A recent judgment affirms that planners should consider the impact on existing residents when deciding whether to allow vertical extensions, according to lawyers connected to the case.
The judgment concerns Lambeth Council’s decision to allow a roof level extension to a four-storey block of flats at Vanbrugh Court, Wincott Street, London, SE11, to provide 16 additional residential units and five external lifts.
The proposed development was opposed by the residents association, which sought a judicial review of Lambeth’s decision.
The main concerns raised by the residents related to the structural feasibility of the building to support the extension. In particular, they say there was no evidence assessing whether the existing building can support the extension or whether the residents will be required to vacate their flats during construction.
Mrs Justice Thornton rejected the residents association’s argument, saying that the council’s decision was reasonable.
In an e-mailed statement, lawyers for the association said they were “considering an appeal”.
The statement said that, even though they lost the case, the judgment establishes an “important principle” that when considering planning applications for upwards extensions, the “residential amenity” of existing residents of the block is a material planning consideration.
In the ruling, the judge said the concern that residents might need to vacate their homes during construction raised an issue of amenity and the acceptable use of the land in question.
“Officers treated the question of whether residents might have to vacate their homes during construction as legally capable of being a material consideration. However, they decided to attach no weight to the matter, on the basis of information from the applicant that the scenario is ‘highly unlikely’. Further, in the circumstances of this case, the council’s decision to rely on the response from the applicant about structural issues, and not to require a structural survey, was entirely reasonable,” the judge said.
Ricardo Gama, a lawyer at Leigh Day who represented the residents said the result was “a near miss” for Lambeth.
“Proposals for upwards extensions have the potential to create massive impacts for residents who find their homes underneath a construction site or even worse have to leave their homes during construction. In order to avoid challenges like this in future council planning officers will need to make sure that their advice to councillors makes very clear that impacts on residential amenity as a result of structural issues are allowed to be taken into account in the planning balance,” he said.
Vanbrugh Court Residents Association v London Borough of Lambeth and Kanin Corporation NV
Planning Court (Mrs Justice Thornton), 20 May 2022
