Issue - meetings
Betty May Gray House and St Johns House, Pier Street, London, E14 (PA/12/01803)
Meeting: 12/12/2012 - Development Committee (Item 7)
7 Betty May Gray House and St Johns House, Pier Street, London, E14 (PA/12/01803) PDF 907 KB
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
On a vote of 2 for 1 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission Betty May Gray House and St Johns House, Pier Street, London, E14 (PA/12/01803) be GRANTED for the regeneration of the Betty May Gray Estate including the refurbishment of existing homes, provision of new homes and replacement of St John's homes subject to:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report;
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report;
5. That if, within three months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader) introduced the report at Betty May Gray House and St Johns House, Pier Street, London, E14.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the meeting.
Councillor Peter Golds addressed the meeting as the ward Councillor for the site location. A key concern was the density that was in excess of policy. The Isle of Dogs area was already overdeveloped. There would be a lack of infrastructure in the area to support the scheme, (i.e lack of roads, schools etc). The s106 was inadequate to mitigate the impact of the scheme. Betty May Gray House was an outstanding landmark on the island. Whilst it needed work, this scheme was inappropriate. It was not the solution given: the loss of trees, the inappropriate terraces, design etc.
Councillor Golds had spoken to the residents of the Betty May Gray House and he could not find any resident that supported it. The application should be refused and referred back to the applicant for further amendment.
John Walton the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the scheme. The applicant had been in consultation with the Council and the community since 2011 regarding the application. The applicant had carefully consulted the residents with regular meetings and had listened to their concerns. The feedback was positive and the residents appeared to support the scheme. He was therefore surprised by the comments that no one from the Betty May Gray House supported the scheme. There were measures to minimise disruption which he listed.
He highlighted the benefits. The scheme sought to provide modern fit for purpose units. This including modernising and providing new older persons units so they complied with modern standards. As well as providing them with greater choice (in terms of tenure options). It would create a new area of open space for residents. The present space was of poor quality. The proposal would be car free. There would be no loss of parking for existing residents. The scheme was fully viable given the GLA grant and private sale units.
Overall it would greatly regenerate the site with superior housing, landscaping and open space. The proposal should be granted.
In reply to Members, Mr Walton referred to the plans to replace the community centre on the existing site. The new facility would be open to the public to use.
Nasser Farooq (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report. He described the site layout and the existing use. He described the plans to demolish the buildings, the new buildings, the proposed housing mix, the plans for transferring occupants and the design and materials.
In response to the consultation, 5 letters of objection had been received. Mr Farooq addressed the concerns and the material issues.
In terms of daylight, most of the properties tested fell within an acceptable range and therefore complied with policy. A small number would see slightly greater losses. However, due the circumstances, it was considered that the impact on such properties was acceptable. ... view the full minutes text for item 7