objections the case officer visited the properties
concerned. Photographs were taken, and those from Ames House were particularly
helpful in understanding the impact of the development and were to become
important to the committee’s discussions at its meeting. The objections were
particularly concerned at the proposal for a rear extension at 48-50 Mortimer Street
as this would back onto the rear elevation of 1-3 Little Titchfield Street and create a
new flank wall to the rear of Ames House.
1.5 In the officer’s report to the Planning and City Development Committee the impact of
this rear extension on both properties was explained with regard to the Council’s
relevant planning polices and the BRE daylight and sunlight guidance to which the
policy refers. With regard to 1-3 Little Titchfield Street, since none of these
properties have habitable room windows in the rear elevation facing the site any
impact would be limited. Their living room and bedroom windows face the street and
these would therefore be unaffected by the proposals, whilst the windows at the rear
are to hallways, bathrooms and small kitchens which do not qualify as habitable
rooms under the UDP definition. Therefore although there were objections on loss
of light to these rooms, as UDP policy does not seek to ‘protect’ such non-habitable
rooms the committee accepted that a reason for refusal on such grounds could not
have been have sustained.
1.6 With regard to overlooking, as stated above, 1-3 Little Titchfield Street has all its
habitable rooms front-facing, and the rear-facing non-habitable room windows are in
obscured, non-transparent glass. Therefore even though the proposed extension
would include windows directly facing the rear of 1-3 Little Titchfield Street there
could be no overlooking between the windows of the respective properties, and the
committee accepted that a reason for refusal on overlooking grounds was not
supportable.
1.7 At Ames House there would be no direct overlooking since the flank of the proposed
extension would contain no windows. However, with regard to loss of light, Ames
House does include habitable room windows in the elevation facing the development
site, and this was explained in the committee report and in the presentation of the
site photographs for the committee’s consideration. In addition a sunlight and
daylight study was submitted with the application, which was summarised in the
officer’s report. This showed that the new development would reduce the amount of
natural light to Ames House, but not to such a degree that would justify withholding
planning permission. Under the BRE guidelines (which are used in applying UDP
policy ENV13), it is considered that loss of sunlight or daylight only becomes
noticeable when it is reduced by 20% or more of its current value, and in no instance
would any window in Ames House reach this degree of daylight loss. In terms of
sunlight loss, of all the affected windows only 2 windows would exceed 20% sunlight
loss (22% and 27% respectively) and these windows were not in the objectors’
properties. Overall the windows in Ames House would continue to receive the
majority of the sunlight that they do at present and therefore Members considered
that the amount of natural light loss to Ames House would still be acceptable and not
unreasonable in a central urban location.
1.8 The planning permission is now being implemented, and since 2006 it has given rise
to a number of complaints to the Noise Team concerning unreasonable disturbance
during the construction period.
1.9 Through the investigations of the Planning Enforcement Team it also transpires that
a rear fire escape stair was built at the site without the benefit of planning
permission. Warning letters issued by the Planning Enforcement Team on the 16
May 2007 have resulted in the unauthorised fire escape staircase being removed
from the site. Confirmation has now also been received from Montagu Evans, the
agents acting on behalf of the developers, that a new fire escape staircase will be
erected which accords with the approved drawings of the planning permission dated
28 April 2005
2.
Detail
The petition is signed by 14 residents in 1-3 Little Titchfield Street and Ames
House, and includes 15 points concerning how and why planning permission
was granted, disturbance during the construction period and other related
matters. The points made in the petition and Officers’ comments are set out
below:
1. ‘Failure to consult residents adequately or to provide an accurate description of
the proposed works during the planning permission process. Works described
as an ‘office refurbishment’ in the planning permission request are clearly
nothing of the sort as the attached picture shows – the project is demolition,
rebuild and massive extension.’
The main structure of Knighton House has been retained and extended. The
City Council’s consultation letter to residents clearly stated that there would be
alterations, and infill, roof and rear extensions, and this was therefore accurate.
The City Council received objections to the proposals with specific regard to the
extensions, and therefore it is apparent that this aspect of the development was
clearly conveyed in the consultation exercise. However, it is acknowledged that
implementation of the development has resulted in the building being stripped
right back to its subframe in order to implement the approved alterations, and
whilst this is still within the scope of the planning permission, it is
understandable that local residents may not have appreciated that there would
be this level of work or that it would last as long as it has. Notwithstanding this,
planning permission cannot be refused due to the length of time that the
implementation of a project would take to complete.
2. ‘Failure in the officer’s report on the planning application submitted to the
28/4/05 Planning Committee, to note that this site is densely residential – with
20 households sited on two sides of the block in question.’
In the presentation to committee the Members were shown a plan identifying
the locations and number of all surrounding residential properties, including the
objectors’ properties. The committee report itself also drew particular attention
to the potential impact on neighbouring flats. The last sentence of paragraph 2
in section 4.1 of the report includes the following description of the site:
‘Beneath the 1960s block there is an underground servicing/parking area,
the access to which goes under the neighbouring Nos.1-3 Little Titchfield
Street, which is a block of flats with a rear elevation facing the rear of
Nos.46-50 Mortimer Street and the recessed part of the 1060s block. Sideon to the site, there is a block on Great Titchfield Street (Ames House)
which includes a number of residential properties with windows facing the
site.’
Section 6.1.5 of the committee report deals extensively with amenity issues
concerning the impact on these neighbouring properties, starting with the
sentence:
‘Due to the close proximity of the application site to residential properties
facing it at Ames House and 1-3 Little Titchfield Street, the proposed rear
extensions and additional storeys will undoubtedly have some impact on the
amenity of existing local residents. The proposals therefore need to be
considered in terms of Replacement policy ENV12 which seeks to protect
the living environment of local residents.’
It is therefore not accepted that the committee report, nor indeed the
committee’s consideration of the proposals, failed to take into account the
proximity and number of neighbouring residential properties.
3. ‘Failure to consult the residents on any of the subsequent amendments to the
planning permission – none of the amendments have been communicated to
residents directly. These include amendments to which directly affect residents
such as the siting of windows which overlook some existing properties despite
assurances to the contrary during the original planning permission.
Apart from the unauthorised rear fire escape, now removed, no such
amendments have been granted by the City Council, and the positions of
proposed windows have not changed.
However, the developer has applied to discharge some of the conditions
relating to the planning permission which would involve changes to reserved
matters such as bin store and cycle parking facilities. Residents have been
informed of these applications and some have objected. As a result of these
objections the developer is considering alternative arrangements for these
items that may better suit residents. Whilst these matters are being considered
the applications remain undetermined.
4. ‘Failure to take into account the objections made by local residents (existing
properties now overlooked despite assurances during the initial planning
process that no properties would be overlooked, existing properties have lost
light).
These issues were thoroughly considered by the committee with the aid of the
officer’s report and site photographs and it was considered that although there
would be an impact on natural lighting levels to Ames House, a reason for
refusal could not be sustained on these grounds. No habitable rooms would be
overlooked as a result of the new development, which meant that a reason for
refusal on such grounds was not supportable.
5. ‘Failure to inform residents of the extent of the project – the officer’s report
mentions that the infill extension would come within 7.5m of the existing
properties at Ames House but the residents were never told this or shown
plans.
As previously explained, the public consultation period was considered to be
both extensive and accurate. Public consultation is carried out to alert
residents and other affected individuals of the submission of a planning
application and what the application is for. The onus is on those consulted, if
they so wish, to view the relevant public documents such as the submitted
drawings. These are available on the Council’s website as well as at City Hall.
In this case the consultation did generate a response and therefore fulfilled its
purpose which was to draw to the City Council’s attention to matters which
concerned local residents, and these matters were then duly considered in the
decision-making process.
6. ‘Failure in particular to take into account the needs of the residents in 1-3 Little
Titchfield Street who used their walkways as balconies – these balconies are
now plunged into darkness as a result of the highly obtrusive new structure
which comes to within around 4m from these properties.’
The objection to the planning application from 1-3 Little Titchfield Street did not
specifically object to the loss of light to the access walkways, and this was not
discussed in the committee report. However, as walkways are not habitable
rooms, it would not have been possible, under the relevant policy
considerations, to refuse planning permission due to impact on the walkways.
7. ‘Failure to consult the residents on what noise protection they required. With
over 20 households directly overlooking this major site, the residents should
have had the opportunity to discuss their needs with the council. A noise
protection wall should have been erected and was not. Residents lived for
almost 12 months with pneumatic drilling from 8am to 6pm every day and for
five hours on Saturdays – at volumes that made normal life impossible.
Residents also lived with constant shaking of the building caused by this work.
At no point did the Council ever take action to make residents’ lives easier.’
The City Council’s Noise Team exercises control over building sites by way of
the Control of Pollution Act 1974. That control extends to hours of working, use
of the quietest practicable plant and best practicable methods of carrying out
work. The City Council has no powers to insist on a noise barrier. The Noise
Team, if involved, advises contractors to liaise closely with nearby residents so
as to make the building process as painless as possible. There is, however, no
power to require contractors to do so.
A notice was served on the site to exert some control over the demolition
works. Now into the construction phase, that notice is of no effect (it related
only to demolition) and the site has been operating an informal Quiet
Periods/hours of work policy. The informal approach is favoured because it is
much more flexible for both the site and those living nearby. The intention is
that, rather than restricting the site to particular hours in the day for noisy work
(except that the provision to keep work between the standard hours of 08001800 Monday to Friday and 0800-1300 Saturday remains) the site can restrict
times of working, where practicable, to suit those affected by the noise.
Living next door to a building site puts a tremendous strain on residents and the
Noise Team's role is to respond to complaints and minimise as far as
practicable the impact on those residents. In many cases, including this one, it
is not practically possible to isolate residents from what is essentially a very
noisy process.
8. ’Failure to enforce the “noisy works” agreement with the contractors. The
contractors on site repeatedly break the agreement to desist from noisy work
between 10am and midday and between 2pm and 4pm. Most recently, noisy
work was being undertaken on the site on Saturday 14 th April at 3pm – way
outside the agreed working times. Calls to the noise line are repeatedly met
with brush-offs (“there’s nothing we can do if they have planning permission” or
“they were not noisy when we visited last week”). Residents are not aware of
any real action has ever been taken against the contractors.
The "Quiet Periods" commonly agreed on building sites are badly named. The
Council can limit the use of heavy rotary percussive tools, (such as Kango
hammers, often used in demolition) to two hours on, two hours off. There are
many other noisy works that are not covered by this control. A member of the
public may well find that noise from a building site, even in the "quiet" period is
still too loud to allow them to enjoy their home. The Noise Team is not
unsympathetic to their situation but has no practical way of stopping a building
site from working during the accepted hours of 0800-1800 Monday to Friday
and 0800-1300 on Saturday. If this were so, costs of building could double and
the length of time taken to complete works would more than double. It is an
unpalatable fact that building is a very noisy process and that the decision to
redevelop a site could be repeated at whatever intervals the owner of the site
can afford.
9. ‘Failure to enforce the requirement, agreed at the 28/4/05 Planning Committee
meeting, for the contractors to provide a phone number for the construction site
manager. Residents were, for six months, only able to make contact with the
contractors by walking onto the site to complain.
It is disappointing if the developer chose to ignore this planning condition for the
first six months of the building works, and seemingly only displayed the
planning permission on site once quite recently. There is however no facility
within the legislation for seeking penalties or damages for previous noncompliance with a condition of this type if it is now being complied with, and the
City Council can now only communicate its displeasure at the developer’s
actions and warn against future similar breaches of planning control.
10. ‘Failure to respond to repeated letters from residents asking what the proposed
“street improvements” Great Portland Estates have been asked to pay for will
entail and when they will materialise.’
It has not been possible to find a record of these letters from residents, but the
precise nature of these works is not yet known as no scheme has been drawn
up. The street improvements were a requirement of the planning permission
and are intended to create, when completed, a better local environment for
local residents. Although there is no finalised scheme, it is anticipated that it
will include some or all of the standard features found in other similar
developments such as new paving surfaces around the site, street trees and
new street lighting. The likely timescale is for a scheme to be agreed within 6
months and then it would take about 3 months for the design to be
implemented.
11. ‘Failure to take into account the burden on residents’ parking in the area by
allowing the removal of two residents’ parking spaces, despite residents’
objections.’
There was one objection to the planning application on the grounds of loss of
replacement of on-street parking bays in order to allow the provision of two off-
street disabled parking spaces. The committee took this objection into account,
but again considered that our planning policies would not have been able to
sustain a reason for refusal, especially on appeal to the Secretary of State
since national policy focuses on discouraging parking provision (except for
disabled provision) in highly accessible areas in order to encourage greater
public transport use.
Nonetheless, in the forthcoming design for street improvements, Officers will
look at opportunities for providing replacement on-street residents parking
spaces in the local vicinity.
12. ‘Failure to consult the residents on other disruptive projects (for example road
surfacing until 3am during late summer 06, despite the residents already
enduring pneumatic drilling all day from the GPE site)’.
The City Council as Local Highway Authority is required to carry out its
statutory duty to maintain the City’s roads, and from time to time this means
carriageway resurfacing works. Carriageway resurfacing was undertaken in
Mortimer Street from Langham Place to Wells Street between 24th August and
1st September 2006.
The works were carried out at night between 19.00-06.00hrs due Mortimer
Street being classified as "traffic sensitive" and due to the complex diversions
that are required including diverting traffic onto Oxford Street which cannot
occur during daytime working hours . Whilst it is inevitable that such operations
will be disruptive for local residents, notification letters are sent out in advance
so that, if possible, residents can make alterative arrangements during the
period of disruption.
13.‘Failure to consult the residents on the second Great Portland Estates site on
the corner of Wells Street and Mortimer Street despite the damage already
inflicted on our lives by the first site. Failure to take into account what residents
were already tolerating by allowing the second site to continue demolition work
until 7pm at night.
Planning permission for the second site was granted by the Planning and City
Development Committee at the same time as the Knighton House scheme.
Public consultation on this scheme took the normal form; that is, in addition to
the statutory requirement to erect site notices and place a notice in the local
newspaper, the City Council, although not statutorily obliged to do so, sent
letters to the properties in closest proximity to the site. The mail-drop did not
include the petitioners’ properties which are sufficiently distant not to be
materially affected by the development when completed. As potential
disturbance during construction period is not a valid planning reason for refusal,
even if the City Council had received such objections it would have been
unable to have withheld planning permission on these grounds, or to have
required the delay of the project due to other building projects already taking
place in the vicinity.
Demolition works are normally containable within the standard hours mentioned
earlier in this reply. However, with demolition in particular, situations can arise
where safety demands that works extend beyond those hours. It is not Noise
Team policy to allow sites to work after 1800 hrs unless there are exceptional
circumstances.
14. ‘Despite repeated requests, failure ever to visit the residents to witness at first
hand the level of disruption being endured.
Of the persons signing the petition, 5 appear from Noise Team records to have
contacted the team. The number of complaints made about Knighton House by
signatories appears to be 8. As a result of these complaints three visits have
been made to the site, and in the remaining 5 the complaint was resolved over
the phone.
15. ‘Failure to protect the needs of elderly and other vulnerable residents including
a newborn baby who had to spend the first months of her life away from home
because of the disruption caused by the site.’
It is regretted that the legislation governing noise from building sites contains no
provision to ensure that elderly and vulnerable residents are not affected by
noise. The Noise Team will write to all signatories to encourage them to ring the
noise team whenever work is too noisy or whenever the standard hours are
exceeded. The letter will also point out the limits of the controls exercised by
local authorities
The residents’ follow-up letter makes a further 5 general points concerning the
development and then 6 specific points concerning the perceived failure of the City
Council to enforce the conditions of the planning permission. These points, and
the responses to them, are considered below:
(a) General follow-up points
1. Why the fact that this site houses 22 households was not mentioned on the
planning report.
This is a repeat of point 2 of the petition and is answered above.
2. Why the fact that one of the affected buildings is listed was not mentioned in
the planning report
There are no listed buildings within the development site itself, and therefore
the planning report did not need to refer to such. The neighbouring building at
44 Mortimer Street is listed but no alterations to that building are proposed and
therefore no listed building consent was required to be reported to the
committee.
3. Why the fact that at least one of the flats will lose more light to living and
bedrooms than is acceptable under BRE standards is glossed over in the
planning report.
There were two forms of natural light to be considered, sunlight and daylight.
The affected flat would not lose daylighting to below the BRE guidelines, only
sunlight. Rather than being ‘glossed over’ in the planning report, this matter
was specifically identified in the report as a matter needing the committee’s
attention. The BRE guidelines are not standards as such, in that they are
advisory and not mandatory and the BRE document itself stresses that the
numerical values should be interpreted flexibly especially in a city centre
location. The City Council does not automatically refuse planning applications
which do not achieve these guidelines, but considers this as just one of the
matters, albeit an important one, to be taken into account in determining
developments in a tightly packed urban environment. In this case the
committee considered that the vast majority of the affected windows would
maintain the optimum level of ‘80%’ of existing available natural light, whilst the
two windows not achieving this would still achieve a ‘reasonable’ 73% and 78%
of existing sunlight respectively.
4. Why an 87 year old and partially sighted resident was told in a letter from
Westminster that loss of over 30% of her light to her living room was
“acceptable” despite the fact that it breaches BRE standards.
The lady in question did not object to the planning application but approached
the City Council subsequently, when it was being implemented, to query why
permission was granted when it so affected the natural light to her flat. The
Council’s written response was an explanation given along the lines of the
answer to 3. above. It referred to sunlight reductions of 22% and 27%, and not
losses in excess of 30%.
5. Why residents (including the vulnerable who were unable to visit the Council’s
offices) were not sent copies of the planning application given the scale of this
proposal and its impact on our lives of over two years.
As previously mentioned, the City Council already exceeds it statutory duties by
sending out letters to individual households as well as placing public notices. It
is simply not feasible, nor an appropriate use of public funds, to send copies of
all the planning application documents to all local residents, especially since
applicants are only obliged to provide six sets of documents with their
application. It is also not within the Council’s knowledge to appreciate whether
individual local residents are able to visit the Council offices to view documents,
or to make alternative arrangements for them, unless such a specific request is
made to the Council - in which case every effort will be made to assist with
access to documents.
(b) Specific points relating to matters required to be done by the planning
conditions imposed on the planning permission
1. Install noise monitoring equipment to ensure residents are protected (never
done).
There are no planning conditions requiring noise monitoring during
construction. There are conditions that seek to ensure that any plant and
machinery in the finished building does not cause a noise nuisance for
residents. They also prescribe noise levels for this plant and machinery and set
out how a ‘maximum noise level’ is to be assessed by a prescribed method of
noise monitoring.
2. Ensure that “there is no audible noise or perceptible vibration transmitted
through the structure to adjoining premises” (breached daily – our properties
were uninhabitable through noise and vibration).
Condition 6 of the planning permission relates to the transmission of noise and
vibration through the structure of the finished building to adjoining premises. It
does not relate to the construction stage of the development.
3. Display the planning conditions on the street level for the duration of the
building works (two years later this has never been done).
and
4. Make sure people in adjoining properties are fully aware of their rights under
these conditions (nobody ever mentioned the planning conditions to us
until we were advised by a third party to request them from Westminster.
We suspect Westminster knew the conditions were being breached which
is why they did not tell us about the conditions earlier).
Officers do not know for sure that a copy of the planning permission has been
displayed on site as required by condition 10. However a representative of the
developer has maintained that it has. This will be monitored to ensure that it
remains the case. The planning permission is a public document which is
readily available to anyone to view and there really is no question of it having
been somehow deliberately withheld from residents, as this would be illegal.
Further, the City Council would have no motive in avoiding taking enforcement
action if there has been a clear breach of planning control.
5. Ensure all work to the outside of the building matches original work (the back
and side of the building – visible from neighbouring properties but not the
street – do not match the rest of the building despite the fact that the
building is in a conservation area and adjoins a listed building).
Condition 19 requires external works to match the existing original work in
terms of materials, method of construction and finished appearance “unless
differences are shown on the drawings we have approved”. Officers are not
aware at this stage of construction that the new works to the rear and side may
not match the rest of the building. As the building works progress, this will be
checked in order to establish whether the materials used are in breach of
condition 15 and, if so, take steps to deal with the matter. However, at the
meeting held on 2 July 2007, one of the proposed ways forward discussed
between the developer and residents was the possibility of finishing the rear
and flank of the development in a lighter, more reflective material such as
painted render to improve the natural light levels. This will be subject to
ongoing discussions to see if a mutually acceptable solution can be reached in
this regard.
6. Speak to Environmental Health to ensure protection of residents’ health (never
done, to detriment of residents who include a new mother and young
baby, a partially sighted 87 year old and a cancer patient (deceased three
weeks ago). The nurse of our neighbour who was suffering from cancer
contacted the Council to express her concerns about the impact of the
noise on his prognosis and received no reply).
This point relates to an ‘informative’ attached to the planning permission rather
than to an enforceable condition of the permission. This draws attention to the
need to control noise nuisance during the demolition and construction stages
and requests the developer to speak with the City Council’s Environmental
Health Service. This informative therefore only has the status of an advisory
note to encourage good practice and the developer cannot be compelled to
take these steps, although any statutory noise nuisance can be dealt with under
Environmental Health legislation.
3.
Financial Implications
3.1 There are no financial implications arising from this report.
4.
Legal Implications
4.1 Standing Order 8 provides that a petition submitted to a meeting of full Council
shall stand referred to the relevant Chief Officer, who shall then submit to the
Cabinet, Cabinet Member or Committee or Sub-Committee within whose terms
of reference it falls a report on the receipt of the petition detailing either (a)
action taken in response to the petition or (b) seeking instructions as to the
action to be taken.
5.
Outstanding Issues
5.1 With the exception of the applications to discharge conditions relating to the
planning permission there are no outstanding statutory matters arising from
this report.
6.
Consultation
6.1 West End ward councillors have been consulted on this matter and have raised
no comments.
7.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
7.1 The City Council has a duty under Section 17 or the Crime and Disorder Act to
exercise its “various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise
of those functions on, and the need to do all it reasonably can to prevent, crime
and disorder in its area.”
7.2 In the event that the Noise Team’s future investigations reveal evidence of antisocial behaviour outside their remit the matters will be referred to the
appropriate enforcement agencies including the Metropolitan Police Service.
8.
Reason(s) for Decision(s)
As the unauthorised fire escape staircase has now been removed, it is
considered that there is no currently identified breach of planning control or
environmental health legislation at the site. The planning permission itself was
granted after the correct procedures were followed and the decision is
therefore considered to be sound. It is proposed that a reply shall be sent to the
lead petitioner and Councillor Dimoldenberg setting out a full response to the
issues raised in the petition.
If you have any queries about this report or wish to inspect one of the background
papers please contact Sarah Gatehouse on 020 7641 2507, fax 020 7641 3158, email
sgatehouse@westminster.gov.uk.
Background Papers
The documents used or referred to in compiling the report were: 1. Planning Permission
2. Environmental Health Notices
3. Letter to Cllr Davis from Great Portland Estates dated 24 September 2007
For completion by Cabinet Member

Declaration of Interest
I have no interest to declare in respect of this report
Signed ……………………………. Date………………………………
Councillor Robert Davis DL, Cabinet Member for Planning
I have to declare an interest
State nature of interest …………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………….
Signed ……………………………. Date………………………………
Councillor Robert Davis DL, Cabinet Member for Planning
(N.B: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate to
make a decision in relation to this matter.)
For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation(s) in the report entitled Local
residents’ petition against the planning permission granted by the City Council for
development at the site known as ‘Knighton House’, 52-66 Mortimer Street, 1A
Little Titchfield Street and 48 Mortimer Street, W1 and the disturbance caused
during its implementation.
Signed ………………………………………………
Cabinet Member for Planning
Date …………………………………………………
For Ward Specific Reports Only
In reaching this decision I have given due regard to any representations
made by relevant Ward Members.
Signed ………………………………………………
Cabinet Member for ………………………..
Date …………………………………………………
If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in connection with
your decision you should discuss this with the report author and then set out your
comment below before the report and this pro-forma is returned to the Secretariat for
processing.
Additional comment: …………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
NOTE: If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an
alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Director of Legal
and Administrative Services, the Director of Finance and Resources, if there are staffing
implications, the Head of Human Resources (or their representatives) so that (1) you can
be made aware of any further relevant considerations that you should take into account
before making the decision and (2) your reasons for the decision can be properly
identified and recorded, as required by law.
Note to Cabinet Member: The decision will now be published and copied to the
Members of the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee and may not be
implemented until five working days have elapsed from publication to allow the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee to decide whether it wishes to call it in.