Agenda item
Ailsa Wharf, Ailsa Street, London (PA/16/02692)
Proposal:
Demolition of existing structures/buildings and the redevelopment of the site for a mixed use scheme providing 785 residential units (C3) and 2,954 sqm GIA commercial floorspace (A1/A3/B1/D2) within a series of thirteen building blocks varying between 3 and 17 storeys (Maximum AOD height of 59.5m); the creation of a new access road and the realignment of Ailsa Street; the provision of safeguarded land for a bridge landing; the provision of cycle and car parking spaces; and associated site-wide landscaping and public realm works.
Officer recommendation to the Committee
That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, planning permission is APPROVED subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives;
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of existing structures/buildings and the redevelopment of the site for a mixed use residential led scheme with commercial floorspace within a series of thirteen building blocks varying between 3 and 17 storeys and associated works.
Kate Harrison (Planning Services) presented the application describing the nature of the site and surrounds including the plans for the Bromley Hall School, and the pedestrian and cycle links through the site. The Committee were also advised of the height of the proposed buildings, their position in the development and noted images of the proposal from key points. Members also noted the outcome of the consultation and the issues raised.
In terms of the land use, the proposal would deliver employment space and a significant amount of housing, open space, a riverside walkway and also a landing area for a new bridge amongst other things. Therefore, it accorded with policy in land use terms. Whilst the density of the proposal exceeded the guidance in the London Plan, the proposal displayed no symptoms of overdevelopment and met the criteria for schemes exceeding this guidance. In terms of the housing, the application would provide a suitable level of affordable housing - 35 % of the housing mix. This would be split 65%35% in favour of affordable rent with a 50/50 split between Tower Hamlets Living rent and London Affordable rent. The viability of the application had been reviewed and whilst the offer exceeded what the application could afford, the applicant had taken a commercial decision to provide this level of housing. There would also be a review mechanism to increase the number of affordable units if possible to be secured through the legal agreement.
It was considered that the proposal would be of a good quality design. The future occupants would have a good standard of amenity and there would be generous levels of open space and child play space for all age groups. The child play space strategy was noted. The impact on neighbouring amenity would be acceptable and there were measures to mitigate any impact from the waste transfer station. The proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the local highway and public transport network and a range of contributions would be secured. In view of the merits of the application, Officers considered that it should be granted planning permission.
The Committee asked questions about the measures to improve air quality and minimise pollution levels for the future occupants given the proximity of units to the A12. The Committee also questioned whether pollution from the highway could affect the appearance of the proposal and whether the materials would protect its appearance. Members also asked questions about the discussions regarding the layout of the scheme in view of these issues and the social housing mix given the level of 3 and 4 bed affordable units.
In response, Officers confirmed that the plans included measures to minimise any impact from the highway, including tree planting on the A12 and mechanical ventilation for units where necessary. LBTH Environmental Health had reviewed the application and considered that any impact could be mitigated subject to the conditions. It was also noted that there were a number of developments in the area near the highway that showed that the impact could be successfully mitigated. It was also felt that the materials should be able to withstand any impact from pollution from the highway but that there would be conditions for detailed material specifications where the durability of the materials would be taken in to account. Regarding the layout, it was noted that the proposal had been arranged and positioned in a way so as to minimise any impacts. The plans would also facilitate the provision of court yard space and door step play space within the social housing block. The viability of the proposals had been tested and it was found that any changes to the layout or the inclusion of additional family sized units would impact the viability of the scheme.
Members also asked questions about the design of the scheme and whether this could be reviewed including the colour of the proposal. Officers explained some of the features of the design and its merits. It could be considered such features would result in a high quality proposal. Nevertheless, the detailed material specification would be considered at the point of discharging the conditions.
The Committee also asked questions about the impact on infrastructure in the local area from the increase in population from the development. It was felt that the proposals would place additional pressures on services such as health practices that were already operating at a capacity. In response, officers explained that the proposals fully complied with the requirements in terms of the provision of contributions for infrastructure. Whilst there was no requirement in the site allocation to provide a health practice, other developments coming forward in the housing zone might provide such facilities.
In view of the above issues, the Committee asked whether part of the commercial floor space could be converted into a health care facility. Officers reported that an informative could be added to the permission requesting that the applicant explore the feasibility of providing such a unit.
The Committee also sought assurances about the measures to improve the connectivity of the area given the public transport rating (PTAL). Members also asked about the phasing of the development and expressed comments about the child yield predictions over the long term. It was reported that the application would be one of the first developments to come forward within the Housing Zone area and that the regeneration of the wider area should improve the connectivity of the area as well as provide measures to mitigate air quality issues. Furthermore, it was likely that the provision of a new bridge, if it were to come forward should improve the PTAL rating of the site. Regarding the phasing plans, it was planned to deliver a number of the blocks under the first phase; the affordable housing would be split equally between the first and second phases and the majority of open space and child play space would be delivered in the first phase.
In response to further questions from the Committee, Officers provided assurances about the impact on the water supply infrastructure, the accessibility of the gym and the retail unit, health and safety measures in view of high voltage cable at the boundary of the application site, and also the rent levels for the intermediate housing.
On a vote of 6 in favour 0 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That subject to any direction by the London Mayor planning permission be GRANTED at Ailsa Wharf, Ailsa Street, London for the demolition of existing structures/buildings and the redevelopment of the site for a mixed use scheme providing 785 residential units (C3) and 2,954 sqm GIA commercial floorspace (A1/A3/B1/D2) within a series of thirteen building blocks varying between 3 and 17 storeys (Maximum AOD height of 59.88m); the creation of a new access road and the realignment of Ailsa Street; the provision of safeguarded land for a bridge landing; the provision of cycle and car parking spaces; and associated site-wide landscaping and public realm works(PA/16/02692): subject to
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the Committee report:
3. That the Corporate Director for Place is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within delegated authority. If within three months of the resolution the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director for Place is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
4. That the Corporate Director for Place is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters in the Committee report
Supporting documents: