Issue - meetings
With MAP Goodmans Fields Final Reoprt 23FEB2012 (mas)
Meeting: 09/10/2013 - Development Committee (Item 7)
Meeting: 14/11/2012 - Development Committee (Item 6)
Meeting: 10/10/2012 - Development Committee (Item 6)
Meeting: 22/08/2012 - Development Committee (Item 6)
Meeting: 10/07/2012 - Development Committee (Item 6)
Meeting: 06/06/2012 - Development Committee (Item 8.)
Meeting: 31/05/2012 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 8)
Meeting: 12/04/2012 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 8)
8 Poplar Business Park, 10 Prestons Road, London E14 9RL (PA/11/3375) PDF 84 KB
Additional documents:
- Location Map for Poplar Business Park, item 8 PDF 2 MB
- Poplar Business Park FINAL, item 8 PDF 731 KB
- UPDATE REPORT FIN JJ, item 8 PDF 105 KB
Decision:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Dr Emma Jones left the Committee at this point (7:40pm) as she had not been present at the previous meeting when this item was considered.
Councillor Peter Golds subsequently replaced Councillor Jones for the consideration and voting on the item as he had been present at that previous meeting.
Councillor Peter Golds declared an interest in the item (8.1, Poplar Business Park, 10 Prestons Road, London). The declaration was made on the basis that he was a Ward Councillor for the area and that he had received correspondence for and against the application. The Councillor reported that whilst he had listened to the representations he had not made any observations.
On a vote of 5 for and 0 against, with 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED –
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission PA/11/03375 at Poplar Business Park, 10 Prestons Road, London E14 9RL be NOT ACCEPTED.
Councillor Bill Turner moved a motion to refuse the application seconded by Councillor Carlos Gibbs for the reasons set out below.
On a vote of 5 for refusal and 0 against, with 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED –
That planning permission (PA/11/03375) be REFUSED at Poplar Business Park, 10 Prestons Road, London E14 9R on the grounds of:
1. The proposed affordable housing provision is considered to be inadequate and contrary to policies: 3.11, 3.12 and 3.13 of the London Plan 2011; SP02 of the Core Strategy 2010; and DM3 of the Managing Development DPD (proposed submission version 2012).
2. The proposed development, by virtue of its impact to local services and its failure to make adequate contribution towards education and health infrastructure, would result in an overdevelopment contrary to policies: 8.2 of the London Plan 2011; and SP03, SP07, SP13 of the Core Strategy 2010 and the Council’s Planning Obligation Supplementary Planning Document 2012and as a result is not considered to provide a sustainable form of development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Dr Emma Jones left the Committee at this point (7:40pm) as she had not been present at the previous meeting when this item was considered.
Councillor Peter Golds subsequently replaced Councillor Jones for the consideration and voting on the item as he had been present at that previous meeting.
Councillor Peter Golds declared an interest in the item (8.1, Poplar Business Park, 10 Prestons Road, London). The declaration was made on the basis that he was a Ward Councillor for the area and that he had received correspondence for and against the application. The Councillor reported that whilst he had listened to the representations he had not made any observations.
Mr Jerry Bell presented the application regarding Poplar Business Park (PA/11/03693). Members were reminded that at its meeting on 1st March 2012, the Committee resolved to refuse the application and it was agreed that the detailed reasons for refusal be brought back before the Committee for consideration.
These detailed reasons were now before the Committee for consideration with the original Committee report for a decision.
To assist the discussions, Mr Bell gave a concise presentation of the scheme covering the key points.
He also drew attention to the update report before Members.
The report detailed a number of new developments since the 1st March 2012 meeting. This included the offer of a uplift in the affordable housing offer to 28% (from 25%) and the offer to absorb the costs of the CIL without impact on the scheme.
The update also referred to the recently adopted National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that was a now material consideration and should be taken into account. Officers explained the aim of policy which was to encourage sustainable development. It was considered that the scheme complied with the NPPF.
In view of this new information, Officers substantive recommendation remained as at 1st March 2012 - that the scheme should be granted.
A comprehensive debate the ensued where the Committee raised a number of points and concerns regarding the following issues:
- The safety of the child roof top play spaces given the problems with a similar facility at the nearby Mikardo Court development. Members sought assurances that they would be safely managed. Disappointment was expressed that the concerns had not already been addressed given the concerns expressed at the 1st March 2012 meeting about the play spaces. There were also worries that the relocation of the play spaces to the ground level could reduce the overall amount of communal space provided.
- The ongoing concerns over the affordable housing. Specifically the lack of social housing. It was questioned whether the units were genuinely affordable under the affordable rent product.
- The credibility of the viability assessment given the subsequent offer of an uplift (28% affordable housing, the additional funding for CIL).
- The failure to secure this higher offer sooner as part of the initial negotiations.
- The viability of the scheme with 28% affordable housing.
- The layout of ... view the full minutes text for item 8
Meeting: 15/03/2012 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 5)
Decision:
Update report tabled.
In considering the application, the Committee required that the following point be formally noted and recorded in the minutes:
- The Strategic Development Committee are to be kept informed of the progress in implementing the S106 agreement at the appropriate stages of the development.
On a vote of 4 for and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED for the hybrid planning application at Former Goodmans Fields, 74 Alie Street and Land North of Hooper Street and east of 99 Leman Street, Hooper Street, London, E1 for residential-led redevelopment of the site comprising:
(a) Outline Application - All matters reserved (except for access)
§ Development of North East (NE) and South East (SE) quadrants of the site to provide:
§ Podium blocks of between 7 - 10 storeys (max 46.075m AOD) with two towers on each podium block of between 19-23 storeys (max 85.425m AOD) and dwellings fronting Gower's Walk;
§ Up to 700 residential units (Use Class C3);
§ Up to 6,709 square metres (GIA) of flexible commercial and leisure floor space (Use Classes A1 - A5, B1a, D1 and D2) at ground floor level including a health centre (up to 1,581 square metres GIA);
§ Associated vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access;
§ At least 9,380 square metres of Public Open Space; and
§ Related infrastructure and engineering works.
(b) Full details
§ Development of the North West (NW) quadrant of the site to provide:
§ Podium block between 6-10 storeys (max 46.075 AOD) and two towers up to 19 Storeys (max 76.17m AOD) and 21 storeys (max 85.4m AOD);
§ 250 bedroom hotel (Use Class C1) including a restaurant (Use Class C3) at ground to sixth floor level;
§ 164 residential units (Use Class C3);
§ 841 square metre (GIA) ancillary gym and swimming pool at ground and first floor level for residents use;
§ 1,713 square metre (GIA) flexible commercial / leisure floorspace (Use Class A1 - A5, B1a and D2) at ground floor level;
§ 17, 778 square metre (GIA) basement level across the site to provide 253 car parking spaces, 35 motor cycle spaces, 50 electric car charge points, 1358 cycle parking spaces and ancillary facilities for storage, management facilities and plant;
§ Public Open Space to form part of the wider outline public open space strategy; and
§ Associated access, landscaping, surface car parking and cycle parking and related infrastructure and engineering works.
(2) That such planning permission be subject to any direction by the Mayor of London; the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations and to the planning conditions and informatives as set out in the circulated report and amended by the update report Tabled at the meeting.
(3) That the Corporate Director Development and Renewal be delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
(4) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose planning conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters ... view the full decision text for item 5
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, presented the circulated report and tabled update and referred to the reasons given by Members at the last meeting as to being minded to refuse the application, along with implications of a refusal. Mr Smith indicated that, since the last meeting, the applicant now proposed a mix of 48% social rent, 26% affordable rent (pod levels) and 26% intermediate. This meant more family units at a social rent, leading to a significant change of family sized, socially rented units in that part of the Borough.
Ms Mary O’Shaughnessy, Planning Officer, added that child playspace had now been increased from 1322 sq.m to 2900 sq.m which met the policy requirement. This had been achieved by reducing the amount of communal amenity space, which still accorded with policy requirement. Ms O’Shaughnessy continued that the developer had now provided further information on proposed biodiversity enhancements across the site which were much more consolidated and were considered acceptable.
Mr Smith indicated that a further offer had been made to commit to providing 80 apprenticeships during the construction programme and to encourage engagement with the local community. He referred to a letter appended to the update report received from Whitbread Plc in which agreement was given to enter into a social compact to ensure that local residents had the best possible opportunity to enter into hotel work and related training.
Members then put questions to Officers with regard to:
- Changes in the applicant’s offer regarding housing provision.
- Formal conditions to ensure the employment provisions and training centre.
- Further implications of a decision to refuse the application and the likelihood of appeal.
Officers’ responses included information that:
· The viability of the scheme had been robustly examined and the applicant had offered additional levels of housing provision that now affected the viability or profitability of the scheme.
· Employment provisions and the training centre were being factored into the scheme through the S106 agreement. The developer would build and fit out the training centre, which would be leased to the Council at a peppercorn rent on a 15 year basis. The facility would be run by a Trust established jointly by the Council and developer and linked to the hotel.
· It was now considered that the offers made since the last meeting meant that the previous reasons for possible refusal would not be sustainable on appeal. Should the applicant go to appeal, any S106 arrangements would be determined by the Planning Inspector and, after 1st April 2012, the development would become subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy, which would impact both on the viability of the scheme and the amount of S106 benefits to the Council.
In considering the application, the Committee instructed that the following point be formally noted and recorded in the minutes:
- The Strategic Development Committee are to be kept informed of the progress in implementing the S106 agreement at the appropriate stages of the development.
On a vote of 4 ... view the full minutes text for item 5
Meeting: 15/03/2012 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 5)
Meeting: 06/03/2012 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 6)
Decision:
Update report tabled.
At 10.30 p.m. Councillor Bill Turner proposed, Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed seconded and it was
RESOLVED that, in accordance with Procedural Rule 9.1, the meeting be extended for one hour to enable consideration of the remaining business on the agenda.
On a vote of nil for and 5 against, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at Former Goodmans Fields, 74 Alie Street and land North of Hooper Street and East of 99 Leman Street, Hooper Street, London, E1 (PA/11/03587) be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning permission because of Members’ concerns in connection with:
- Insufficient provision of on-site social housing.
- The lack of child play space and open space in the proposed development.
- The impact on sustainability and biodiversity due to lack of brown and green roofs.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Owen Whalley, Head of Planning and Building Control, introduced the application (PA/11/03587) regarding redevelopment of the site at Former Goodman’s Fields, 74 Alie Street and land north of Hooper Street and east of 99 Leman Street, Hooper Street, London, E1.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Mr Helal Uddin, a local resident and Mitali Tenants’ Association member, speaking in objection to the proposal, stated that he was speaking on behalf of many Backchurch Row residents and expressed the opinion that the proposal would result in more noise pollution and a loss of green space. Dust would make matters worse for asthma-sufferers and there would be no open ground for children. Tenants had made a request to the developer for the provision of a park but had received no reply.
Councillor Denise Jones then made a declaration of personal interest in that her position as a School Governor at Mulberry Girls’ School had resulted in her being acquainted with the next speaker.
Ms Vanessa Ogden, Headteacher at Mulberry Girls’ School, spoke in support of the proposal, indicating that the success of her school was due in part to Tower Hamlets community regeneration measures. The Mulberry Centre was being built to support the community beyond the school gates and classes would be provided for all sectors. In a time of a troubled economy, the developer had given them support and such a partnership could work well in other models. The proposal would provide regeneration for the area and had the community interest at heart.
At 10.30 p.m. Councillor Bill Turner proposed, Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed seconded and it was
RESOLVED that, in accordance with Procedural Rule 9.1, the meeting be extended for one hour to enable consideration of the remaining business on the agenda.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, made a detailed presentation of the application, as contained in the circulated report and update, including plans and a slideshow. He indicated that the planning permission for the site granted in February 2011 was now being built up. There had been wide consultation of the proposal, with views expressed both for and against.
Mr Smith referred to a letter sent direct to Members by the Bengali Youth Group. Although it was good for developers to engage with local groups, he did not especially agree with such an approach. The Chair made reference to his comments earlier in the meeting (see agenda item 4) and stated that Members should disregard the letter so that the S106 arrangements could be determined in the usual manner.
Members then put questions relating to:
· English Heritage comments with regard to the effects of the development on the Tower of London World Heritage site.
· The matter of other hotel provision in the area.
· The possible need to redesign the scheme to include playspace for local children.
· Why there was less social housing provision than achieved ... view the full minutes text for item 6