Agenda item
64 Tredegar Road, E3 2EP (PA/10/2340)
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
Councillor Marc Francis moved an amendment to the heads of terms for the s106 agreement, seconded by Councillor Ann Jackson that the financial contribution for Community facilities be allocated to the Local Area Partnership area 5. On a vote of 5 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention this was AGREED,
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/10/2340) be GRANTED at 64 Tredegar Road, E3 2EP subject to:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement, to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, to secure the matters set out in the report including the amendment agreed by the Committee that the financial contribution for Community facilities of £86,400 be allocated to the Local Area Partnership area 5.
3. That the Corporate Director of Development and Renewal is delegated powers to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
4. That the Corporate Director of Development and Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report
5. That, if by 30 March 2012 the legal agreement has not been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, the Head of Planning and Building Control is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Jerry Bell, (Strategic Applications Team Leader) introduced the application regarding 64 Tredegar Road, E3 2EP (PA/10/2340)
Shay Bugler (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report assisted by a power point presentation. He explained the site and surrounds and details of the scheme. He explained the housing plans including the split between the affordable and private units that complied with policy. It was considered that the loss of the employment floor space was acceptable given the general decline of light industrial floor space in London and its unsuitability for such uses as detailed in the report. The site had good transport links. Mr Bugler also explained the sunlight/day light assessment, the density, height and scale of the scheme, the parking plans and the S.106 agreement. Overall the scheme made the best use of the site with no major impacts. It complied with policy and was recommended for approval.
In response, Members raised a number of comments and questions around the following issues:
- The target to secure 20% local employment in the non financial contributions. Assurances were sought that this could be enforced and monitored. Members also discussed the plans to advertise such positions for a limited period. The Committee requested a policy note on this requirement (regarding time limits on advertising local employment).
- Clarification of the parking arrangements.
- The measures to mitigate the loss of the employment site.
- The impact of traffic from the AI2 to Tredegar Road.
- The impact of low water pressure in the area. Members requested that the concerns around this issue be noted.
- The possible loss of garages in Balmer Road.
- The impact on the gardens of Stavers House in terms of overshadowing. Particular the gardens closest to the development.
- The affordability of the units given the lack of Social Rent housing.
- Nature of the intermediate housing.
Officers addressed the Committee points. The applicant would be required to enter into a car free agreement restricting residents of the scheme from applying for on street parking. The Applicant had submitted detailed commercial evidence regarding the employment floor space and its unsuitability for such uses. Officers had carefully looked at all the factors including the access limitations for vehicles and the lack of need for light industrial floor space in the area. Given this, it was considered that the site would be more suitable for residential use given the residential nature of the area and the affordable housing offer. Contributions had been secured for employment and enterprise to mitigate any loss of employment. There was also a requirement to submit a Construction Management Plan prior to construction to ensure highways safety.
There should be no loss of water pressure as a result of the development. The relevant water authority would work to and have responsibility for overseeing this. Furthermore, no garages would be lost.
In terms of overshadowing, the assessment explored all possible scenarios. Whilst there may be some overshadowing in the morning to the gardens of Stavers House, the scheme would not have any impact on the gardens from midday onwards.
Ms Jen Pepper (Affordable Housing Manager) also outlined the criteria for the intermediate housing and the allocation process.
Consideration had been given to whether the scheme could accommodate Social Rent units. On assessment it was found that the number of such units that could be provided without grant support was very low. So it was decided to select the mix proposed - Affordable Rent with Intermediate units so that a far greater range of affordable units could be provided.
Councillor Marc Francis moved an amendment to the heads of terms for the s106 agreement, seconded by Councillor Ann Jackson that the financial contribution for Community facilities be allocated to the Local Area Partnership area 5. On a vote of 5 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention this was AGREED,
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/10/2340) be GRANTED at 64 Tredegar Road, E3 2EP subject to:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement, to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, to secure the matters set out in the report including the amendment agreed by the Committee that the financial contribution for Community facilities of £86,400 be allocated to the Local Area Partnership area 5.
3. That the Corporate Director of Development and Renewal is delegated powers to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
4. That the Corporate Director of Development and Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report
5. That, if by 30 March 2012 the legal agreement has not been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, the Head of Planning and Building Control is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Supporting documents: