Plans to transform a locally listed Victorian house into a 28-room ‘co-living space’ in Newham have been refused.
The plans, from Dilawar Properties Ltd, were criticised by planning officers who said the rooms were too small and of a ‘poor quality’.
Planning officers also believed in total there would be 56 people living in the property, located in Forest Gate, because each room contained a double bed.
However during a meeting with Newham Council’s Local Development Committee on Monday night (October 28), Dilawar Properties’ representative disputed this and said only one person would be living in each room.
They also said that the accommodation, currently consisting of 16 rooms for young and vulnerable people supported by Sovereign Residential Housing, would have ‘no material change’ and would continue housing vulnerable people, however a planning officer disagreed and said the planning application form detailed a change in use.
The plans would have seen the property in Romford Road redeveloped to include a part 3, part 2 and part 1 storey rear extension as well as a roof extension to create the 28 rooms.
Under the plans, each room was set to include a double bed, a kitchenette and an en-suite shower room plus a toilet, but planning officers were concerned that the rooms would have been treated as ‘self-contained homes’, which goes against the London Plan.
There were also concerns around the size of each of the rooms, which ranged from 14.7m2 to 22.3m2, and were considerably smaller than the London Plan guidance for ‘large-scale, purpose-built, shared living’ as bedrooms shouldn’t measure less than 18m2 or over 27m2.
Planning officers were also worried that the size of each room would be detrimental to future residents’ long-term health and wellbeing and that several rooms would not receive enough sunlight throughout the year.
During Monday’s meeting, a planning officer said: “I think there’s been a number of issues in terms of the information we’ve been provided to establish the use [of the property] – which is why there was a site visit carried out.
“We still haven’t been provided with any sort of sufficient information on exactly who the users are and what are the levels of vulnerability other than what we can tell is that there is some level of vulnerability happening there.”
A senior planning officer said information about the plans was ‘sadly lacking’ and advised the committee to refuse the application. The applicant’s representative said it was ‘very unlikely’ that they would amend their plans and insisted that it wouldn’t be lived in by 56 people, stating this was ‘all assumptions’.
A planning officer said the application should still be refused because the design was branded ‘unacceptable’ by design and heritage officers and said there were unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenities.
After a discussion between planning officers and the applicant’s representative which was at some points heated, the plans were refused by councillors.
