Agenda item
Poplar Business Park, 10 Prestons Road, London E14 9RL (PA/11/3375)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 12th April, 2012 7.00 p.m. (Item 8.1)
- View the background to item 8.1
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 the housing, particularly the proposed separation of the private and affordable units. It was feared that this could lead to segregation and hamper community cohesion.
- The need for the red brick materials.
- The impact on local services given the number of new developments in the area.
- The adequacy of the health and education contributions to mitigate these pressures.
- In particular, concern was expressed at the capacity of local schools to accommodate the scheme as well as the collective pressures from the other major new consents in the area eg the Blackwall Reach development. Currently there was already understood to be a shortage of school places in the general area resulting in children being ‘bussed out’ to schools elsewhere. There was also a lack of health care facilities and a general lack of infrastructure to accommodate the scheme alongside the other major developments in the area.
- The sustainability of the scheme given the last two points and that it accorded with the NPPF.
- It was also considered that the contributions should be awarded to the local area to mitigate impact, rather than pooled centrally as in the case of education.
In response Officers addressed each point raised by Members:
- The roof top play spaces remained part of the application. Overall the scheme provided an overprovision of communal amenity space in relation to policy requirements. One option was to relocate the play spaces to the ground floor. This could be achieved by switching the play spaces with some of the ground floor community amenity space to avoid any net loss in communal amenity space and this could be secured by a condition.
- Explained the process for allocating the education contributions. Educations services pooled the s.106 contributions and sought to allocate the funding based on need in the Borough. It was considered that scheme provided the maximum level of contributions that could be provided based on the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD and viability. The Council was also an education provider and would be extending the capacity of schools generally so there should be sufficient capacity to accommodate the development.
- The scheme was subject to an independent viability assessment. The assessment found that the scheme provided the maximum percentage of affordable housing (25%) and contributions that could be supported based on the evidence available at the time. Officers were guided by this assessment and planning policy and could only consider the evidence presented to them. They expressed confidence that the independent assessment of the viability report was sound and it was based on the ability of the scheme/site to deliver the s.106 contributions not the applicant.
- The assessment looked at a variety of factors including reasonable profit margins and was carried out by a very experienced well established independent consultant.
- The applicant had since independently volunteered 28% affordable housing and to absorb CIL without impacting the s106 contributions possibly by reducing their profit margin.
- The materials would be conditioned to ensure they were suitable. The proposals included a variety of bricks colours. Brick buildings tended to be more sustainable. It was required that samples be submitted for approval.
- The proposal would create 425 jobs.
- Of the affordable housing element 30% would be intermediate housing and 70% provided under the affordable rent product. There were no social rent units.
- The rents levels were tested by POD Partnerships, the Council’s housing consultancy agents. The research concluded that they were affordable to people in the Borough based on market research. The information from the RSLs and relevant experts indicated it would be very difficult to pepperpot the affordable and private rent units due to increased service charges that could make such charges for the affordable units too expensive. Furthermore, it was intended that there would be no difference in design and quality between the types of tenures. All occupants would also have to access the same community spaces therefore helping social cohesion.
- It was planned that the majority of commercial units would be occupied by small and medium sized businesses.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
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 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 2012. and as a result is not considered to provide a sustainable form of development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
Supporting documents:
- Poplar Business Park update Report, item 8.1 PDF 84 KB
- Location Map for Poplar Business Park, item 8.1 PDF 2 MB
- Poplar Business Park FINAL, item 8.1 PDF 731 KB
- UPDATE REPORT FIN JJ, item 8.1 PDF 105 KB