Proposal:

Demolition of public house (Use Class A4) and former Tyre and Exhaust Centre building (Use Class B1/B2) and erection of mixed-use development of part 5, part 14, part 16 storeys comprising of 71 residential units (Use class C3) with ground floor commercial unit (flexible use - Use Classes A1/A2/A3), and associated cycle and refuse storage facilities, amenity areas and electricity sub-station. Formation of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses onto Chrisp Street.

Recommendation:

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

Update report tabled.

Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the demolition of public house and former Tyre and Exhaust Centre building and erection of a mixed-use development.

Brett McAllister, (Planning Services, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the proposals. The Committee were advised of the site location that had good transport links and that the surrounding area included residential developments ranging in height and of a comparable scale to the proposal. The site was located at the northern end of the Chrisp Street Market District Centre. Consultation had been carried out and the outcome of this was noted including the concerns about loss of the public house.

The Committee were also advised of the proposed layout, the level of child play space and amenity space and the separate access cores for the affordable and private tenures. It was considered that the design of the building was of a high quality.

The proposed housing offer comprised 37.4 % affordable housing including family sized housing with private amenity space. Whilst the density of the application exceeded that recommended for a development of this size in the London Plan density matrix, it was considered that the impacts were acceptable, and this should be weighed against the positive impacts of the development. It was noted that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the Equinox development in particular. However, Officers considered that this was to be expected given the existing low rise nature of the application site and given the regeneration benefits, on balance, that this was considered acceptable.

There would be a CIL contribution and Planning Obligations to mitigate the impact of the proposal. In view of the merits of the application, Officers were recommending that it was granted.

The Committee then asked questions about the affordable housing. In particular, they questioned the approach of delivering the units as affordable rents instead of social rents; the separate entrances for these units; whether the tenants of these properties would have access to all of the community space  or only part of it and the impact of these issues in terms of social segregation.

They also asked about the shortfall in child play space, the overall quantum of the community space, the impact on social infrastructure, the impact on the neighbouring properties particularly the Park View and the Equinox developments. It was asked whether the design of the Equinox building had been taken into account and whether an alternative design would effect that building less.

The Committee also enquired about the contributions for employment, skills and training, the suitability of the retail offer and the loss of the public house. Members questioned the acceptably of this given the lack of alternatives public houses in the nearby area. In particularly the Committee questioned the findings in the viability report in respect of its future viability and if it was possible to include it in the scheme.

Concern was also expressed about the appearance of the scheme.

The Committee were reminded that the scheme would provide a policy compliant level of affordable housing. All of which would be affordable rent. Officers had investigated with the developer if these units could be provided at social rent levels. However, based on the viability assessment, it was found that the development could not afford this.

Officers had worked with the applicant to increase the quantum of affordable housing. As a result, the plans had been amended since submission to provide 37.4 % affordable housing.

Officers were supportive of the child play space plans. The plans had been amended (at the suggestion of Officers) to maximise the level of door step child play space within the scheme to accommodate the increased child yield due to the increase in affordable housing. Notwithstanding this there was still a shortfall in child play space. Given the proximity of the proposal to nearby parks amongst other matters, Officers considered that this was acceptable.

As noted in the presentation, there would be separate ground floor entrances and separate areas of community space.

In terms of the Equinox building, Officers had carried out testing to identify how a mirror design on the site would have affected the development and the results were set out in the update report. The results showed that a mirror building  would  still have a significant impact on the Equinox building, albeit less than the proposed development. Officers considered that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the amenity impacts and the standard of the internal daylighting to the Equinox building would still be acceptable in the context of the dense urban nature of the site. It should also be noted that plans would optimise use of the brownfield site and maximise the affordable housing potential of the site.

The Committee were also advised of the separation distances to the nearby properties including the Parkview apartments and that there would be no direct overlooking into habitable rooms.

Regarding the design, there would be conditions to ensure that the materials were sympathetic to the area. Officers considered that it would fit in with the area.

Regarding the re - provision of the public house, Officers considered that there would be some difficulties including this within the development. There would be issues with the opening hours given the residential nature of area and there were concerns about its viability amongst other matters as set out in the viability report.

Officers also highlighted the process for calculating the employment contributions, the process for allocating the funding and that the CIL contributions fully complied with the requirements and would mitigate against the impacts of the development.

On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 7 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.

Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the recommendation to grant planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 7 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, it was RESOLVED:

That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTEDat 116-118 Chrisp Street, Poplar London, E14 6NL for the demolition of public house (Use Class A4) and former Tyre and Exhaust Centre building (Use Class B1/B2) and erection of mixed-use development of part 5, part 14, part 16 storeys comprising of 71 residential units (Use class C3) with ground floor commercial unit (flexible use - Use Classes A1/A2/A3), and associated cycle and refuse storage facilities, amenity areas and electricity sub-station, formation of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses onto Chrisp Street(PA/14/02928).

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

·         Overdevelopment of the site.

·         Height, bulk and massing of the proposal.

·         Density of the proposal, particularly in terms of the daylight and sunlight impact.

·         Loss of the public house.

·         Under provision of child play space and community space.

·         Quality of the design and the separate entrances for the affordable units.

The Committee also requested an explanation of the contribution for employment, skills training for unemployed residents.

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.