The proposed High Road Leytonstone building was unanimously voted down by councillors at a planning committee meeting this week, reports Marco Marcelline
A four-storey High Road Leytonstone development containing seven flats was rejected by councillors for a third time on Tuesday (3rd March), as local residents cited concerns about privacy and “overdevelopment”.
The proposal would have seen the demolition of a two storey warehouse and a two storey building to make way for a building with seven residential units and commercial space, along with associated refuse, recycling, and bicycle storage.
Rejecting the development, planning committee chair Jenny Gray stated she saw little difference between Clements & Porter Architects’ previously refused proposal and the current one.
The decision came despite pushback from council planning officers who said they were satisfied with changes that had been made to meet privacy and noise concerns.
But neighbours and councillors said that these changes, namely the removal of a communal terrace and increased screening to Davies Lane, were not substantial enough.
Mike Bristow, whose Davies Lane residence sits next door to the development, told the committee that the building would “unacceptably” overlook his home.
He said: “My privacy will be breached by flat two’s balcony, which overlooks the windows of my rear bedroom and bathroom. It cannot be right that the council considers the privacy of my garden but not my bedroom. It is not reasonable to situate an open socialising space 4.5 metres away from a bedroom window – it’s ridiculously close.”
He continued: “It is shocking that this third planning application is so similar to the previous two. There has been no attempt to talk to local residents by the developer and I know that’s not required but we would be happy to talk constructively with them to find a way forward. Many of us in the community would love to see this site redevelopment in an appropriate and sensible way but this is not that.”
Leytonstone ward councillor Marie Pye reiterated concerns that the proposal was not “substantially different” from what had previously been rejected.
Cllr Pye said: “You can literally reach out from one of these proposed terraces and touch No.1’s bedroom window. These are huge balconies; these are ones where kids can play five-a-side football. They can see straight into No.1 Davies Lane bedroom window.
“Planning officers keep going on about this being an urban location and they’re being disingenuous.
“Yes, the High Road, where there is no entrance to this property, is urban but Davies Lane is a lane of tiny little terraced houses that leads down to Epping Forest. When these residents bought No.1 Davies Lane they had no idea that a block of flats would be built next door looking into their bedroom.”
A council planning officer insisted that “some degree” of mutual overlooking is expected in high density town centre contexts, and that the overlooking that would happen was “not materially harmful”.
A representative for Clements & Porter Architects also defended the project, stating: “The existing site is occupied by a two storey building at the front and a two storey warehouse with a pitched roof next to 1 Davies Lane. The two storey warehouse is unsightly which does impact No.1. We feel that what we are doing is optimising this and getting rid of an eyesore, including the shop which is in a very bad condition.”
She continued: “We believe we have dealt very well with all the objections that have been put forward.
“This is a high quality design and that view is reinforced by the council’s design officer. This is a sustainable and contextually sensitive development that makes a positive contribution to the High Road. We understand No.1 Davies Lane’s concerns but as the planning officer said there is in place a condition that will enable us to look at the overlooking problem and we’re very happy to deal with that problem.
“The buildings that have been approved on opposite sides of the road are five and six storeys – we are three-and-a-half storeys so I don’t think one could ever say this is overdevelopment.”
Despite protestations from the firm and planning officers, councillors unanimously voted to reject the proposal.
In their rejection speeches, councillors John Moss and Keith Rayner both took aim at the lack of consultation that had taken place with residents, with Cllr Rayner demanding that a consultation should be completed before a fourth proposal for the building comes back to them.
Justin Carr, assistant director for development management and building control replied: “There is no statutory requirement for applications to consult so I’m not sure that’s grounds for refusal.”
No news is bad news
Independent news outlets like ours – reporting for the community without rich backers – are under threat of closure, turning British towns into news deserts.
The audiences they serve know less, understand less, and can do less.
If our coverage has helped you understand our community a little bit better, please consider supporting us with a monthly, yearly or one-off donation.
Choose the news. Don’t lose the news.
Monthly direct debit
Annual direct debit
£5 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else, £10 per month supporters get a digital copy of each month’s paper before anyone else and a print copy posted to them each month. £50 annual supporters get a digital copy of each month's paper before anyone else.
More information on supporting us monthly or annually
More Information about donations
