Issue - meetings
Blackwall Reach
Meeting: 06/03/2013 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 7)
Additional documents:
- Blackwall Reach Consultation Boundary, item 7 PDF 772 KB
- DRAFT Blackwall Reach Committee Report FINAL, 15/03/2012 Strategic Development Committee, item 7 PDF 950 KB
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 3 in favour and 4 against the Officer recommendation, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That the Officer recommendation to grant reserved matters consent (PA/12/03318) at The Robin Hood Gardens Estate together with land south of Poplar High Street and Naval Row, Woolmore School and land north of Woolmore Street bounded by Cotton Street, East India Dock Road and Bullivant Street be NOT ACCEPTED for submission of reserved matters for Woolmore School (Development Zone 1, Building Parcel R) relating to access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of replacement school following outline planning permission dated 30th March 2012, reference PA/12/00001.
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over the loss of heritage value of the existing school building.
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, along with the implications of the decision.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Bill Turner, Carlo Gibbs, Stephanie Eaton, Peter Golds, Dr Emma Jones and Helal Uddin)
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Application Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding the Robin Hood Gardens Estate (PA/12/03318). The proposal was a reserved matters application for the replacement of Woolmore School following the outline planning consent granted by the committee for the wider scheme PA/12/00001.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Tom Ridge spoke in objection to the proposal. He referred the applicant’s ‘justification for demolition document’ that rejected option (b) due to the sewer works. (retaining the old building with a modern new school at the east). However, in the report, the option was dismissed at it divided year groups.
In the new building, a year group would be divided in several places at the upper level with an inadequate staircase.
The scheme would maximise disruption and place the sports and play area at the end of the site with the most pollution. The questionnaire was worded in favour of the plans – it asked do you agree with the plans that would increase school places? Mr Ridge questioned the accuracy of the heritage assessment commissioned by the applicant. It appeared that they were appointed to dispute the building’s historic value. This application should be refused and consideration should be given to his option of retaining the old school with an extension to the east
In reply to Members, he stated that the building was not listed due such issues as the plastic windows that should be replaced. However, this did not mean it was not of value and should be demolished. The building was a pre war L.L.C building. One of 33 schools of such type. Each had unique features. This school was the only one with the unique chimney stacks and vents. He disputed the opinion that the building was an arts and craft school that changed into a neo Georgian school. This was incorrect. In fact, it was the opposite. The comparisons with the grammar school were inaccurate as they were not ‘a like for like’ in terms of type and location.
Hugo Nowellspoke in support of the proposal. He emphasised the lack of heritage value of the unprotected building that was not in a conservation area. The existing building did not meet modern standards and had experienced alterations and bomb damage leaving little historic features. The applicant had fully considered the option of retention. However none of the options were appropriate and would meet the needs of the school. The alternatives proposed would require extensive changes to the building that would heavily impact on its character anyway. These alternatives were presented to the schools and rejected. The scheme would supply much needed extra school places for the Borough. It was proposed to build the school at the eastern side, as opposed to the north. Bullivant Street was not available due to a separate planning consent. There would be a larger play space and screening to protect the building from noise from the Blackwall approach. It was expected ... view the full minutes text for item 7
Meeting: 15/03/2012 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 6)
Additional documents:
Decision:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Denise Jones did not vote on this application as she had arrived at the meeting after commencement of consideration of the matter.
In considering the application, the Committee required that the following points 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.
- The replacement mosque building must be kept separate from the other community facilities proposed.
- Notwithstanding the comments of Officers, Members’ strong sense of discomfort be noted regarding the reduction in the number of housing units arising from GLA comments.
Councillor Bill Turner moved and Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed seconded an amendment which, on being put to the vote, was agreed 5 for and nil against, and is shown as resolution (3) below.
The substantive motion was put to the vote and, on a vote of 5 for and nil against, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at the Robin Hood Gardens Estate, together with land south of Poplar High Street and Naval Row, Woolmore School and land north of Woolmore School bounded by Cotton Street, east India Dock Road and Bullivant Street, for:
PA/12/00001 (Outline Planning Permission)
Outline application for alterations to and demolition of existing buildings, site clearance and ground works and redevelopment to provide:
· Up to 1,575 residential units (up to 191,510 sq.m GEA - Use Class C3);
· Up to 1,710 sq.m (GEA) of retail floorspace (Use Class A1-A5);
· Up to 900 sq.m of office floorspace (Use Class B1);
· Up to 500 sq. m community floorspace (Use Class D1);
· Replacement school (up to 4,500 sq.m GEA - Use Class D1);
· Replacement faith building (up to 1,200 sq.m - Use Class D1)
The application also proposes an energy centre (up to 750 sq.m GEA); associated plant and servicing; provision of open space, landscaping works and ancillary drainage; car parking (up to 340 spaces in designated surface, podium, semi-basement and basement areas plus on-street); and alterations to and creation of new vehicular and pedestrian access routes.
All matters associated with details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale and (save for the matters of detail submitted in respect of certain highway routes, works and/or improvements for the use by vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians as set out in the Development Specification and Details of Access Report) access are reserved for future determination and within the parameters set out in the Parameter Plans and Parameter Statements.
(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 - ... view the full decision text for item 6
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Owen Whalley, Head of Planning and Building Control, introduced the planning application regarding redevelopment of the Robin Hood Gardens Estate (PA/12/00001) and application for conservation area consent (PA/12/00002) for the demolition of building adjacent to and on east side of Steamship public house, Naval Row.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Mr Tom Ridge, speaking in objection to the proposal, referred to the intention to expand Woolmore School from 1 Form Entry. Whilst he had no objections to this in principle, the drawings showed that a large four storey extension would be provided on the existing site. The circulated report made reference to Officers’ views that the overall benefits of the scheme outweighed the loss of the building, implying demolition. However, Woolmore School was one of only 30+ schools built by the former LCC around 1916, when designs of such non-Georgian elementary schools were at their best. Officers had also referred to a detailed heritage appraisal, however, he had made two objections by letter, which were not mentioned and the Officers’ remarks comprised only unjustified assertions. He had visited all such schools and could assure the Committee that all were different, as evidenced by the differences between the Woolmore, Osmani and Bow Boys’ Schools in the Borough. Later examples were less well designed. The report stated that the school had been heavily altered, but he disagreed with that opinion. The north east part of the building had suffered war damage but it was the most original of the schools in the Borough. It was, therefore, premature to consider demolition of the school and this should be avoided.
In response to Members’ questions, Mr Ridge stated that the application seemed to have rubbished the school and Officers considered demolition was acceptable to achieve benefits. He was concerned that the tabled update report still referred to demolition of the existing building. He had sent letters in this regard to Lead Members, Officers, the School Headteacher and Chair of the Governors and Sister Christine Frost had indicated that she was prepared to take up the matter with the Governors. Although no formal response had been received from the school, the only structural criticism related to a long internal central corridor that lacked natural light. However, the classrooms were spacious and in perfect condition. Mr Ridge agreed that the school needed extending on an enlarged site for the 3 Form Entry but adaptations could be made very easily without demolition.
Mr Darren Pauling, speaking in objection to the proposal, stated that he was a resident of Robin Hood gardens and Chair of the Millennium Green Trust. He felt that the entire consultation process had been a betrayal of what residents wanted. It was wrong to say that 80% of residents favoured demolition of Robin Hood gardens and he had raised a petition showing that 92% preferred refurbishment. The current site had a strong sense of community and provided a peaceful ... view the full minutes text for item 6