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 13, part 15 storeys comprising of 63 residential units (Use class C3) with ground floor commercial unit (flexible use - Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4), 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 to secure planning obligations and conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.

Update report tabled.

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of public house and former Tyre and Exhaust Centre building and erection of mixed-use development with ground floor commercial unit and associated works.

It was noted that the application was previously considered by the Committee on 28^th July 2016 and Members were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over the following issues:

·         Overdevelopment of the site.

·         Height, bulk and massing.

·         The density of the proposal and the impact this would have had on the

·         daylight/sunlight of neighbouring buildings.

·         Loss of a public house.

·         Underprovision of child play space and communal amenity space.

·         Quality of the design.

·         The existence of a separate entrance for the affordable units.

Since that time, a number of changes had been made to the application to address the Committee concerns, and due to the nature of the changes, the application was being brought back to the Committee afresh in accordance with the Council’s Development Committee procedure rules.

Nasser Farooq, (Planning Services) gave a presentation on the application. He reminded the Committee of the site location and surrounds and the changes to the application since previously considered by the Committee in relation to: the reduction in the height of the development and the consequential reduction in units, the reduction in massing and volume and the increase in separation distances to neighbouring buildings. He also drew attention to the changes to the housing mix, the addition of the A4 drinking establishment, the increased level of communal space/child play space and the improvements to the design of the building. The images now before Members showed a more accurate representation of the design of the building.

A further round of consultation on the revised application had been carried out and the results of this were noted.

It was reported that the child play space and communal amenity space provision now met the policy targets and that despite the loss of units, the level of affordable housing remained at 37% per habitable room. The plans also included a commitment to market the drinking establishment as a public house for a 6 months period. The density had been decreased but still exceeded the London Plan guidance. However the plans showed no symptoms of overdevelopment.  A small number of windows failed the sunlight and daylight tests in policy but the results could in part be attributed to the design of the existing buildings. Overall the results were considered to be acceptable.

Officers remained of the view that the application should be granted planning permission.

In response to the presentation, Members asked about the proposed drinking establishment, and sought assurances about the robustness of the plans for marketing it as a public house in the first instance. In response, it was reported that the viability report had been updated with the latest marketing information and the information showed that it was not viable in the short term. If granted, Officers would take on board Members comments regarding the need for the marketing exercise to be monitored and this could be written into the legal agreement.

The Committee also asked about the amenity impact on the neighbouring buildings, particularly the impact on the Equinox building and the weight that should be applied to the consented 10 storey permission in assessing the application.

It was reported that any development of the site would impact on the Equinox building as it currently overlooked low rise buildings and had exceptionally good outlook.  The information in the committee report showed the expected impacts from the 10 storey consented development on the Equinox building compared to the amended application. The impacts would not be that dissimilar. Furthermore, the revised scheme compared favourable to the July application. In addition, Officers considered that reducing the height any further would have a negligible impact on the amenity of the ground floor neighbouring apartments most affected by the application. The Committee needed to balance any potential impacts with the benefits of the application.

In response to questions about the separation distances and the density of the scheme, Officers explained that the gap to the Parkview apartments had been increased to minimise the impact on neighbouring amenity. Officers also considered that the density could be accommodated and justified given the significant public benefits of the application and that the proposal displayed no symptoms of overdevelopment.

In relation to transport and highway matters, it was reported that neither the Greater London Authority or the DLR had objected to the scheme taking into account the impacts from other schemes. The comments of highway services had been taken into account (regarding the provision of disabled parking spaces amongst other matters) and the conditions would reflect this.

In response to questions about the affordable housing, particularly the number of family sized units, it was clarified that the scheme would deliver 22 affordable units and that Officers felt that the plans would deliver a good mix of family sized units. The revised housing mix now included a number of double bedroom units. Furthermore, it was now proposed to provide a single open plan entrance lobby instead of separate access cores for the affordable and private tenures to address the concerns about this.

In response to questions about the play space,             Officers confirmed that the level of which had been increased to address the Committee’s concerns. Officers also provided reassurances about the increased play space provision for the affordable units and answered questions about the accessibility of the other parts of the play space and the amount that would be provided on the ground floor.

The Committee also asked questions of clarity about the letters of objections and also the CIL contributions for health services.

In conclusion, Members considered that the plans went some way to addressing the Committee concerns. However some Members remained concerned about elements of the application and therefore were minded to refuse the application.

On a vote of 1 in favour of the Officer recommendation and 7 against, 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 and 1 against, 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 12, part 15 storeys comprising of 63 residential units (Use class C3) with ground floor commercial unit (flexible use - Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4), 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 proposal due to concerns over the following matters:

·         Excessive height, bulk and massing of the proposal.

·         Symptoms of overdevelopment, particularly in relation to the loss of daylight and sunlight to the nearby Equinox building.

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.