Issue - meetings
Stroudley Walk market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 3EW - Outline Application
Meeting: 16/08/2012 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 6)
6 Stroudley Walk Market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 3EW - Outline Application (PA/10/00373) PDF 85 KB
Additional documents:
- Stroudley Walk Outline Report FINAL, 05/07/2012 Strategic Development Committee, item 6
PDF 1 MB
- UPDATE REPORT 5th July 2012, item 6
PDF 104 KB
Decision:
On a vote of 3 for and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That the Officer recommendation to refuse the application be NOT ACCEPTED and that outline planning permission for demolition and redevelopment works at Stroudley Walk Market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 (PA/10/373) be GRANTED for the following reasons:
- On balance, the benefits of regenerating Stroudley Walk and the proposed amount of affordable housing, replacement of existing affordable housing stock and mix of units, as demonstrated through viability assessment is considered acceptable. As such, the proposal is in line with policies 3.8, 8.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13 of the London Plan (2011), saved policy HSG7 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (1998), policies HSG2 and HSG3 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007); policy SP02 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010); and DM3 of the Draft Managing Development DPD 2011 which seek to ensure that new developments offer a range of housing choices.
- Whilst the s106 package falls significantly short of the required amount for a development of this scale, the Council accept that the applicant’s offer in light of the viability constraints identified in this proposal. The provision of affordable housing, alongside other regenerative benefits, the s106 package is considered to be acceptable in line with Regulation 122 of Community Infrastructure Levy 2010, saved policy DEV4 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, policies SP02 and SP13 of the Core Strategy 2010, which seek to secure contributions towards infrastructure and services required to facilitate the proposed development.
(2) That such planning permission be subject to the agreement of the S106 package as set out in the Committee report and to any direction by the Mayor of London.
(3) That the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
The Chair indicated that the planning applications set out in agenda items 6.1 and 6.2 would be considered concurrently, as they related to the same site, but with a separate vote on each.
Councillor Peter Golds stated that he had been a member of the Committee at the last meeting and had participated in the vote on these applications. He noted that negative comments regarding his participation had been made on a local blog and referred the matter to the Legal Officer. Ms Megan Nugent, Legal Services Team Leader, stated that she would take the matter into serious consideration. Councillor Golds added that he would be referring the issue to the Monitoring Officer. The Chair confirmed that this matter would be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, briefly introduced the applications for outline and full planning permission at Stroudley Walk Market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 3EW, which Officers had been minded to refuse, whilst Members had not been happy to accept those recommendations.
Mr Jerry Bell, Strategic Applications Manager, made a further brief presentation on the details of the applications.
The Chair commented that there had been a very detailed discussion at the last meeting, with many Members’ questions on all aspects of the applications. He indicated, therefore, that the Committee should proceed to vote in the light of the supplementary reports and the recommended reasons for approval.
On a vote of 3 for and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That the Officer recommendation to refuse the application be NOT ACCEPTED and that outline planning permission for demolition and redevelopment works at Stroudley Walk Market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 (PA/10/373) be GRANTED for the following reasons:
- On balance, the benefits of regenerating Stroudley Walk and the proposed amount of affordable housing, replacement of existing affordable housing stock and mix of units, as demonstrated through viability assessment is considered acceptable. As such, the proposal is in line with policies 3.8, 8.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13 of the London Plan (2011), saved policy HSG7 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (1998), policies HSG2 and HSG3 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007); policy SP02 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010); and DM3 of the Draft Managing Development DPD 2011 which seek to ensure that new developments offer a range of housing choices.
- Whilst the s106 package falls significantly short of the required amount for a development of this scale, the Council accept that the applicant’s offer in light of the viability constraints identified in this proposal. The provision of affordable housing, alongside other regenerative benefits, the s106 package is considered to be acceptable in line with Regulation 122 of Community Infrastructure Levy 2010, saved policy DEV4 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan 1998, policies SP02 and SP13 of the Core Strategy 2010, which seek to secure contributions towards infrastructure and services required to facilitate the proposed development.
(2) That such planning permission be subject to the agreement of the S106 package ... view the full minutes text for item 6
Meeting: 05/07/2012 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 7)
7 Stroudley Walk Market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 3EW - Outline Application (PA/10/00373) PDF 1 MB
Decision:
Update Report tabled.
On a vote of 3 for and 5 against, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to refuse outline planning permission (PA/10/00373) at Stroudley Walk Market, Stroudley Walk, London, E3 3EW, be NOT ACCEPTED for the following reasons:
(1) The need to carry out improvements to the existing housing stock on the estate is paramount for the benefit of residents.
(2) Whilst current market conditions are not ideal to ensure viable education and health provision, the applicant has indicated a willingness to accept the financial risks involved in completing the scheme and the other benefits associated with the scheme outweigh the failure to meet the planning obligation requirements associated with the development.
(3) The overall gain in social housing provision that will accrue from this particular proposal, taking account of viability considerations, is enough to help address the current housing problems in the Borough.
(4) The Committee takes the view that weight should be afforded to other non-financial considerations the development can bring as mitigating factors and is prepared to accept the current S106 offer accordingly.
(5) The Committee accepts that it must be mindful of its responsibilities to ensure that proposed development is sustainable but considers that maintaining current housing conditions associated with this particular estate is not sustainable and neither is it sustainable for existing residents if the site is left undeveloped.
NOTE: The Committee further agreed that a condition should be added to the proposed scheme requiring retail units to be retained in the current format of several smaller units, rather than amalgamating them into one large unit.
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 approval, S106 details and conditions, along with the implications of the decision.
Minutes:
The Chair indicated that the planning applications set out in agenda items 7.1 and 7.2 would be considered concurrently, as they related to the same site, but with a separate vote on each.
Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, introduced the Committee reports and update reports regarding planning applications for the redevelopment of Stroudley Walk Market, London, E3 3EW (PA/10/00373 and PA/10/00374).
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Mr Atta, a local shopkeeper, spoke in objection to the application, expressing the view that the applications showed no consideration for the needs of local residents and contained inadequate space for children to play or the elderly to meet. Such space should be protected. More business units were needed, rather than less, and it was unclear if existing businesses would be able to return after works were completed. People did not want another Manhattan but it would be possible to accommodate everyone if space was used properly. The present proposal meant that people would be crammed into the area like sardines. He commented that he was making general criticisms of the scheme but there were many matters of detail that were unsatisfactory, including parking and other issues. A number of petitions had been raised against the proposals and people were not happy with the scheme. He stated that he was not against redevelopment of the area but a wise development was needed.
In response to questions from Members, Mr Atta stated that:
- There would be less retail units than at present and the proposals showed no interest in the business sector, just housing. In addition, his premises were next to a school with 800 pupils but there was nowhere for them to meet.
- Present parking problems included the fact that it was not even possible to load and unload vehicles. His car could be clamped and towed away after four minutes. Only Poplar HARCA took such action and more flexibility was needed rather than simply ticketing or towing vehicles.
- More working people were needed in the area, as 70-90% unemployment rates was no good for trade. If more businesses were allowed to operate, they would generate employment.
Ms Shopna Begum, speaking in support of the applications, stated that she had been a resident in the area for over 15 years and had three children in an overcrowded property. It was common to see from her home crowds of drunken people on Stroudley Walk. The area was run down and residents were afraid to walk there after dark because of groups of youths, vandalism and anti-social behaviour. There needed to be regeneration as people could not continue to live like that. The place was a slum, with dilapidated buildings. The scheme must go through and a new look to the area would help address anti-social behaviour. Local residents had lost hope with no action having been taken despite over five years’ discussions. She asked the Committee to approve the applications accordingly.
In response to questions from ... view the full minutes text for item 7