Agenda item
562 Mile End Road & 1a, 1b, 1c Burdett Road (PA/16/00943)
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development comprising part 3-storey, part 8-storey and part 15-storey building, 52 residential units, 760sqm (GIA) commercial floorspace (A1, A2 & B1), landscaping, public realm improvements, access and servicing (including 1 disabled car parking space; 107 cycle parking spaces; and associated highway works) and other associated infrastructure.
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.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell, (East Area Manager, Planning Services), introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development comprising part 3-storey, part 8-storey and part 15-storey building residential lead building.
The Chair invited registered speakers in address the meeting.
Nigel Whitfield, Tom Kaneko, Ms M. McGinley, Councillor Peter Golds and Councillor David Edgar (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee in objection to the application.
The speakers objected to the height of the proposal and its scale. It was too large for and did not relate well with the context of the area given the mid - rise nature of the street scape. Therefore, it would have an overbearing and oppressive effect on the area and would set a precedent for future developments. It also conflicted with the policy in respect of these matters. In addition, the density was twice that recommended in the London Plan for the site.
They also objected to the poor design. This would exacerbate the above issues and would not offset the impact of the height. They also questioned the quality of the affordable housing given the air quality issues, the demand for the retail space, the lack of parking and assessable wheelchair spaces for the development, the servicing provision and the pollution issues. Concern was also expressed about the loss of the existing night club. This was a unique club that had been there many years. It was understood that the owner wished to continue with its operation and its relocation should be secured as part of the S106 agreement.
They also expressed concern about the construction costs of building over the LUL infrastructure. It was felt that this could potentially impact on the viability of the application meaning less affordable housing could ultimately be delivered.
The proposal would also overshadow gardens. Insufficient consideration had been given to this in the Committee report.
In response to questions from Members about the consultation, it was reported that a public consultation meeting was held in 2013. It was also reported that access to the site and parking around the site was already very restricted. The proposal would make this much worse. The speakers also stressed the need for the club to be relocated and commented on the features of the premises. In response to further questions, they described the location of the gardens that would be affected by the proposal, and clarified the concerns about the height and design.
Richard Evans (Applicant’s agent) Catriona O’Meara and Josephine Roscoe addressed the Committee in support of the application.
The plans were a product of substantial amount of discussions with both the LBTH and the GLA. The plans would regenerate the site and would deliver: a number of benefits in terms of new housing and commercial space amongst other features. The proposal would maximise the housing potential of the site in accordance with the London Plan in a transport hub. So the overall the density could be accommodated on the site. In relation to the nightclub, the applicant had expressed a commitment to securing a new premises for the occupants given its planning status, and were happy for them to continue to operate in the premises for the next 12 months.
The plans would preserve neighbouring amenity due to the separation distances. There would be biodiversity enhancements, wind mitigation measures and the air quality levels fell within the permitted range. The design, that had been informed by the site constraints, would respond well to the area. The massing and height had been reduced to fit in better with the area. Whilst there would be some impact on heritage assets, it was considered that the public benefits of the application would outweigh this. The accommodation would be of a high quality. The development would be car free but there would be a wheelchair assessable space.
In response to questions from the Committee, the speakers provided further reassurances about the height and density of the plans and the consultation. They also explained the difficulties in retaining the nightclub at the site due to its incompatibility with the proposed residential use.
In response to further questions, the speakers highlighted the quality of the proposed new commercial space and expressed optimism about their marketability. It was also explained that the scheme included dedicated play space in the form of separate terraces for the private and affordable units. Access to which was a management issue. Whilst a number of the units would have balconies overlooking Burdett Road (contrary to the Air Quality Officers advice), on balance, it was considered that the benefits in terms of the provision of private amenity space would outweigh any concerns. It was required that plans be submitted to demonstrate the feasibility of building over the LUL infrastructure. There had been ongoing discussion with LUL about the plans.
Brett McAllister, (Planning Services) presented the report explaining the site location, and the character of the area, serviced by good transport links. He explained the key features of the application drawing attention to the quality of the design, the layout, the standard of accommodation and the policy compliant level of affordable housing, the terrace play space and contributions for Mile End Park. Consultation had been carried out resulting in 90 representations in objection and 1 in support.
Turning to the assessment, the provision of good quality residential units in a transport hub was a key priority. An agreement had been reached to allow the night club to temporally stay at the premises and for it ultimately to be relocated. Whilst the height of the building would exceed that of the surrounding buildings, it had been carefully designed to relate well to the area and would provide a landmark building. The building would cause some harm to the setting of heritage assets. Overall it was considered that this would be less than substantial and that the public benefits of the application would outweigh this. There would be mitigation to preserve neighbouring amenity and the neighbouring properties would broadly continue to receive adequate light. The Committee were also advised of the transport and highway issues. Given the benefits of the application, Officers were recommending that it was granted planning permission.
The Committee asked questions about the loss of the club and why this was considered acceptable. Officers felt that it could invite a conflict with the residential use in terms of the amenity impact. It was also explained that the relocation of the taxi business was a commercial matter given its lack of planning status.
The Committee also questioned the adequacy of the servicing arrangements given the scale of the residential development. It was confirmed that the servicing would take place from an existing servicing bay near the site. Highway Services had no objection to the plans.
The Committee also asked about the plans to build over the LUL infrastructure. Assurances were sought about the safety of this. It was noted that a condition would be attached to the permission dealing with this in a similar fashion to those attached to other developments involving such work.
Members also sought assurances about the air quality measures, particularly the coverage of the mechanical ventilation system. It was confirmed that there would be a condition ensuring that the system would cover all of the units requiring the system.
The Committee also questioned the density of the application given it exceeded the recommended range in policy for the site. In response, Officers advised that given the sites attributes (the good transport links and access to services), the application met the criteria in policy for exceeding the density range. The proposal lacked any symptoms of overdevelopment and the amenity impacts were minimal for a taller development. The development would maximise the housing development potential of the site in line with policy.
In response to further questions, Officers provided assurances about the impact on gardens from the development, fire safety issues, the quality of the entrances to the affordable and the private houses the CIL contributions and the commercial units.
At the end of the discussion, Members expressed concern about the height massing, bulk and the design and impact of this on the townscape. It was also considered that the plans showed symptoms of overdevelopment due to the density. The impacts on Beckett Court and 564 Mile End Road was evidence of this. Members also expressed concern about the highway issues, in terms of the road access and servicing issues It was also commented that it would be premature to go ahead with the plans without further guarantees from LUL. Concern was also expressed about the air quality issues particularly in relation to the proposed balconies and the loss of the night club.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission and 6 against, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 6 in favour and 0 against the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at 562 Mile End Road & 1a, 1b, 1c Burdett Road for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development comprising part 3-storey, part 8-storey and part 15-storey building, 52 residential units, 760sqm (GIA) commercial floorspace (A1, A2 & B1), landscaping, public realm improvements, access and servicing (including 1 disabled car parking space; 107 cycle parking spaces; and associated highway works) and other associated infrastructure (PA/16/00943)
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
· Height, bulk and massing and the impact on the townscape.
· Density and overdevelopment of the site.
· The servicing provision.
· Loss of the community facility.
· Design of the proposal.
· Air quality issues.
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
Councillor Gulam Robbani could not vote on this application having not been present from the beginning of the Committee’s consideration of the application.
Supporting documents: