Agenda item
Site at 18 to 36 Thomas Road, London, E14 7BJ (PA/11/01944)
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at 18-36 Thomas Road (PA11/01944) for redevelopment of the site for residential development, comprising a 6 to 8 storey building (measuring 31m AOD), to provide 64 residential units (Class 3), and the provision of public and private open space, undercroft parking and public realm improvements, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London; the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations and to the planning conditions and informatives as set out in the circulated report and amended by the update report Tabled at the meeting.
(2) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
(3) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose planning conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the circulated report.
(4) That, if within three months of the date of this Committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
Following the Chair’s comments as made in connection with the previous agenda item, Mr Owen Whalley, Head of Planning and Building Control, introduced the application (PA/11/1944) regarding the redevelopment of the site at 18-36 Thomas Road, London, E14 7BJ, for residential purposes, as contained in the circulated report, tabled update and slideshow.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Ms Ginette Casey, speaking in objection to the proposal, stated that she was a resident leaseholder speaking on behalf of 228 objectors who had signed a petition. She felt that the developers had been given exceptions and approvals regarding their requirements without considering the devastating effects on local employers and jobs. She felt that the 50% affordable housing to be delivered by the proposal did not allow for evicting current tenants and the site should be preserved for local prospective tenants. Proposals for the height of the flats were opposed and there was insufficient social housing. Transport problems would arise and people’s human and civil rights were being tampered with. The results would be alienation and lack of opportunities. She expressed the view that the Committee should visit the site to see the matters raised by the objectors and decline the application.
Mr Anu Miah, a local resident in Thomas Road for 23 years, commented that the developers were taking advantage of young people. The present school premises could cater for only 300 from more than 800 properties. There were houses built over every corner of the estate and young people had to move away. There were insufficient local school facilities and account should be taken of all needs for education.
Mr David Barnet, of London Newcastle Agents for the developer, stated that development of the two sites was linked to ensure the Borough would receive more affordable housing and S106 contributions. The rented properties on Thomas Road would be provided with gardens, with local families in mind. All such properties would be allocated to local people on the housing waiting list. Employment opportunities would be made available and the Council would be able to decide how the appropriate monies would be allocated. All homes would meet current standards and sustainability provisions.
Mr Jim Pool, speaking in support of the proposal, commented that there would be no problem in finding alternative accommodation for existing tenants and there were no problems with daylight/sunlight standards. The houses would fall to people on the waiting list, so their needs would be catered for.
Following questions from Members to the speakers, Mr Jerry Bell, Applications Manager, made a detailed presentation of the circulated report and tabled update, with a slideshow. He indicated that the provision of housing at Thomas Road depended upon the approval of the Dollar Bay scheme (agenda item 6.2). Scenarios of mixing social housing with other tenures had been examined but due to service charges and management problems experienced by RSL’s, the current proposals offered the best solution for social housing.
Members then put questions relating to:
- Provision of private gardens or other open space.
- The size and scale of the proposal.
- The application of the car free policy.
- The low child yield envisaged at Dollar Bay.
- Contributions for public transport.
Officers responses included information that:
· All homes on Thomas Road would have private balconies and communal amenity space at ground level. At Dollar Bay, all units would have balconies with ground floor community space, including access-controlled child playspace.
· The previously proposed Dollar Bay tower had been considered too high at 42 storeys and had been significantly reduced to 31 storeys in size. However, it was now considered to work well on the dock and in the context of Canary Wharf. It was felt that the slender and sleek building would enhance the skyline.
· 10 car parking spaces would be made available at Thomas Road but anyone moving into the large family units would be able to take existing parking permits with them through the Councils Permit Transfer Scheme..
· Low child yields were expected to be generated from the private Dollar bay accommodation.
· Public transport contributions would be in the region of £544,000 total for both schemes.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at 18-36 Thomas Road (PA11/01944) for redevelopment of the site for residential development, comprising a 6 to 8 storey building (measuring 31m AOD), to provide 64 residential units (Class 3), and the provision of public and private open space, undercroft parking and public realm improvements, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London; the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations and to the planning conditions and informatives as set out in the circulated report and amended by the update report Tabled at the meeting.
(2) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
(3) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose planning conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the circulated report.
(4) That, if within three months of the date of this Committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to refuse planning permission.
The Chair then indicated there would be a brief adjournment of the meeting at 10.10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10.15 p.m.
Supporting documents: