Agenda item
49-59 Millharbour, 2-4 Muirfield Crescent And 23-39 Pepper Street, London, E14
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 26th October, 2017 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.1)
- View the background to item 5.1
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings at 49-59 Millharbour, 2-4 Muirfield Crescent and 23-39 Pepper Street and the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment including two buildings ranging from 26 storeys (90.05m AOD) to 30 storeys (102.3m AOD) in height, comprising 319 residential units (Class C3), 1,708sqm (GIA) of flexible non-residential floor space (Classes A1, A3, A4 and D1), private and communal open spaces, car and cycle parking and associated landscaping and public realm works. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission
Minutes:
Update report.
Nasser Farooq (Team Leader – East Area, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings at the site and the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the site including two buildings ranging from 26 storeys to 30 storeys
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee
Councillor Dave Chesterton and Iain Dootson, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. It was considered that the proposal did not comply with the Council’s stepping down policy for tall buildings, due to the height of the proposal. The proposal would exceed the height of the surrounding buildings. It would also harm the setting of the Glengall Bridge and impact on access to the area, particularly during the construction phase and cause overshadowing to properties. The proposals would increase parking stress. The travel information was out of date. The density of the proposal would be too high, and put pressure on local services that were already at capacity. There was also a lack of genuinely affordable housing and concerns about the suitability of the child play space.
In response to questions, the objectors explained in further detail their concerns about the height of the proposal in view of it’s proximity to low rise developments. It would create a ‘cliff edge affect’ and be not in keeping with the existing pattern of development near lower rise buildings that provided an more appropriate gradient in building. It would therefore conflict with policy and the emerging tall buildings policy. They also clarified their concerns about the affordability of the housing and felt that this would not offset the breach in tall buildings policy and the impact of local infrastructure.
Mark Gibney (Applicant’s representative) spoke in favour of the application. He advised of the changes made to the proposals, following engagement with the Council, the GLA and the Council’s Conservation and Design Advisory Panel. The height of the building had been reduced and it was considered that it would conform with the policy and emerging policy and fulfilled the aspirations of the site allocation in policy. There would be conditions to mitigate the construction impact and preserve access. There would also be a generous level of play space, amenity space, public realm improvements and a car free agreement with opportunities for assessable parking spaces. TfL had not raised any concerns about the impact on the transport network. The scheme would provide a generous level of affordable housing weighted in favour of family sized units.
In response to questions, Mr Gibney reported that the applicant and officers had carried out a lot of work in terms of assessing the impact of the height. Overall, it was felt that it would broadly comply with the Council’s policy in terms of building heights. In response to further questions he provided assurances about the transport assessment. With the permission of the Chair, the applicant’s highways specialist, outlined the findings of the travel survey and explained that it complied with the relevant standard. So it included up to date information.
In response to further questions, the speakers provided reassurances about the measures to mitigate the construction impact, the nature of their consultation and the waste management measures. It was also reported that the proposal would preserve the setting of neighbouring buildings and their development potential.
Chris Stacey (Planning Services) presented the application explaining the site location, the site allocation in policy and the planning history. He explained that Officers had worked hard with the applicant to improve the level of affordable housing, the play space offer and the appearance of the proposal amongst other issues. He also explained the key features of the application and the outcome of the consultation.
It was reported that the introduction of a residential - led mixed used development on the site including a new nursery complied with policy. The loss of the existing employment use to allow for the development could be considered acceptable in this instance. Given the lack of businesses with long lease agreements, it would not unreasonable impact existing businesses. Furthermore, the applicant had indicated that they would be prepared to help the businesses relocate.
The proposal would provide an acceptable level of affordable housing of a high residential standard - 35% of the overall amount of housing mix. This included the provision of social/affordable housing at TH living rents and London Affordable rents and family units at the lower London Affordable rent levels. This offer exceeded what could be considered to be the maximum level viable. The applicant had however indicated that they were prepared to take a long term view in terms of the rental incomes. It was noted that the height of the proposal would exceed the surrounding building heights in the area from the north to the south. However, it would broadly step away from taller buildings when viewed from east and west.
It was also considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of its design, heritage impacts, neighbouring amenity and transport matters. Further work had been carry out to address the issues raised by LBTH highways in the Committee report. There would also be a financial contributions for local infrastructure.
In view of the merits of the application, Officers were recommending that it was granted planning permission.
The Committee asked questions about the height of the proposal given it would involve a ‘step up’ from the north of Canary Wharf in terms of building heights. It was questioned if this escalation in height complied with building heights policy and would sit conformably with the lower rise buildings nearby. Clarity was also sought as to the weight that should be attached to the emerging tall building study. The Committee also asked questions about the child play space, in terms of the allocation for the different age ranges and tenure types. Members also asked questions about the density of the proposal and the special circumstances justifying this, the location of the affordable housing and also the microclimate measures.
Questions were also asked about the sunlight and daylight impacts particularly to 45 Millharbour, the impact on parking, the scope of the trip assessment in the Committee report given the highway services comments, the community facilities and the measures to ensure that the proposal would be secure by design.
Officers advised that the proposal would comply with the planning policy on buildings heights in the area despite the escalation in height. The policy sought to create an overall stepping down to the north of Canary Wharf and this building would broadly conform with this when viewed from the wider context. It should also be noted that the building would mark the junction of key routes. Therefore in view of these issues, a tall building at this location could be supported. The emerging tall building study should be given limited weight at this stage as it had not been subject to public examination and had not been adopted as part of the Council’s new local plan.
The affordable housing units would be located in block B and there would be one entrance for this block. It was also noted that the wind tunnelling measures had been assessed by the EIA consultants and the EIA Officer and considered to be acceptable.
It was noted that the child play space offer met the policy requirements and the allocation reflected the anticipated child yields for the different sized units. It included play space for younger and older children. The proposal would provide a nursery, but apart from this, no other community uses were proposed. The scheme would be subject to a car free agreement and there would be limited opportunities to park vehicles on the surrounding streets in view of the parking restrictions. Therefore, the impact on parking should be minimal.
It was also reported that the travel study included the proposed residential and nursery use. In view of the findings, Officers considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the highway network.
The scheme displayed no symptoms of overdevelopment and it should also be noted that the policy directed tall buildings to the area. Therefore on these grounds, it was felt that in density terms the proposal could be supported.
It was felt that the impact on neighbouring amenity could be considered acceptable for an urban setting. Whilst the proposal would have a minor to moderate impact on neighbouring sunlighting and daylight levels to 45 Millharbour, the results of the study could partly be attributed to the presence of balconies above widows within the existing developments. These characterises acted as a constraint on their outlook.
Officers also explained the secure by design measures
Overall, Members expressed concerns about overdevelopment of the site, the pressures on local services, the height of the building andthe lack of employment uses within the application. It was felt that the proposal took its reference from buildings in the area that represented overdevelopment.
On a vote of 0 in favour, 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, 0 against and 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at 49-59 Millharbour, 2-4 Muirfield Crescent And 23-39 Pepper Street, London, E14 be NOT ACCEPTED for the demolition of existing buildings at 49-59 Millharbour, 2-4 Muirfield Crescent and 23-39 Pepper Street and the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment including two buildings ranging from 26 storeys (90.05m AOD) to 30 storeys (102.3m AOD) in height, comprising 319 residential units (Class C3), 1,708sqm (GIA) of flexible non-residential floor space (Classes A1, A3, A4 and D1), private and communal open spaces, car and cycle parking and associated landscaping and public realm works.
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over the following issues:
· Height and the failure to step down
· Overdevelopment of the site
· Bulk and massing of the application.
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: