Agenda item
Land at Commercial Road, Basin Approach, London (PA/12/00925)
Decision:
Update Report Tabled
Councillor Craig Aston declared that he had received correspondence on this item and considered it appropriate that he would step down from the Committee for this item and that Councillor Peter Golds would deputise for him on the item.
As a result Councillor Peter Golds deputised for Councillor Aston on this item (7.2).
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission (PA/12/00925) at Land at Commercial Road, Basin Approach, London be DEFERRED.
Members agreed to defer the application so that the following issues could be addressed:
- The sunlight and daylight impact.
- The impact on the Hydraulic Accumulator Tower in terms of public use and loss of views.
- The potential to reduce the height of the six storey element to minimise the impact.
Accordingly, in accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to work with the Applicant to see if the above aspects of the scheme can be addressed and clarified and for the application to be reported back to a future meeting.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillor Helal Abbas, Shiria Khatun, Kosru Uddin, Peter Golds and Anwar Khan)
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled
Councillor Craig Aston declared that he had received correspondence on this item and considered it appropriate that he step down from the Committee for this item and that Councillor Peter Golds would deputise for him.
As a result, Councillor Peter Golds deputised for Councillor Aston on this item (7.2).
Jerry Bell (Applications Manager) introduced the proposal regarding Land at Commercial Road, Basin Approach, London.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Malcolm Tucker speaking in objection stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society (GLIAS). He objected to the impact on views from the Hydraulic Accumulator Tower by the proposed 6 storey tower. The tower was refurbished in the mid 1990s and provided a public viewing station for enjoyment of views. They were a unique aspect of the area. It was open to the public for 2 days a year. The proposed 6 storey tower would damage views from the tower to the north west replacing them with views of the flats.
He objected to the cumulative impact on views from previous Bellway Homes schemes. This scheme was the last straw.
The impact on the views to the tower was a material consideration but the report and application failed to give sufficient weight to theses issues. He requested that the height of the proposed tower be lowered by 2 stories.
In response to Members questions regarding his involvement in the consultation, Mr Tucker reported that he had written a letter to the Council’s Planning Officers that was noted in the report. However he had no other contact with the Council as he lived outside the Borough. In relation the engagement with the applicant, he stated that early on in the process he attended a meeting with the applicant where they showed him some plans. They were only outline plans of the scheme with no detail. During the meeting he voiced his concerns about the views to the north west of the accumulator tower. He also raised issues about the ground floor of the scheme that the applicant said would be dealt with in the plans.
Tom Ridge spoke in objection on behalf of residents and the East End Waterway Group. He referred to the groups letter of objection. The report made no mention of these facts. He emphasized the concerns over the proposed 6 storey tower in terms of its impact on views to the accumulator tower. He highlighted the steps taken by the London Docklands Development Corporation to refurbish the tower. A considerable amount of public money had been spent on the tower. He read extracts from the Tower Hamlets Watch Magazine highlighting the unique views from the tower and its value. He questioned how public access to the tower would be maintained. Experience showed that gated communities prevented public access. He therefore requested that the arches in front of the tower be maintained to allow public access.
In reply to questions about use of the tower, he concurred with a Members point that it was in reality used for public viewing more than twice year. In terms of the consultation by the applicant, there was none. However he did speak to the Planning Officers.
He was in the process of finishing a guide on the East End Waters Ways. The tower was a unique part and feature of this guide and should be used more on a regular basis. This could only be done if public access via the arches was maintained. His letter from the East End Waterways group included his request for the proposed tower to be lowered by 2 storeys and was sent to the Councils planning department without reply. It was also sent to some Councillors.
Kieran Wheeler spoke in support on behalf of the applicant. He outlined the proposal based on extensive consultation with the Council and the community. The existing site was a derelict eye sore and this scheme would greatly improve the site for the benefit of all. The applicant was committed to maintaining public access to the tower. This would be secured by the S.106 agreement. The applicant had given a great deal of consideration to the impact on the views. It was felt that by setting back the scheme and providing the court yard the scheme would provide a good setting for the tower. Overall they did not believe that any loss to the tower outweighed the many benefits of the scheme.
The issues around the railway arches fell outside the scope of the application because they were outside the development site and in different ownerhsip. However the applicant was committed to working with British Waterways to provide public access via the arches to the tower.
In response to Member questions about the perceived lack of consultation by the applicant, Mr Wheeler stated that the applicant had been in contact with Mr Tuckers group (GLIAS) and were aware of their concerns. The design of the landscape had been amended to move it away from the tower. They had received their letter and had tried to contact Mr Tucker. He also confirmed receipt of Mr Ridges group’s letter and had responded to it. Alongside this, the applicant had carried out widespread consultation and had offered amongst other things continued access to the tower and to engage in discussions with British Waterways to facilitate this. In relation to maintaining access to the tower, the committee were advised that this could be managed by the same management company appointed to manage the estate and as such there would not be any additional costs or financial impact on the s106. Details of the access would be worked up in the s106.
In response to questions about reducing the height by 2 stories and the impact on viability, Mr Wheeler could not comment on this as it would require further analysis and a tool kit assessment. Members were asked to deal with this scheme on its merits.
Chris Trap also spoke in support as the architect. He highlighted the applicant’s impressive record in providing developments in the area for which they had won awards that he listed. The site fell outside the Conservation Area and was suitable for such development. However the tower was protected. The scheme fully took into account the impact on the tower and had been sympathetically designed to respect the heritage assets. The height of the scheme accorded with the nearby developments along Commercial Road that comprised a wide number of housing sizes. The materials were in keeping and the landscaping would enhance the area. The applicant did meet with the objectors early on in the process where they were shown the plans. In response to Members about the brick colour, Mr Trapp reported that details of this would be secured via condition to ensure it blended in with the area.
A member expressed support for a bright colour brick that enhanced the area rather than a dark coloured brick.
Nasser Farooq (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report supported by a power point presentation. He explained the site location and the nature and proximity of the nearby heritage assets. He confirmed the outcome of consultation as set out in the report. He fully addressed the objections in particular those made by the GLIAS around the views to the accumulator tower that were sent into Officers as part of the consultation. Officers considered that given the accumulator tower’s infrequent use as a public viewing platform (two days a year) and lack of weight normally given to loss of views the overall benefits of the scheme outweighed them.
He addressed the objections made about the archway sent to Officers. Any plans for the arches would need to be subject to a fresh application and considered separately. He also explained in detail the key aspects of the scheme including the affordable housing mix and the amenity space. Overall the scheme complied with policy and should be granted.
The Committee then asked questions around the following points:
- Loss of light, especially to the proposed ground floor properties from the 6 storey tower.
- Overshadowing from the proposed tower.
- The discussions with the applicant to mitigate this.
- The proposal to reduce the proposed tower by two floors. The merits in terms of reducing the impact.
- The statistics for number of affordable flats in p 8.62 of the report.
Officers responded to each point. In terms of sun light, the impact on the worst affected properties was considered acceptable on balance. Given that many were dual aspect units they should receive satisfactory levels of light from other facades. Furthermore, many also benefited from balconies and the benefit of these should be balanced against any minor losses in light. Overall, Officers considered that the impact was acceptable and quite usual for a development of this nature and the position of the flats.
The applicant had undertaken further work resulting in improvements to the daylight levels as set out in the update report. No existing properties would lose light. The minor failings in light solely related to the proposed units.
The number for affordable housing (p 8.62 of the report) should read 18 not 28.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission (PA/12/00925) at Land at Commercial Road, Basin Approach, London be DEFERRED.
Members agreed to defer the application so that the following issues could be addressed:
- The sunlight and daylight impact.
- The impact on the Hydraulic Accumulator Tower in terms of public use and loss of views.
- The potential to reduce the height of the six storey element to minimise the impact.
Accordingly, in accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to work with the Applicant to see if the above aspects of the scheme can be addressed and clarified and for the application to be reported back to a future meeting.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillor Helal Abbas, Shiria Khatun, Kosru Uddin, Peter Golds and Anwar Khan)
Supporting documents: