Foxtons building to be converted to flats - no public consultation

[worldwiser]

Dear all - you may not be aware that a planning application has been approved to convert the upper floors of the Foxtons building into flats and a series of roof terraces installed at the rear for outdoor amenity. We were not consulted and the council insist we didn't have a right to be for reasons to do with change of use. There are no rear elevation drawings available as part of the planning application and I believe we should have a right to see them and comment on them before anything further happens.

The application number is 14/AP/0780 if you want to look it up.

Am I alone here or do we not all have a legitimate point of view that deserves to be heard?

[worldwiser]

Wow, over 500 views and no one gives a monkey's. I really am alone then.

[Penguin68]

Possibly because the content is already covered in another thread, where it (and actions relating to it) have been/ are being discussed. Apat from a general view about failures of normal 'due process' (but, technically, this apparently didn't require consultation) only those actually impacted (by virtue of location) will be most engaged in this.

[V511]

This affects me in the most direct way. The company I work for occupy the top floor office that is going to be changed into flats. Our lease runs out in Feb 2015, so our company of about 15 staff will have to relocate out of East Dulwich most probably.

What I find surprising in this change of use is that ED has a great lack of office space, and Southwark didn't seem to take that in to account in their decision. ( Application here: http://planningonline.southwark.gov.uk/AcolNetCGI.exe?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=9553864 )

As for the actual development, the architect's design cleverly doesn't alter anything externally. No windows are changed.

One issue that isn't clear from the design is the terrace spaces. If they are to be used by the flats - and I can't imagine the developer not wanting that - then overlooking would be a concern for the adjoining properties. Fences could installed which would allievate the problem, but yes Worldwiser, I am a little surprised by the lack of local consultation.

As for parking, It's possible that they calculated the change of use would reduce the number of vehicles. Because the office spaces could accommodate maybe 40-50 people, as opposed to maybe 15-20 residents, then the number of cars might be lower. That's the theory. In reality, we've been here 6 years and only one of us occasionally drives. And the other office has been vacant for about 5 years.

Anyway, we'll be sad to go. The management were very happy to be based here.

[LondonMix]

But that's true for flats as well. I have a house and don't own a car. No one I know who lives in flat owns a car either.

[worldwiser]

V511, sorry to hear you'll be moved out. The lack of office space in ED is unfortunately not one of the criteria that the council is permitted to use in evaluating change of use applications. So no, it won't have been considered.

I'm beginning to wonder if their strategy was to get the change of use put through and then, when everyone's gone, apply for a more elaborate scheme with full planning permission. Purely financially, it's not in their interest to do a basic job on these flats. They'll want to do a full reconfiguration and update the outside of the building, back and front to maximise the capital value. Who knows, they may even apply to build upwards. The building is owned by a plc and run by someone who used to work for DTZ Debenham Tie Leung, one of the biggest property services companies in the world. I doubt very much if they're going to do a quick turnaround on this.

[V511]

I think you're probably right, Worldwiser. They could get another 2-3 flats if they extended out onto the terrace spaces.

Though there could be rights of light issues if they do. We'll see I'm sure!

[worldwiser]

Based on pms, trying a last-ditch approach to convince people to be concerned by this.

[intexasatthe moment]

" I would like to know exactly what we are all going to be looking at from our gardens and back bedrooms and have an opportunity to be heard on any inappropriate design features and potential loss of privacy. This would be entirely normal and appropriate when no change of use is involved, so why does a change of use exempt them from the normal consultation process? " Quite agree .

I had no idea that ,based on the fact that this is an application for change of use, that consultation on the effect of the development on neighbours was not necessary .

Although legal and not breaching planning this seems extraordinary to me .

James Barber has said "I have email Gary Rice the dept head who signed this under delegated powers asking why no neighbours were consulted. " . I appreciate what an extremely busy few weeks it's been for James but wonder if he's had a reply yet .

[LondonMix]

Earlier in the thread, someone involved in the process states the architects plans make no external changes to the building. I imagine that fact is why no consultation is needed on the design rather than the fact that it is a change of use.

Please see V511's first post.

[popsy]

v511 - its worth checking if there there any policies in the local plan (or emerging ldf documents) which seek to protect premises in existing employment use? I.e which resist the loss of such uses.

[popsy]

In fact, just thought that new permitted development rights have recently been bought in which allow office buildings to be converted to residential use without the need for pp, they just need to go through a 'prior approval' process, which probably wouldnt have required consultation to be carried out. I suspect that's what's happened in this case...

[intexasatthe moment]

I think there is concern over the potential for the roof terraces to be used by occupiers of the new flats . Concern has been expressed that the change of use would open up the roof terraces use to 24 hours as opposed to current office hours .

Although I suppose if there really is going to be no change at all to existing exterior then the air conditioning units and " other plant " which are apparently there at the moment will remain and presumably deter any leisure use .

[intexasatthe moment]

Popsy - I bet you're right .....but I can't help feeling that although Southwark may be within their legal right that good practice needs to come into play .

[worldwiser]

It's not that the terraces may go from daytime to potentially 24hr use. It's that a space currently used for machinery, fire escapes and multiple aircon units may end up being developed for outdoor amenity purposes with no public scrutiny. At present it would be dangerous to use it for anything and hence it isn't. Turning this industrial space into private terraces for flats is not a fair employment of the change of use legislation.

I have served an enforcement notice on the council and await their reply.

[LondonMix]

Worldwiser, why do you think the areas will be converted to terraces? Where would all the technical equipment be relocated? Is this just your fear or are the concrete plans to do this that you are aware of?

[Otta]

I must say, I'm not really clear on what the issue is, other than that you feel you should have been consulted. Which is fair enough, but have you actually got any specific concerns over plans?

[worldwiser]

1. If the guy who owns the building knows what he's doing (and his CV says he really does), he'll be looking to maximise every square foot of space he can. 2. Their basic floorplans say they will be used as roof terraces. 3. The technical equipment may very well not be needed or can be downsized/eliminated/reconfigured for flats. I don't know many flats with aircon anyway.

The public have a right to see what they're going to do with the rear of the building before they do it. It is highly visible from dozens of properties, mine included. Maybe their plans will be perfectly acceptable, but until we see proper elevation drawings, how are we to know? The council has waved the permission through (whether they had no choice in the matter or not) and I expect a potentially major development to be authorised in the light of day, not in a back room.

[LondonMix]

Thanks for the link. It doesn't look like their application is granting them any changes to the existing configuration of the terraces or any of the external elements of the building as per V511's post. Therefore I don't understand your concern about sneaking through an extension when permission hasn't been granted for that via this approval.

Is your underlying concern that they will take the equipment off the terraces and use them for leisure? If the terraces don't have leisure use already, then this application as it stands wouldn't automatically give them that right. If the terraces already can be used for leisure and simply haven't been, then I am not really sure you can object as the legal right to use the balconies for leisure would have always existed.

It might be worth speaking to someone at the council to understand what use the external terraces already have (industrial only or leisure / industrial) and how this application impacts that if at all.

[grace3]

nobody 'owns' a car but the wee man wot does has too hud your plasterboards to you on his ead mate.