Proposal:

Demolition of existing office building and erection of a 13 storey building (plus enclosed roof top level plant storey) rising to 56.32m (AOD) containing 103 unit aparthotel (C1 Use) with B1 Use Class office workspace at ground and mezzanine level with an ancillary café (A3 Use Class) and hotel reception space at ground floor, together with ancillary facilities, waste storage and associated cycle parking store.

Recommendation:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives

Update report tabled.

On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 4 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.

Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the Committee report dated 4th October 2017 as amended in the Committee update report (in respect of the third reason for refusal). On a vote of 4 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:

That planning permission be REFUSED at Enterprise House, 21 Buckle Street, London E1 8NN for the demolition of existing office building and erection of a 13 storey building (plus enclosed roof top level plant storey) rising to 56.32m (AOD) containing 103 unit aparthotel (C1 Use) with B1 Use Class office workspace at ground and mezzanine level with an ancillary café (A3 Use Class) and hotel reception space at ground floor, together with ancillary facilities, waste storage and associated cycle parking store(PA/16/03352) for the following reasons as set out in the 4^th October 2017 Committee report as amended in the Committee update report as detailed below:

Harm to residential amenity

The proposed development would cause significant harm to the amenities and living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring residential properties through both major and moderate losses of daylight and sunlight, excessive loss of outlook resulting from the overbearing nature of the development including an undue sense of enclosure. As such the development would be contrary to NPPF, as set out paragraphs 14, 17 and 56 of the NPPF and the Local Plan including Policy SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010) and DM25 of the Managing Development Document (2013) which seek to protect the amenity of residents including ensuring that development does not result in unacceptable material deterioration of daylight and sunlight conditions for future andexisting residents

Overdevelopment

The proposed development exhibits clear and demonstrable signs of

overdevelopment by virtue of:

a) its adverse amenity impacts to residential neighbours;

b) from its detrimental townscape impacts resulting from the proposed height,

scale and mass of the development set on a small, tightly confined site edged

by two narrow streets and set within an established lower scale urban street

block;

c) resultant harm to the significance of the setting of the Grade II* listed St

George’s German Church and to the Grade II listed Dispensary Building, the

former St George’s German and English Schools, the former St George’s

German and English Infants’ School, that are not outweighed by the public

benefits of the scheme, by reason of the height, scale, mass of the development set in immediate proximity to these designated heritage assets

and the proposed schemes impacts upon local townscape views of this cluster of listed buildings

d)unacceptable relationships to other developments that limits the opportunity to achieve a tall building on site or increase significantly the height of the existing building envelope on site such that it is compatible with the  ...  view the full decision text for item 4

Update report tabled.

Jerry Bell (Area Planning Manager (East))  introduced the report for the demolition of existing office building and erection of a 13 storey building (plus enclosed roof top level plant storey) containing aparthotel with office workspace an ancillary café and hotel reception space at ground floor, together with associated works.

Gareth Gwynne, (Planning Services) presented the application. He advised that the application was considered by the Strategic Development Committee on 17th August 2017. The Committee voted against the officer’s recommendation for approval and were minded to refuse the application on grounds of:

·                    Sunlight and daylight impacts from the development.

·                    Scale bulk and height of the development.

·                    Adverse heritage impacts.

·                    Overprovision of short stay accommodation and associated opportunity cost.

It was also noted that since that meeting, Officers had drafted proposed reasons for refusal that reflected the Committee concerns as set out in the 4^th October committee report and the update report.

In terms of the amenity impacts, Officers acknowledged that there was tangible evidence that the application would result in significant adverse sunlight and daylight failing to properties. Furthermore, it was open to the Committee to place less weight on the public benefits of the application compared to Officer’s deliberations in the Officer report, and therefore consider that the harm to residential amenity was not outweighed.

Regarding the overdevelopment of the site and heritage impacts, Officers remained of the view that the reductions in the height of the building and the other design features were sufficient to overcome the reasons for refusal of the previous application. Notwithstanding this, Officers recognised that the height and overall scale of the proposal on this confined site presented challenges in respect of residential amenity, townscape impacts and the setting of listed buildings. Accordingly, a reason on this basis could be defended at appeal.

Regarding the visitor accommodation, it could be considered that the need for additional short stay accommodation had not been adequately demonstrated given the levels of supply in the pipeline and that forecast. Members were also reminded that the benefit of the proposed additional rooms to the local economy was likely to be relatively small due to the nature of the application and would result in a net loss of office space and jobs. Therefore, it was considered that a reason for refusal based on the above issue, subject to the amendment in the update report, could be defended at appeal.

It was also reported that if refused, the applicant had stated that they would appeal the decision and this would be considered at a public enquiry.

The officer recommendation remained to grant the planning permission. However if Members were minded to refuse planning permission, they were invited to consider  the four reasons of refusal set out in the Committee report subject to the revision in the update report regarding the third reason for refusal.

On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 4 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4

Proposal:

Demolition of existing office building and erection of a 13 storey building (plus enclosed roof top level plant storey) rising to 56.32m (AOD) containing 103 unit aparthotel (C1 Use) with B1 Use Class office workspace at ground and mezzanine level with an ancillary café (A3 Use Class) and hotel reception space at ground floor, together with ancillary facilities, waste storage and associated cycle parking store.

Recommendation:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives

Update report tabled.

On a unanimous vote the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.

Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:

That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at Enterprise House, 21 Buckle Street, London E1 8NN for the

demolition of existing office building and erection of a 13 storey building (plus enclosed roof top level plant storey) rising to 56.32m (AOD) containing 103 unit aparthotel (C1 Use) with B1 Use Class office workspace at ground and mezzanine level with an ancillary café (A3 Use Class) and hotel reception space at ground floor, together with ancillary facilities, waste storage and associated cycle parking store. (PA/16/03552)

The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:

·         Sunlight and daylight impacts from the development

·         Scale bulk and height of the development

·         Adverse heritage impacts

·         Overprovision of short stay accommodation and associated opportunity cost.

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

Update report tabled.

Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of existing office building and erection of a 13 storey building (plus enclosed roof top level plant storey) apart hotel lead scheme.

The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.

Peter Park and Sumaiya Begum (local residents) spoke in objection to the application.  They considered that the proposals would harm the amenity of local residents, especially the properties at Goldpence Apartments due to the separation distances through the loss of sunlighting and daylighting, privacy, overlooking and disturbance during the construction phase. The light levels to these properties were already compromised. The development would also create a sense of enclosure and increase pressure on the local highway due to the servicing arrangements, and therefore put at risk pedestrian safety especially child safety.  They also questioned the need for additional hotel units in the area given the number already located in the vicinity  and spoke about the lack of public amenities in the area. In response to questions, they expressed concern about the developer’s consultation, the land use, the lack of green space in the immediate area, the height and massing and the road access issues.

Charles Cresser (Applicant’s representative) spoke in support of the application. He recognised the site constraints and reported that the applicant had worked hard to address the reasons for refusing the previous application in 2015. The height had been reduced to minimise the proposal’s impact. Amendments had also been made to introduce further measures to reduce overlooking. The developer had carried out a lot of consultation with residents including representatives of the Grade II St George’s German Church who had influenced the design and were now supportive of the application. Whilst he was mindful of the close separation distances to properties, he considered that the light analysis showed that the breaches would be minimal.  He also highlighted the benefits of the proposal in terms of the provision of serviced hotel apartments, flexible office work space to be offered at a discount to local business and the potential for community events within the development. In response to questions, he discussed the changes made to the plans at the pre-application stage, the developers consultation and the measures to minimise overlooking. The developer was willing to introduce further mitigation measures if the Committee felt this necessary. He also stressed the need for further hotel/serviced units in the area catering for longer term guests to meet the needs of businesses. He explained that the development would cater for a different type of guest to a tradition hotel and judging by the marketing evidence, there was clearly a need for these types of units. He also discussed the similarities between this proposal and the previous proposal in terms of their proximity to neighbouring properties.

Gareth Gwynne (Planning Services) presented the detailed report explaining the site location, the surrounds, the site designation in policy, the relationship between the site and the existing developments such as Altitude  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5