Proposal:

Erection of a 56 storey building comprising of 396 residential (Class C3) Units, Retail (Class A1-A4) Space, together with basement, ancillary residential facilities, access servicing, car parking, cycle storage, plant, open space and landscaping and other associated works.

The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.

Recommendation:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions and informatives.

Update report tabled

Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the erection of a 56 storey building comprising of 396 residential (Class C3) Units, Retail (Class A1-A4) Space, together with basement, ancillary residential facilities, access servicing, car parking, cycle storage, plant, open space and landscaping and other associated works.

The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.

Richard Horwood (Chair, Isle of Dogs Neighbourhood Planning Forum), Jim Kean (Discovery Dock East Tenants Association) and Councillor Andrew Wood (Ward Councillor) spoke in opposition to the application. They expressed concern about the impact that the scheme would have on social infrastructure. The infrastructure must be in place first including the new South Quay bridge before the scheme was implemented to mitigate the impact. The current bridge has been deemed inadequate by TfL. They also considered that the height of the scheme would be out of keeping with the area and the South Quay Masterplan. They also objected to the density of the scheme more than double that recommended for the PTAL for the application in guidance.

In terms of the land use, the scheme  conflicted with the GLA policy produced in March 2016 expressing a preference for commercial use of the site (not residential). Concerns were also expressed about  the adequacy of the combined access route (given the expected usage figures including those for large vehicles) that would result in increased traffic congestion on the highway and the impact on neighbouring sunlight and daylight (given the findings in the Committee report). Concern was also expressed about the quantum, and quality of the child play space. Reassurances were also sought about access rights to  existing parking spaces.

In response to questions from the Committee, the speakers clarified their concerns about the impact that the scheme would have on the transport network. They also answered questions about the cumulative impact from this and other schemes on the  nearby junction, increased traffic congestion from the development, the unsuitability of the current bridge, the methods used for calculating the PTAL rating in the Committee report, the lack of play space and the changes to GLA policy.

Mike Nisbet, Patrick Campbelland James McAllister addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. They considered that the application would regenerate a vacant site maximising the development potential of the site in accordance with policy resulting in the delivery of good quality new homes that would be tenure blind, new public realm, a consolidated assess route and generous levels of child play space. Consultation had been carried out and the scheme had been amended to mitigate the concerns. Care had been taken to minimise the impact of the scheme and the developer would continue to engage with the local community.

The speakers were mindful of the concerns about the impact on the highway and the combined assess route. They reassured Members that a detailed transport assessment had been carried out.  The findings showed that the combined access route could support this scheme and the other schemes without impacting on the highway. LBTH Highways and TfL had raised no concerns about the scheme and a Travel Plan would be submitted to ensure that impact would be minimal. They also provided reassurances about the sunlight and daylight assessment that had been tested by independent experts. It was considered that given the circumstances this did not warrant refusal on these grounds

In response to questions from the Committee, the speakers clarified the number of  expected vehicles trips to the development and the measures to allow the free flow of traffic at peak hours. It was considered that the provision of eight delivery bays would be sufficient as shown in the travel plan. It was unlikely that all eight bays would be occupied at any one time and that there would be vehicles queuing outside the development given the findings of the travel assessment. It was required that details of the child play space be submitted for approval to ensure that it was of a high quality. The GLA welcomed the scheme’s approach to child play space.

Jermaine Thomas, (Planning Officer, Development & Renewal) presented the detailed report explaining the site location, the surrounding consents, the nature of the existing site and the site designations in policy. Consultation had been carried out and the outcome was noted. The Committee were advised of the key features of the scheme including the quality of the housing, the new  public realm, the play space, and amenity space and the measures to safeguard neighbouring privacy and outlook. The scheme showed no signs of overdevelopment.

The scheme would fit in and would improve the appearance of the area and would not harm local views.   Regarding the housing mix, the applicant had agreed to provide 25% affordable housing in excess of what the scheme could afford with 3 and 4 bed units at social target rent levels.

In terms of amenity, Officers were mindful that the application would have a moderate to major impact on neighbouring properties. Slides were shown of the assessment. However, given that any development of the site would have some impact and the public benefits of the scheme, on balance, this was considered to be acceptable.

The Committee were also advised of the vehicle access/egress arrangements and the operation and merits of the single access arrangements allowing a greater quantum of public realm to be provided. The scheme would be car free. They also noted the waste management arrangements involving an in bin compaction system. Whilst the evidence submitted indicated that it would work, it was required that details of the proposed system be submitted for approval to ensure that it was acceptable prior to implementation.

Officers were recommending that the planning permission be granted

In response, the Committee asked questions relating to the impact on infrastructure, particularly the DLR, schools and health facilities. They also asked about the failure to provide a policy compliant level of affordable housing and the decision to provide 25% affordable housing given this exceeded what the scheme could actually afford. They asked for further details of the viability assessment including the estimated land values compared to other recently approved schemes.

Questions were also asked about the density of the scheme, the exceptional circumstances that justified the deviation from policy in this regard, the progress with delivering the South Quay bridge and about the traffic management for the site.

In response, Officers confirmed that the plans included a CIL contribution to mitigate the impact on infrastructure. The viability assessment had been independently tested that supported the conclusion regarding the affordable housing. Some of the factors taken into account in the assessment were noted. The applicant had decided to take a calculated risk in providing 25% affordable housing in the hope of capturing more profit from the scheme at a later date. There would also be a viability review mechanism for the affordable housing and the operation of this was explained including the time scales involved.

Officers were mindful of the density of the scheme in relation to policy. However, having assessed the scheme against the relevant criteria in policy, Officers did not considered that on balance it would be appropriate to refuse the scheme due to excessive density. Officers also clarified the special circumstances that justified this level of development of the site given the site allocation in policy as an opportunity area site and that the plans would reactivate a site that had been vacant for so long.

It was also explained that the Council had undertaken a considerable amount of work with partners to improve connections across the area and in particular to deliver the South Quay bridge and it was anticipated that the planning application for the new bridge would be submitted to the Council this year . It was confirmed that the issues around the bridge were a material consideration however it was down to the Committee how much weigh they placed on this.

Officers also clarified the traffic calming measures within the scheme to prevent traffic queuing from the scheme on the highway.

In summary the Chair, considered that the plans had some merit. However he did not consider that they outweighed the negative impacts of the application  such as the sunlight and daylight failings, that was a hall mark of overdevelopment. There were also questions about the level of affordable housing.

On a vote of 0 in favour and 7 against, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.

Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed and Councillor  Danny Hassell seconded a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 7 in favour and 0 against, it was RESOLVED:

That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at South Quay Plaza 4, Marsh Wall, London, E14 for the Erection of a 56 storey building comprising of 396 residential (Class C3) Units, Retail (Class A1-A4) Space, together with basement, ancillary residential facilities, access servicing, car parking, cycle storage, plant, open space and landscaping and other associated works

The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over:

·         Excessive density.

·         Impact on infrastructure particularly the transport network, the highway, social infrastructure including education and health facilities.

·         Unacceptable level of affordable housing.

·         Impact on residential amenity in terms of sunlight and daylight.

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.