Agenda item
1-3 Corbridge Crescent and 1-4 The Oval, E2 9DS (PA/16/03771)
- Meeting of Moved from 25 Sept, Strategic Development Committee, Wednesday, 4th October, 2017 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.1)
- View the background to item 5.1
Proposal
Demolition of existing single storey commercial buildings, with the retention, restoration, external alteration and residential conversion of the existing Regency and Victorian Cottages, together with the erection of three linked blocks of 4, 5 and 10 storeys to provide 57 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), with associated private and communal amenity space, cycle parking and refuse storage, and 461sqm of dual use office/community floorspace (Use Class B1/D1).
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, conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Area Planning Manager (East)) introduced this item for the demolition of existing single storey commercial buildings, with the retention, restoration, and residential conversion of the existing Regency and Victorian Cottages, together with the erection of three linked blocks of 4, 5 and 10 storeys to provide a residential led scheme.
He also introduced item 6.1 for the demolition of existing single storey commercial buildings, with the retention, restoration and residential conversion of the existing Regency and Victorian Cottages, together with the erection of three linked blocks of 4, 5 and 8 storeys to provide a residential led building. This application had been subject to an appeal for non – determination. Therefore, the Council no longer had the power to determine this. Therefore, the Committee were being asked to provide their decision on the application should they have been empowered to determine the application.
The applications would be presented to the Committee and considered together (Officer presentation and Member questions on the application), however would be voted on separately.
Jennifer Chivers (Planning Services) presented the reports. The Committee were advised of the nature of the site including the coach depot and the key features of the cottages. They were also reminded of the surrounding area that mainly comprised light industrial uses. The Committee were also advised of the site allocation in policy (which designated the site for a comprehensive mixed used development with strategic housing) and the current status of the gas works and the impact of this on the development as set out in the Committee report.
It was also noted that the previous two applications for the redevelopment of the site had been subject to a planning appeal by Inquiry in 2016. The Inspector dismissed the appeal on two grounds which related to the height of Block A (at both 16 and 18 storeys) and the retention of the historic Regency and Georgian Cottages. While the appeal was dismissed, the Inspector identified several key features of the scheme as having positive elements and that the proposal bore the hallmark of a well-designed mixed use development. The appeal decisions were important material planning considerations in relation to the applications before members. (The appeal decision was attached to the Committee agenda). The applications shared many similarities with the appeal schemes save for a marked reduction in the height of the proposed buildings and the retention of the cottages.
The officer noted the key features of the applications. The proposed residential use of the site conformed with the site location in policy. Whilst the proposed 10 storey (Block A) building was considered to cause some harm to the Regents Canal Conservation Area, it was considered that the public merits of the application would balance this harm. The proposed development and 8 storey (Block A) would preserve the setting of the Conservation Area
In relation to the 10 storey application, 13% of the housing mix would be affordable housing by habitable room and 6% of the 8 storey application would provide such accommodation. Officers acknowledged that the provision of affordable housing was low. However, taking into account the viability constraints of the site and the appeal decision of the Planning Inspector, and the viability reviews (which all concluded that the maximum provision of affordable housing had been achieved), Officers considered that the proposed development complied with the Council’s policies. It was also recommended that a viability review mechanism be secured within an s106 agreement which was recommended to include a requirement to take account, where possible, the use of grant funding to increase affordable housing delivery on site.
It was proposed that the viability review mechanism would provide two opportunities for a review to be triggered, firstly if the development had not been implemented within 24 months from the grant of permission, and secondly at an advanced stage (i.e. when the scheme is 75% occupied). It was also proposed to restrict occupation of Block B where the affordable units were located, so if there was further surplus it could be provided in this location in tangible units.
Officers also explained that that the proposed level of child play space complied with policy, that the amenity impacts and transport matters would be acceptable subject to the conditions. They also drew attention to the package of Section 106 obligations.
Overall Officers considered that in view of the merits of the applications that permission should be granted.
In response, the Committee welcomed the retention of the cottages but asked about the scope of the alterations and the measures to preserve their historic features. Officers advised that the cottages would be subdivided and their external features upgraded to preserve their historic features. There would be a condition requiring that a schedule of the works be submitted.
The Committee also asked questions about the height of block B and the location of the affordable housing within this block. It was also questioned if there were any restrictions in policy on the height of this block. Officers confirmed that this block would comprise a mixture of affordable and private units. There would be separate entrances to the private and affordable units. Whilst there was nothing in policy restricting the height of this block to four storeys, the Planning Inspector found that a lower building at this location would complement the setting of the cottages.
Members also asked questions about the level of dedicated child play space giving its proximity to the communal amenity space (within the ‘shared amenity space). Members also sought clarity on the nature of the integrated play space and whether all of the play space would in practice provide such space. Officers reassured Members that the scheme met the policy requirement in relation to play space and that there had been no ‘double counting’ in terms of play space and amenity space. In addition, a condition would be added to the permission to ensure that the play areas catered for all age groups.
Questions were also asked about the proximity of the site to the gas holders site given the health and safety issues. In particular, concern was expressed about the restrictions preventing the occupation of units pending the decommissioning of the gas holders. Officers reassured Members about the need for this condition given the site’s location. It was also noted that the gas holders had not been in use for a number of years and that the site had been bought by a developer who would seek to revoke the hazardous substance consent. In the meantime, it was necessary to add this condition in view of the health and safety issues.
The Committee also asked questions about the density of the application given that it exceeded the guidance in the London Plan and the special circumstances justifying this. Officers advised that this guidance should not be applied mechanistically and felt that the application met the tests in policy in this regard, (given the site allocation, design, mixture of tenures, fact that it could prompt the wider development of the area), amongst other benefits.
Concern was also expressed about the height of the tallest elements of the applications given the mid - rise nature of the surrounding area and the Planning Inspectors concerns about the appeal scheme and also Historic England’s comments. It was questioned whether there were any other examples of where the Council had approved buildings of a similar height along the Regents Canal Conservation Area. In response, Officers drew attention to the changing nature of the area and also outlined the prevailing building heights. Officers confirmed that the Council’s Conservation Officer was of the view that the 10 storey building would cause some harm to the Conservation Area, but that the eight storey building would not cause any harm. The National Planning policy framework required any harm to be offset by public benefits of the application. Officers felt that on balance that the public benefits would outweigh any harm caused.
Members also asked questions about the land use itself in view the nature of the surrounding area. It was questioned whether consideration had been given to the possibility of a commercial development on the site. In response, Officers drew attention to the site allocation in policy for this site and stated that this had informed the Council’s position.
The Committee also asked questions about the land contamination assessment. Concern was expressed about the quality of the land itself given the site’s longstanding use as a coach depot and how this could affect the development. Officers reported that the Health and Safety Executive had not raised any concerns and that there would be a detailed condition relating to land contamination.
The Committee also asked questions that were answered by Officers about the possibility of securing a contributions for offsite affordable housing and the shortcomings of this in terms of the housing mix.
In summary, Members expressed concern about the level of affordable housing (it was feared that this could set a precedent). Members were mindful of the review mechanism but felt that this would not overcome their concerns. Concern was also expressed about the focus on residential and the lack of employment use, given the current employment opportunities at the site. Members also expressed concerns about the height, bulk, massing from block A, the adverse impact on the Conservation Area, (notwithstanding the need for the areas regeneration), given it was a key part of the Borough’s industrial heritage. Members were mindful of the concerns of the Planning Inspectorate and Heritage England in relation to this. Concern was also expressed about the lack of certainty as to when the units could be occupied given the issues surrounding the gas works.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officers recommendation, 6 against and 0 abstentions, 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 0 against and 0 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at 1-3 Corbridge Crescent and 1-4 The Oval, E2 9DS for the demolition of existing single storey commercial buildings, with the retention, restoration, external alteration and residential conversion of the existing Regency and Victorian Cottages, together with the erection of three linked blocks of 4, 5 and 10 storeys to provide 57 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), with associated private and communal amenity space, cycle parking and refuse storage, and 461sqm of dual use office/community floorspace (Use Class B1/D1). (PA/16/03771)
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
· Land use and lack of employment use.
· Height, bulk and massing of Block A.
· Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
· Level of affordable housing.
· Environmental concerns arising from use of the site as a coach depot.
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: