Agenda item
Chrisp Street Market, Chrisp Street, London (PA/16/01612)
Proposal:
Comprehensive redevelopment of the site (including existing car park) comprising the demolition of existing buildings with the exception of the Festival of Britain buildings, Clock Tower and Idea Store; erection of 19 new buildings ranging from 3 to 25 storeys (up to a maximum AOD height of 88m) providing 643 residential units (C3 Use Class) (including re-provision of the124 existing affordable residential units); existing market enhancement, including new canopy and service building; refurbishment of retained Festival of Britain buildings; reconfiguration and replacement of existing and provision of new commercial uses including new cinema (D2 Use Class); alterations and additions to existing Idea Store for flexible community/ affordable office space use (D1/B1 Use Class); office space (B1 use class); retail, financial and professional services and café/ restaurant floor space (A1 - A3 Use Class), including A1 food store; public house (A4 Use Class); hot food takeaway floor space (A5 Use Class); upgrade and provision of new public open space including child play space; new public realm, landscaping works and new lighting; cycle parking spaces (including new visitor cycle parking); and provision of disabled car parking spaces.
Recommendation:
That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, planning permission is APPROVED subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Planning Services) introduced the application for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site comprising the demolition of existing buildings (with the exception of the Festival of Britain buildings, Clock Tower and Idea Store) for the erection of new residential buildings (including the re-provision of the existing affordable residential units); existing market enhancement, the reconfiguration, replacement and provision of new commercial uses and associated works.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Objector’s case
Mr Murtuza Hasanie (local trader), Sue Brian and Terry Mcgrenera (local residents) addressed the Committee. Concern was expressed about the planning application documents, especially the applicant’s transport study in respect of the need for customer parking spaces. They questioned its methodology and that it was carried out independently. Their own survey showed that most of the trips to the market were car born. Businesses and customers relied on these spaces so it would adversely affect them. They also expressed concern about the loss of existing services in view of the absence of a written agreement guaranteeing ‘like for like’ services for traders and the loss of trade during the construction phase.
It was also considered that there was a lack of consultation and engagement over the plans. A ballot of residents should have been carried out in compliance with the Mayor of London’s requirements in respect of estate regeneration.
There would also be a lack of social and affordable housing particularly for the existing residents under the proposed equity share option leading to the displacement of leaseholders. Steps should be taken to increase the level of affordable housing.
The proposal would also harm residential amenity late at night due to the increase in establishments such as restaurants that could apply for a late night license.
Concern was also expressed about the loss of the existing shops and the need for the new shops and cinema etc.
In response to Members questions, they clarified their concerns about the applicant’s parking study. It was considered that the organisation that conducted the survey had been appointed to negotiate with traders rather than carry out a survey. They also stressed the need for like for like services especially loading bays with suitable delivery times for smaller traders and customer car parking to meet current business needs.
They also responded to questions about the loss of residents homes, the affordability of the new units, the impact of the proposal on residential amenity and the adequacy of the consultation.
Councillor James King addressed the Committee. He considered that the viability assessment should be reviewed to better understand the risks and to maximise the amount of affordable housing that could reasonable be provided. He answered questions from Members about the discrepancies in the various viability appraisals submitted to the Council and the GLA.
Applicant’s case.
Scott Hudson, (Planning consultant), Steve Stride (Poplar HARCA) and Shabel Khan (local resident), spoke in support of the application. They confirmed that the plans had been updated since the February 2018 Committee meeting as set out in the Committee report. There would be more affordable housing, over and above what was currently on site. This included two and three bed affordable units. There would be no net loss of social housing. There would also be no increase in A4 drinking establishments. Furthermore, the car parking plans complied with policy. Additional on street pay and display bays could potentially be provided. The scheme would deliver a wide range of community benefits, including a variety of shops, a new market place with enhanced facilities, a family orientated night time economy, jobs and a guaranteed space for the post office. Further consultation had been carried out. The feedback indicated that there was widespread support for the proposals.
In response to Members questions, the speakers explained in further detail the scope of their engagement with the market traders and residents. They also highlighted their reasons for providing a number of 2-3 bed affordable units rather than 5 bed units. Judging by the housing waiting list, these types of units were most in demand in the Borough. The housing mix broadly complied with policy.
There would be measures to assist existing traders, such as the provision of rent concessions over a number of years. It was planned that the new development would accommodate a diverse mix of both new and existing businesses and give local people a greater choice of services.
The car parking plans, including the loss of parking spaces, complied with policy as shown by the applicant’s independent review. The plans would help reduce air pollution. The plans and would be kept under review.
The speakers also provided reassurances about the decantation strategy, including the equity review option for existing residents. This had worked well elsewhere. They also answered questions about the affordable housing review mechanism, and the establishment of a liaison forum to discuss and resolve issues with people with a direct interest in the scheme.
Presentation.
Graham Harrington (Planning Services) presented the application describing the site and the character of the surrounding area. The Committee were also advised of the relevant policy site designations and the key features of the application in terms of the layout, the building heights and massing. They also noted verified views of the proposal from the surrounding area.
Consultation had been carried out. The number of representations received for and against and the nature of the objections were noted.
Members were advised that this application for planning permission was considered by the Strategic Development Committee on 15th February 2018.
The application was recommended for approval. However, members resolved to defer the application for further consideration and information on the following issues:
• The level of affordable housing being provided.
• The applicant’s consultation with the local community.
• The increase in A4 (Drinking Establishments) in terms of the measures to mitigate any adverse impact from such uses.
• The measures to safeguard the Post Office within the development.
• Details of car parking plans.
In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the application was deferred to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee addressing the above issues. It was not possible to bring the application back to the Committee before the 2018 Local Election, so it was necessary to bring it back as a new application to the Committee.
The Committee noted the amendments to the application and the further information supplied since that meeting addressing the above issues.
In land use terms, the proposal complied with policy. The applicant had revised the application to remove the proposed additional pub/bar and instead proposed that Unit 301 would be used for A3 purposes (Café/Restaurant). This meant that the application now before the Committee would not result in a net increase in A4 (Drinking Establishments) uses.
The applicant had also confirmed that as part of this purchase, it had entered into a contract with Post Office Ltd such that it had the option of taking a lease and occupying one of two proposed ground floor spaces. The Post Office had withdrawn its previous objection to the application and it could continue to operate during the construction phase.
It was noted that there would be some loss of office floor space, but an overall increase in good quality commercial space. There were also measures to help existing community facilities relocate and to retain the Police Station as set out in the Planning obligations.
The density of the proposal complied with the guidance in the London Plan
There would be a net gain in affordable housing compared to what was on site already. This represented 35.8% of the housing mix by habitable room and a net increase of 11.9% affordable units. There would be an overprovision of one bed affordable units and a slight under provision of 3 and 4 bed units. The units would be of a good quality and the overall housing mix broadly complied with policy.
The density of the proposal complied with the requirements in the London Plan. The child play space met the policy standards.
The application scheme would be car free (with the exception of 10 blue badge spaces for disabled residents within the site). The proposed car parking provision, including the loss of the existing car park, was supported by the Mayor of London and TfL. There was potential to provide additional on street pay and display spaces for visitors to the market. However to secure this, an agreement would need to be reached with the Council and the applicant, in consultation with residents.
The proposal would not significantly adversely impact the amenity of surrounding residents and building occupiers. Therefore, the proposed development was in accordance with relevant policy and thus acceptable in amenity terms in view of the urban setting.
Contributions had been secured as set out in the committee report.
Officers were recommending that the proposal be granted planning permission.
Committee’s questions.
In response to the presentation, the Committee asked questions about the affordable housing and the operation of the viability review mechanism to secure more affordable housing if possible. The Committee also sought assurances about the number of affordable units including the number of larger family units and the grant support for the scheme.
Members also asked questions about: the amenity impacts on the surrounding residents and the Lansbury Lawrence School, the retention of the Festival of Britain buildings, the heritage issues, fire safety matters, the micro climate measures and the consultation carried out with the tenants and leaseholders.
In responding, Officers explained the process for carrying out the viability assessment and the proposed schedule for the reviews at various stages of the scheme. It was also explained that the issues in respect of the deficit would need be addressed, before additional affordable housing could be sought in line with the requirements.
It was confirmed that the scheme would result in a net increase in affordable housing compared to what was on the site already– in addition to the retained festival of Britain buildings. Officers were satisfied with the number of family sized units being provided given that the number of two to three bed units only just fell marginally short of the policy targets. It was also confirmed that since the February meeting, the GLA had provided grant funding for additional affordable units. The Council also would explore the option of providing funding for additional Tower Hamlets Living rent units. It was also noted that any further increase in the grant support for the affordable housing could have negative consequences on the level of affordable housing.
It was also confirmed that the impacts on amenity in terms of sunlight and daylight would mostly be minor in nature and on the whole be acceptable. It should be noted that in some instances, particularly in respect of 10 Chrisp Street, the impacts could be attributed to the design of the developments themselves due to the position of balconies that shaded windows underneath. Whilst the Lansbury Lawrence School would experience a slight loss of light, the impact was found to be acceptable. The school had been consulted and had raised no objections about the plans. The Council assessment had been independently reviewed
It was confirmed that the design of the scheme would be of a high quality. It had taken it’s references from the surrounding buildings. The impact on the Festival of Britain buildings should be a positive one. There was a condition requiring that details of the materials be submitted.
There would be measures to reduce the carbon emissions. This included financial contributions for carbon offsetting. Officers were satisfied that the applicant had done all that they could in respect of this matter.
Responsibility for the fire safety was a matter for the building control department, but it was noted that the applicant would install sprinkler systems.
The applicant had carried out a lot of consultation with the tenants and leaseholders and with the GLA. All in all, officers consider that the applicant had carried out high quality and thorough consultation on its proposals at both the pre-application and application stages. The requirement to ballot residents only came into effect recently following the completion of the scheme. Therefore, it did not apply to this scheme as it could not be applied retrospectively
Overall, it was considered that the applicant has addressed the issues raised at the February meeting and that the proposals complied with policy.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, Planning permission be GRANTED at Chrisp Street Market, Chrisp Street, London for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site (the full description of the proposal is set out in the Committee report) (PA/16/01612)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 authority 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 authority to impose
conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the
matters set out in the Committee report:
5. Any other condition(s) and/or informatives as considered necessary by the Corporate Director for Place.
Supporting documents: