Agenda item
Site At Bow Wharf Adjoining Regents Canal And Old Ford Road, Old Ford Road, London (PA/11/03371 - 3372 - 3373)
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 0 in favour, 2 against the Officer recommendation and 3 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/11/03371), listed building consent (PA/11/03372) and conservation area consent (PA/11/03372) at Bow Wharf Adjoining Regents Canal and Old Ford Road, Old Ford Road, London be NOT ACCEPTED for the demolition of existing buildings to facilitate the redevelopment of the site to provide three buildings ranging in height from 3 - 6 storeys including Block A (part 3 part 4 storeys to the north of the Hertford Union Canal), Block B (6 Storeys to the south of the Hertford Union Canal) and Block C (4 storeys to the south of the Hertford Union Canal) to provide 34 residential units comprising 10 x 1 bedroom, 15 x 2 bedroom, 4 x 3 bedroom and 5 x 4 bedroom houses, 74.8 square metres of commercial floor space to be used as either Use Class A1, A2, A3,B1 or D1, including provision of one accessible parking space, cycle parking, public and private amenity space and associated works.
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over the following issues:
- Failure to protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Khales Uddin Ahmed, Anwar Khan, Craig Aston and Shiria Khatun).
Councillor Shiria Khatun left the meeting following the consideration of this item.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader) introduced the report regarding the site at Bow Wharf adjoining Regents Canal and Old Ford Road, Old Ford Road, London for the demolition of existing buildings to facilitate the redevelopment of the site to provide three buildings.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the meeting.
Tom Ridge of the East London Waterway Group addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. He stated that there was 81 objections and a petition with 152 signatures. The scheme would be two stories higher than the nearest buildings. Therefore, it would be detrimental to the setting of the Regent’s Canal Conservation Area, the two locally listed buildings and also the listed Stop Lock bridge. The scheme should be scaled down to protect the listed buildings as recommended by the Planning Inspectors guidance on this subject in 2005 and 2010. The scheme would therefore be dismissed at appeal. He drew attention to the proposals for each unit be installed with fire protection devices as requested by the Fire Authority as a condition of approval. He questioned whether this was acceptable. The fire access route was poor requiring fire engines to cross the Stop Lock bridge. This could damage it. He requested that there be weight and height restrictions on the bridge to prevent use by such vehicles.
Malcolm Tucker (Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society) addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. He also objected to the impact on the listed bridge from use by heavy vehicles and requested restrictions to prevent this. He also sought assurances they would be enforced. He considered that there was insufficient space for fire engines to move. The proposed buildings were too tall and would have an overbearing impact on Conservation Area. The policy stated that such schemes should enhance the surrounding settings. However, this scheme would damage it.
Kieran Rush (Applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the application. He reported on the applicant’s aim to protect the canal and the bridge. It was in their own interest’s to protect these assets.He referred to the pre-application discussions with Officers to address the issues and the public consultation. The height was in keeping with the surrounding buildings. The scheme had been sensitively designed to reinforce the character of the canal. He listed the benefits of the scheme including: family and affordable housing with amenity space, new public space and cafe, s106 contributions, a car free agreement and the good public transport links. The Fire Authority were now satisfied with the scheme following testing. It was proposed to maintain the weight restrictions on the bridge, to be secured by condition.
Mary O'Shaughnessy (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and the update. The application was for planning, listed and conservation area consent. She explained in detail the scheme including the site location and the surrounding area. She described the height and make up of the proposed buildings and measures to protect the listed assets. She explained the outcome of the local consultation (carried out twice) and the issues raised. She explained the previously refused schemes and the improvements in terms of reduced height amongst other issues. The impact on the Conservation Area had been carefully considered. Overall, Officers considered that the impact was acceptable. The scheme would preserve its character with no undue impact on amenity.
The Fire Authority had recently tested the access route from Grove Road and found that it could be accessed by fire engines. However, it was proposed that one of the existing chalets be demolished to facilitate access. As a result, the Fire Authority were now satisfied with the scheme subject to the conditions and had removed their objection. The Fire Authority were aware that Fire engines could not cross the Stop Lock Bridge. The scheme sought to provide 29% affordable housing by habitable room with s106 contributions. It was considered that the maximum amount of each had been secured following testing whilst ensuring viability. The s106 had been considered by the Council’s Planning Contributions Overview Panel and allocated accordingly.
Members asked questions about the materials in relation to the surrounding area. In response, Officers explained the design in more detail. In particular the plans to use pitched roofs and brick to ensure the design responded to the surrounding area. It was required (under condition) that details of the materials be submitted for approval to ensure this. This was a standard condition.
On a vote of 0 in favour, 2 against the Officer recommendation and 3 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/11/03371), listed building consent (PA/11/03372) and conservation area consent (PA/11/03372) at Bow Wharf Adjoining Regents Canal and Old Ford Road, Old Ford Road, London be NOT ACCEPTED for the demolition of existing buildings to facilitate the redevelopment of the site to provide three buildings ranging in height from 3 - 6 storeys including Block A (part 3 part 4 storeys to the north of the Hertford Union Canal), Block B (6 Storeys to the south of the Hertford Union Canal) and Block C (4 storeys to the south of the Hertford Union Canal) to provide 34 residential units comprising 10 x 1 bedroom, 15 x 2 bedroom, 4 x 3 bedroom and 5 x 4 bedroom houses, 74.8 square metres of commercial floor space to be used as either Use Class A1, A2, A3,B1 or D1, including provision of one accessible parking space, cycle parking, public and private amenity space and associated works.
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over the following issues:
- Failure to protect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Khales Uddin Ahmed, Anwar Khan, Craig Aston and Shiria Khatun).
Councillor Shiria Khatun left the meeting following the consideration of this item.
Supporting documents: