Agenda item
Locksley Estate Site D 1-12 Parnham Street E14 7TX (PA/18/03347)
Minutes:
An update report was tabled.
The Development Manager introduced the report which concerned an application to construct a residential development consisting of 17 flats at the Locksley Estate on vacant land adjacent to 1-12 Parnham Street. The site was presently unused and the application was intended to enable to deliver its aims around provision of affordable housing.
The Planning Case Officer then presented the report informing the Committee of the relevant planning considerations relating to the application. These were; design (height and scale), amenity, provision of affordable housing and environment. The Council, the applicant, had previously submitted applications for this site which had been withdrawn following Members’ decision not to support the proposals. The present application differed from those previous in that it included measures to support biodiversity such as a green wall, additional planting and bat/bird boxes. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer had been consulted and had deemed the measures to be acceptable. The loss of open space would be mitigated by the proposals for landscaping and provision of communal spaces set out in the report.
Responding to Members’ questions the following additional information was provided:
- The proposal would deliver 9 flats at London affordable rents and 8 flats at Tower Hamlets living rents.
- Parking was situated at a distance of 75m from site, however this would be designated parking assigned to the 2 wheelchair accessible flats. The distance exceeds the guidance of 50 metres but is related to the physical constraints of the site.
- The scheme would include mechanisms to ensure that surface water run-off would not contaminate the Regents Canal water body.
- The Planning Authority considers the site to be open space as defined in the local plan but not as publically accessible since it had been fenced for many years.
- There would be some daylight/sunlight loss at 1-12 Parnahm Street, tests had been conducted on 48 windows and results indicated that 8 windows would experience some loss.
- Measures to address biodiversity loss had been included as part of the application which would ensure a net benefit post-development. These were out lined at paragraphs 8.5 – 8.17.
- A tree had been removed in December 2018, and 3 further trees were proposed for removal. These would be replaced with 6 trees Councillor Wood contested this information informing the Committee that the photograph presented in the report and presentation displayed many more trees than those reported by officers. Officers clarified that the trees referenced were removed earlier in order to permit the site survey. Additionally the trees were not protected.
The Committee then heard statements from 2 objectors which highlighted the following concerns:
- Removal of trees at the site had begun prior to the application consequently the biodiversity appraisal of the site was inaccurate.
- The site was being prepared before any consultation had been undertaken.
- There had been poor consultation around the proposed design.
- Upon consultation there had been inappropriate publication of consultees’ personal data.
- Parking was not within the distance specified in Council’s policies.
- The housing would benefit few residents but its impacts would disadvantage many in the Estate.
- The application opposed the Council’s aims to make the borough cleaner and greener.
- The proposal does not fit with or preserve the current environment of the site.
- The proposed development will overshadow the adjoining school playground.
- The works to be undertaken will add to pollution levels locally. The trees identified for removal would otherwise have been able offset some of these effects.
- The removal of open space will adversely affect the mental wellbeing
The Committee then heard from Councillor Wood who spoke in objection to the application. He argued that the application should not be accepted on the basis of the following concerns:
- Under the Local Plan, the application site had been identified as located within a zone of substandard air quality. The removal of open space would cause this to worsen.
- The site was next to the Regents Canal and is designated a Green Grid Buffer Zone. As such development is only permitted in exceptional circumstances; he asked the committee to consider whether the circumstances of the application fulfilled the criteria.
- During the decade from 2000, the site was designated as part of the Green Grid Initiative. Late, the site had become neglected by the council.
- Should the development go ahead, it would set a precedent to develop other open spaces in the borough.
- The proposal could be delivered on already identified suitable sites elsewhere in the borough without negative impact on open space.
- The work on open spaces undertaken by Overview and Scrutiny contradicted the premise of the application.
The Committee then asked questions of the objectors and the following additional information was provided:
- Development of the site and would exacerbate the negative environmental effects already experienced in the area.
- The applicant was Tower Hamlets Council.
- Concerning how the site had become enclosed, the Committee was informed that, in 2000, the site had been fenced off because it was attracting drug activity. The concept of ‘Green Grid’ followed and the site was to be kept maintained however this maintenance failed to take place.
- Local concerns around antisocial behaviour around the site could be mitigated by the, by a public protection order..
- The local community had submitted plans for the creation of a wildlife area on the site and for access to be restored.
- Residents had been unaware of the proposal that had contacted the council upon unexpected receipt of a newsletter. An objector expressed concerned that residents had not been able to view the plans at the Town Hall and many enquiries which had been submitted to officers remained unanswered. Additionally objectors’ own investigations around the application had not delivered any I formation as officers had failed to respond to direct or indirect enquiries. Responding to this complaint, Planning Officers clarified that 2 planning consultations had been undertaken, firstly in November 2018 on receipt of the application and following the revised statement of community involvement. 21 objections had been received out of these consultations.
- Objectors were dissatisfied that their submission of additional information had not been provided to Members in full but that only a summary had been circulated to members for the meeting.
The Committee then heard from an officer of the Capital Delivery team representing the applicant. He responded to the following concerns raised by residents:
- In 2015 the site had been identified for potential development since then work had been done on the site for health and safety reasons.
- Some trees had been cleared at the site in 2016 as part of site investigations.
- The site did not have a specific biodiversity designation and the land was council owned being held in the Housing Revenue Account.
- Concerning accessibility of information to residents, he advised that there had been no translation requests.
- Concerning nuisance and pollution during construction, the Committee was informed the constructor would submit a management plan which detailed how the build would be managed.
- The proposed play area would be accessible to new and existing tenants.
- Consultation was carried out by letter and by door-to-door visits during the consultation period.
The Committee then heard from a local resident who supported the application. He informed Members:
- That he had lived in a block adjoining the site since 1997. During this time it had never been accessible to the public.
- The area had been overgrown and had a poor reputation for antisocial behaviour causing it to be forbidding to walk through.
- In his view, the biodiversity value was low and the site did not connect well to its surroundings.
The Committee then heard of from Ward Councillor Miah who informed Members that:
- Door-to-door visits on the estate had revealed that the majority of residents did not feel negatively toward the proposal. Rather they felt satisfied that the benefits that would be delivered through the development would mitigate the loss of the open space.
- In his view, the application fulfilled the public interest criteria in that the benefits to be delivered outweighed the negative impacts.
The Committee then heard from Councillor Blake who spoke as Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Policy. She spoke in support of the application informing Members that the application fulfilled the following elements of the council's vision for the borough:
- Local plan - the scheme would provide much-needed, housing of a high quality and would reinstate accessible and open space.
- Affordable housing - the scheme would provide flats which would be delivered at London affordable rents and Tower Hamlets rents; both of these delivered rental properties at below the national policy (which allows up to 80% of market rent) on affordable housing.
- Quality of housing - the housing provided would lift families out of poor conditions and enhance health.
- Open space - the proposal would enhance the open space in the area. Additionally the area was not deficient open space as it was next to Regents Canal.
Members then questioned the supporters and were provided with me following additional information:
- All those registered on the council's housing list would be eligible to apply for the new housing.
- All of the rents that would be offered would be at less than one third of the local income which averaged at £31,000.
- Door-to-door consultation of 282 homes undertaken in January 2019 had revealed that many residents had supposed the proposal to be a private development; this was a misunderstanding.
- An additional open session had been held for the community.
- The site had been chosen after an assessment of a number of sites on the Locksley Estate because it was found to be the most suitable in terms of accessibility.
- The site was chosen in 2015 since which time there has been loss of trees. The Committee was further informed that 18 trees were removed in 2016; of these 9 were self-seeded trees and 3 trees had been removed due to disease.
- Trees removed in 2015 were to enable soil investigations. However replacement planting had been chosen on the basis that it will provide greater biodiversity and a habitat for wildlife for a greater proportion of the year.
Members considered the information and arguments placed before them. They noted that the application highlighted the competing priorities of housing provision in the borough and preservation of open space and queried to which of these priorities most value was added. The Development Manager informed the Committee that the Local Plan did not prescribe a hierarchy of policies. The site did not have a biodivesrsity designation, was not witin a conservation area and was not subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO). Whilst there would be loss of open space (not accessible to the public) officers considered the balance lay in favour of development for affordable housing.
Following discussion Members proceeded to consider the merits and issues of the application. In discussion they highlighted the following matters:
- The local plan dealt with the loss of open space - policy DM 10 and the report assessed out the exceptional circumstances in favour of the development.
- Members were disappointed around the lack of clear consultation that had been highlighted by the objectors and asked officers to ensure that, in cases where the council was the applicant, consultation mechanisms be assessed to ensure that adequate consultation takes place.
- Members felt that the application could have could have taken further measures around mitigation of negative biodiversity impacts arising from the proposal.
- The new Local Plan did not address height issues. Some of the issues that had arisen in previous applications such as height had not been addressed in the current application.
- The site had no significant characteristics.
- A member said that the proposed development had not addressed previous concerns about the height of the building.
Following discussion Members proceeded to consider the officer recommendation.
The Chair proposed and, on an unanimous vote in favour, the Committee
RESOLVED
That planning permission be GRANTED for residential development comprising 17, one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranges from five to eight storeys at Locksley Estate, Site D, 1-12 Parnham Street, E14 7TX subject to the conditions and the informatives set out in the Committee report.
Following the determination of the application the Committee adjourned at 8:07pm and reconvened at 8:15pm.
Supporting documents: