Agenda item
5 Hollybush Place, London E2 9QX (PA/16/02713)
Minutes:
An update report was tabled and in his introduction the Development Manager informed the Committee that a late representation and request to speak had been made by an objector which concerned the failure to provide suitable replacement premises for a builder’s merchant which was currently operating from the site. The Chair advised that the request had been assessed and since the objection concerned a material planning matter, he had exercised his discretion to grant permission to address the Committee. In accordance with Development procedure rules around speaking at Committee, the applicant was then also permitted to address the Committee and respond to the concerns raised. Development Manager then introduced the report which concerned the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of land to provide 55 residential units over two blocks comprising 1x6 storey building (Building B) and one part 5 and part 7 storey building (Building A) and the provision of 1625 m² (GIA) of commercial floor-space (class B1) at the lower ground and ground level with raised podium and associated landscaping, access and cycle parking at 5 Hollybush Place London E2.
The Committee heard from the Planning Case Officer who informed Members of relevant matters. These were; affordable housing tenure of 35.5%, play space, a S106 offer to mitigate loss of daylight to the nearby allotments and loss of the premises of a builders merchant. 11 objections had been received out of the consultation; these concerned car parking for visitors, amenity and proposed use of the ground floor commercial area. The loss of a builders merchant had been assessed as acceptable since commercial space would be very provided in the block in the ground and lower ground floors and the existing builders merchant would be re-accommodated on an equivalent site elsewhere in the borough.
The Chair then invited the registered speakers to address the committee Mr Pinney made representations on behalf of builders merchant Travis Perkins assisted by Ms A Fenton. Mr Pinney informed the Committee that:
- Travis Perkins was a local business. It provided building materials for local use and was also a local employer. The loss of use of the current site was detrimental to the locality and fed into to a broader pattern of loss of essential services in London.
- The Council was acting contrary to policy DM15 which stated that development should not result in the loss of active and viable employment
- Travis Perkins lease agreement on the site was yet valid for 6 years
- Referencing paragraph 10.10 of the report he contended that Travis Perkins had undertaken meaningful engagement with the applicant but relocation sites offered by the applicant had not been suitable for their business. Notwithstanding, Travis Perkins welcomed the opportunity to engage properly and did not object to the proposal to redevelop if provision of a builder's yard in the locality could be retained.
The Committee then heard from agent Mr Brewer. He made the following submission:
- Since 2012, the applicant had attempted to facilitate the retention of Travis Perkins on the site or its relocation within the borough. Discussions around remaining at the current site failed to progress and therefore the applicant explored if there were suitable alternative sites. However, it had not been possible to pursue these options since Travis Perkins had not taken up opportunities to engage.
- The scheme met the Council's policy on design and employment; additionally the applicant was still committed to finding an alternative site for Travis Perkins as a condition of the application.
The Chair noting the information provided, observed that it was not in the Committee's gift to adjudicate on a tenant-landlord matter. The Committee then questioned each of the speakers and in response, they provided the following information.
The Planning Case Officer informed the Committee:
- The existing use as a builder’s yard was not a Class B1 or B2 use (those which policy DM15 seeks to protect), but is a use on its own, known as “sui-generis”. Officers acknowledged that it does generate some employment.
- . The application would provide uplift in overall employment space, falling within class B1 and therefore suitable for a variety of small and medium businesses to occupy.
- That the pre-application discussions in 2015 had explored how accommodation for Travis Perkins could be provided but subsequently it had not been possible to pursue this option. Later there was some discussion on relocation.
- Given the specialist nature of the builders yard, accommodation of such use on site would require a bespoke design and certainty that it would be occupied. A joint application would have provided greater certainty in this respect.
- The architect advised that he had met Travis Perkins in 2012. Then, in December 2015 a pre-application had been submitted but there was no feedback from Travis Perkins. There were also concerns around the viability of a mixed site therefore the emphasis switched from re-accommodation to relocation. Alternative sites have been offered at Caroline Street and Ailsa Wharf but Travis Perkins had not responded to the applicant on these proposals. Notwithstanding the applicant still wished to engage. The last meaningful engagement with Travis Perkins had taken place in 2015 at which time a scheme to relocate to Ailsa Wharf.
- The details of the proposal were contained in the design and access statement (prepared by Stockwool Architects), these were background documents to the report.
- The impacts of the remaining time on the lease on the application were not a planning consideration but a matter for the landlord (the applicant) and tenant (Travis Perkins).
- Play space and amenity space would be accessible by social housing and private residents
- The proposed workspace provision was to be located in a single-storey podium building and on the ground floor. Usage intended was as flexible workspace in categories B1 and B1 aimed at "City fringe" area and SMEs.
- Management of allotment gardens be the responsibility of the Council since S106 monies could not be given directly to third parties.
Mr Pinney and Ms Fenton informed the Committee:
- That concerning the extent of the consultation; the Property Director at Travis Perkins had not been approached for consultation.
- Sui generis use, such as that operated by Travis Perkins, was protected under the current London Plan.
- The applicant had not offered Travis Perkins viable alternative locations.
- A viable alternative location would be in the range of 1 mile from the current premises.
- Upon evaluation, Officers had recommended that the application be approved because; although there was pertinent concern around the loss of industrial usage, the land itself was not industrial land but part of the City Fringe Opportunity Area. Therefore the Council was looking to create more employment density. Additionally there was an overriding consideration to optimise development on a site.
Mr Brewer informed the Committee:
- The application provided increased employment and space and complied with the London Plan in regard to design quality affordable provision mixed use development sustainable ability and environmental factors.
- The London Plan 2016; this was the plan presently in force.
Before the vote was taken the Legal Officer advised on how committee should deal with three matters (1) the draft London plan was to be given little or no weight (2) the local finance considerations referred to in the report (on the facts) were not to be taken into account as the amounts of CIL and NHB were not to be spent solely in the area (3) the commercial relationship between the applicant and the builders merchants was governed by other legislation and it was not the role of the committee to decide on those issues.
There being no further matters to discuss, the Chair proposed that Members vote on the officer recommendation to approve the application and on a vote of 4 in favour and 1 against, the Committee
RESOLVED
That the application for demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the land to provide 55 residential units over two blocks comprising one 6 storey building (Building B) and one part 5 and part 7 storey building (Building A) and the provision of 1625 sqm (GIA) of commercial floorspace (Class B1) at lower ground and ground level, with raised podium and associated landscaping, access and cycle parking at 5 Hollybush Place, E2 BE GRANTED subject to conditions.
Conditions
1) Three year time limit
2) Compliance with approved plans and documents
3) Wheelchair adaptable and wheelchair accessible dwellings
4) Provision of approved cycle storage
5) Compliance with Energy Statement(with further details)
6) Hours of construction
7) Communal amenity/child play space to be completed prior to occupation
8) Delivery and Service Management Plan
9) Scheme of Highway Improvement Works
10) Secure by Design accreditation
11) Full details of hard and soft landscaping, including boundary treatment, play equipment and lighting
12) Details of noise and vibration mitigation measures
13) Noise insulation
14) Noise from plant
15) Air quality emission standards for boilers and CHP
16) Mechanical ventilation
17) Details of biodiversity mitigation measures including green roof
18) Car Permit Free
19) Wheelchair accessible car parking
20) Samples and details of all facing materials
21) Details of piling, all below ground works and mitigation of ground borne noise
22) Surface Water Drainage Scheme
23) Restrictions on demolition and construction activities
24) Potential land contamination
25) Details of boundary treatments
26) Water efficiency
Pre-Commencement Conditions:
1) Construction and Environment Management Plan
Financial contributions:
1) A contribution of £30,000towards improvements to theallotment to facilitate better utilisation of their site
2) A contribution of £21,180 towards employment, skills, training for construction job opportunities
3) A contribution of £45,581towards the training and development of unemployed residents
4) A contribution of £109,920towardscarbon off-setting to zero carbon
5) A contribution of£3,000towards monitoring (£500 per s106 HoT’s)compliance with the legal agreement.
Total-£210,181
Non-financial contributions:
a) Affordable housing (17 residential units)
b) Section 278 highways improvements
c) Access to employment
– 20% Local Procurement
– 20% Local Labour in Construction
– 2 construction phase apprenticeships
d) Car-permit free agreement
e) Any other contributions considered necessary by the Corporate Director Of Place
Any other conditions considered necessary by the Corporate Director of Place
Informatives:
1) Thames Water –GroundwaterRisk Management Permit, minimum pressure/flow rate and a Thames Water main crossing the site.
2) Building Control
3) S.278
4) Fire & Emergency
5) Footway and Carriageway
6) CIL
7) Designing out Crime
Any other informatives considered necessary by the Corporate Director of Place.
Supporting documents: