Agenda item
Stour Wharf, Stour Road, E3 (Report number DC032/056)
Minutes:
Mr Stephen Irvine (Strategic Applications Manager) introduced the report which contained a “minded to refuse” recommendation as the applicant had already appealed the case to the Planning Inspectorate. The application had originally been considered and deferred in October 2004. Subsequent to this greater safeguarding of employment use in this area had been introduced as part of the East London Sub-regional Framework of the draft London Plan. The London Development Agency had also pointed out that part of the site had been earmarked for a bridge to provide emergency access to the Olympic precinct.
It was unanimously AGREED that the Director of Development and Renewal be instructed to inform the Planning Inspectorate that had the Council been empowered to make a decision on the application, it would have REFUSED planning permission for the following reasons: |
|
1) The proposed development represents a loss of employment generating uses in the industrial employment location. As such the proposal is contrary to: (a) Policy EMP1, EMP2, and EMP13 of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets UDP (1998), which seeks to ensure that an adequate supply of land is safeguarded to enhance employment opportunities within the Borough; (b) Policy EMP7 of the First Draft Deposit UDP, which seeks to ensure that composites of business and residential space in the same self-contained unit are resisted; (c) Policy EE2 of the Draft LDF: Preferred Options: Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan, which seeks to ensure that any development that includes a change of use from B1 and B2 is strongly resisted and any development that is proposed in the vicinity of a Strategic Employment Location that may give rise to pressure to curtail the industrial use is resisted; (d) Policy 2A.7 of the London Plan, which requires Boroughs to identify Strategic Employment Locations in UDP’s; and the Draft Sub Regional Development Framework – East London, which seeks to protect East London’s strategic reservoir of land for industrial type activities.
2) The proposed non-industrial use would detrimentally affect the continued ability to use this area for industrial uses. The non-industrial may give rise to pressure to curtail the industrial use. As such, the proposal is contrary to: (a) Policy EMP5 and EMP13 of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets UDP (1998), which seeks to ensure that incompatible development in the vicinity of existing industrial use is not normally permitted; (b) Policy EMP7 of the First Draft Deposit UDP which states that composites of business and residential space in same self contained unit will be resisted; (c) Policy EE2 and EE5 of the Draft Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan (CSDCD) which seeks to safeguard the retention, expansion and growth of employment provided by general industrial uses, resist the change of use from B1 and B2 uses, and resist development that may give rise to pressure to curtail the industrial uses.
3) The premises would provide sub-standard accommodation due to: (a) evidence that suggests that live/work units are being used purely as residential units; (b) the lack of appropriate transport and social (education, health, shopping and open space facilities) infrastructure in the locality expected in an environment where people live; and (c) the amenity problems associated with adjoining industrial uses, such as noise, vibration, dust, odour, fumes, heavy vehicle traffic, safety and security, and hours of operation. As such, the non-industrial use is incompatible with the industrial employment location and is therefore contrary to: (a) the policies referred to in 2) above; (b) Policy DEV2 of the UDP (1998), which seeks to ensure that amenity of occupies is protected; and (c) Policy ENV1 of the First Draft Deposit UDP, which seeks to ensure that the development that causes demonstrable harm to the amenity of occupiers or neighbours is not permitted. 4) The proposal is contrary to Olympic Precinct OLY1 under the proposals for the new Olympic stadium. Stour Road will be extended across the canal via bridge “R11” to provide access for emergency services to the Olympic precinct during the construction phase. The bridge will also provide vehicle, pedestrian and cycle access across the Hackney Cut to serve the post Olympic legacy development. Therefore the proposed bridge fundamentally conflicts with the development as proposed. As such the proposed development is considered to be premature and in direct conflict with the planning permission issued for OLY1.
|
Supporting documents: