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 12-storey building, 46 residential units, 779sqm (GIA) commercial floorspace (A1, A2 & B1), landscaping, public realm improvements, access and servicing (including 1 disabled car parking space; 99 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, conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development comprising part 3-storey, part 8-storey and part 12-storey building, landscaping, public realm improvements, access and servicing and other associated infrastructure.
It was noted that a similar application was considered at the February 2017 meeting of the Committee. Members expressed concerns about that application and were minded to refuse the application. The applicant had made a series of amendments to the application and due to the scale of the changes it was considered appropriate to submit the application as a fresh application in accordance with the Development Committee procedure rules.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Nigel Whitfield, Ms McGinley and Councillor David Edgar (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee in objection to the proposals. They noted the changes to the application but felt they had done little to address their previous concerns. It was considered that the density of the application still exceeded the London plan guidance and that the loss of the night club conflicted with policy. The occupants did not want to sell the club. It must be relocated. Furthermore, the findings of the air quality assessment showed that the pollution levels at the lower floors would exceed permitted levels.
The speakers also expressed concern about the adequacy of the parking arrangements particularly the lack of accessible and visitors car parking. They also expressed concern about overshadowing to neighbouring properties. This that had not been properly assessed. They also objected to the lack of affordable housing, poor design, inappropriate height for the area and the impact of the scheme on the setting of the Conservation Area. The building would set an unwanted precedent. In response to questions, they clarified their concerns about the above issues and also expressed concern about the lack of consultation by the developer.
Richard Evans (Applicant’s agent) addressed the committee explaining the revisions to the application to address the concerns in relation to the reduction in height, density, bulk and massing and the number of residential units. The changes meant that the plans would have a better relationship with the surrounding area and had greatly reduced its impact on the setting of the Conservation Area.
He considered that the provision of a residential development near a transport hub complied with policy. There would be a policy compliant level of affordable housing and no adverse amenity issues and adequate separation distances. The applicant had expressed a commitment to helping the night club relocate and there would be measures to mitigate the air quality issues. TfL were satisfied with the servicing arrangements subject to the submission of a servicing and deliveries plan.
In response to questions from the Committee, he confirmed that the developer had carried out no further consultation since the last meeting. The outcome of the Council’s consultation was set out in the report. He explained that steps would be taken with London Underground Infrastructure Protection to ensure they were satisfied with the plans and that they were not adversely affect any assets. The work would not go ahead until they were. In response to further questions, he provided further reassurances about their plans to help relocate the club through the relocation strategy. He outlined the key features of these plans. He also provided assurances about the quality of the terrace play area for the affordable units in terms of air quality. Due to the site constraints, there were no opportunities to provide the play space at ground floor. He also responded to questions about the revised play space proposal.
Brett McAllister (Planning Services) presented the report explaining the site location and the amendments to the scheme since last presented to the Committee to minimise any impact. Consultation had been carried out and the issues raised were noted. It was considered that the plans would reactivate a brownfield site and deliver a substantial number of new homes. The loss of the night club was considered acceptable given the merits of the scheme, the site constraints, the potential conflict with the proposed residential use and the applicant’s relocation strategy. The height, bulk and massing of the revised scheme could be considered acceptable for the site. The plans would provide 35% affordable housing, with adequate levels of terrace play space and amenity space. The impact on neighbouring amenity was also deemed acceptable. Images of the relationship with neighbouring buildings were noted. There were measures to mitigate the air quality issues. The Committee were also advised of the parking and servicing plans. Officers were recommending that the application was granted permission.
In response to the presentation, the Committee asked questions about the number of objections and it was noted that further objections had been received since the publication of the agenda as set out in the update report.
The Committee also asked about the findings of the air quality testing and it was noted that the applicant had recently confirmed that the plans would meet the relevant targets due to the mitigation measures. To address the issues, it, was proposed that the facades at the lower level be fitted with mechanical ventilation where the emissions rates exceeded the permitted levels.
The Committee asked about the changes to the application in respect of the contributions for play space. It was noted that the amended scheme now fully met the play space requirements both in terms of the quantum for the affordable and private units. So there was no longer any justification for requiring such contributions.
The Committee also questioned the impact of the application on the Conservation Area. Officers advised that they have carefully considered the issue. It was considered that any harm caused by the development to grade 11 listed buildings would be less than substantial. Furthermore, when weighed against the merits of the scheme, it was considered that the merits of the proposals would outweigh any impact in this regard.
Members also asked questions about the impact of the proposal on developments nearest the site that had a 5.4 m separation distance. Officers advised that due to the orientation of the buildings, they would have oblique views of the proposal. So the proposal would have a minimal impact.
Members also sought assurances about the measures to relocate the night club and how the strategy would be monitored. It was noted that the s106 agreement would include measures to ensure this, including a requirement for regular update reports. In response to further questions, it was noted that there was no policy protection for the existing business in contrast with the night club. However, Officers saw no reason, on planning grounds, why such businesses could not occupy the new commercial units.
Members also asked questions about the servicing plans. It was confirmed that the highway experts were satisfied with the plans given that the number of properties that would rely on the servicing bay would be relatively low and the proximity of the site to another servicing bay.
The Committee asked questions about the affordable housing rents levels and the CIL contributions and governance process.
Members expressed concerns about the loss of the nightclub and the failure to address this, the air quality issues, the servicing and parking arrangements and the lack of progress with the agreement with LUL. Concern was also expressed about the height and the density of the application, the separation distances, the lack of amenity space and contributions for off site play space. Due to these issues, Members felt that the proposals would result in the overdevelopment of the site.
On a vote of 1 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 6 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 planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 6 in favour and 0 against and 2 abstentions 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 12-storey building, 46 residential units, 779sqm (GIA) commercial floorspace (A1, A2 & B1), landscaping, public realm improvements, access and servicing (including 1 disabled car parking space; 99 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:
1. Height, bulk and massing and impact on townscape
2. Density and overdevelopment of the site
3. The servicing provision
4. Loss of the community facility
5. Design of the proposal
6. 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
Supporting documents: