Issue - meetings
City
Meeting: 18/07/2013 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 6)
Additional documents:
- City Pride appendix 1, item 6
PDF 855 KB
- City Pride appendix 2, item 6
PDF 1 MB
- City Pride appendix 3, item 6
PDF 74 KB
Decision:
Update Report Tabled
· City Pride Public House, 15 Westferry Road, London, E14 8JH PA/12/03248
On a vote of 3 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 3 against and with the Chair using his casting vote in favour of approval, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission (PA/12/03248) at City Pride Public House, 15 Westferry Road, London, E14 8JH be GRANTED for the erection of residential (Class C3) led mixed use 75 storey tower (239mAOD) comprising 822 residential units and 162 serviced apartments (Class C1), and associated amenity floors, roof terrace, basement car parking, cycle storage and plant, together with an amenity pavilion including retail (Class A1-A4) and open space SUBJECT to:
2. Any direction by The London Mayor
3. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the committee report of 13th June 2013.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within normal delegated authority.
5. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose condition(s) and informative(s) on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the committee report of 13th June 2013.
6. Any other conditions(s) and informative(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal
7. That, if within 3 months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
· Island Point, Site At 443 to 451, Westferry Road, LondonPA/12/03247
On a vote of 4 in favour and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission (PA/12/03247) at Island Point, Site at 443 to 451, Westferry Road, London be GRANTED for the erection of buildings ranging in height from 3 to 5 storeys with rooftop pavillions rising to 6 storeys, providing 173 residential units (Use Class C3) with underground parking, open space, plant and associated community building (Class D1) SUBJECT to:
2. Any direction by The London Mayor
3. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the committee report of 13th June 2013.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within normal delegated authority.
5. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose condition(s) and informative(s) on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the committee report of 13th June 2013.
6. Any other conditions(s) and informative(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal
7. That, if within 3 months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Zara Davis, Dr Emma Jones, Marc Francis, Md. Miah Maium and Kabir Ahmed.
Councillor Carlo Gibbs left the meeting for the consideration of these items ... view the full decision text for item 6
Minutes:
Councillor Carlo Gibbs left the meeting for the consideration of these items (6.1, City Pride and Island Point) as he had not been present at the previous meeting of the Committee on 13th June 2013 where the applications were initially considered.
Update Report Tabled
Owen Whalley (Service Head, Planning and Building Control) introduced the items regarding the City Pride Public House for a new residential 75 storey tower and the linked Island Point scheme providing 173 residential unitsand associated works.
Beth Eite (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and update. The Committee were reminded that at the previous 13th June 2013 meeting of the Committee, Members were minded to refuse the City Pride scheme due to concerns over the height and scale, density, public open space and segregated housing mix. The Committee also considered the linked Island Point scheme and decided to defer this scheme in view of its links with the City Pride scheme.
Officers had since considered the Committee’s reasons and had drafted suggested reasons for refusal as set out in the report for the two schemes.
Officers addressed each proposed reason offering their professional opinion on their strength and the applicant’s views on them.
- Height of the City Pride scheme. The applicant had given further consideration to reducing the height of the scheme to that of the extant scheme. However, their assessment confirmed that this would result in a significant loss of affordable housing at the Island Point site due to the loss of profit and reduced viability.
- Lack of open space. It was considered the plans in this regard met policy requirements. The scheme at City Pride included amenity floors and a pavilion and overall provided higher levels of amenity space than the extant scheme. This was proportionate to the increase in population. The scheme was also delivering contributions for open space elsewhere to mitigate the lack of space to fully provide this on site. This approach was supported in policy.
- Segregation in housing tenures. It was considered that the benefits for Island Point in terms of the level of affordable housing and amenity space justified the proposed housing split across the two sites. Should the schemes be brought forward with mixed tenures, there would be a substantial reduction in affordable housing due to loss of profit, as shown by the viability testing.
- Density. The applicant had also addressed the issue of density and explained that there was no harm caused by the density of the development.
In response, some support was expressed for the Island Point scheme given the level of affordable housing.
In response to questions, it was reported that there was a possibility that the application may be called in by the London Mayor and determined in accordance with his own policies. However, there had been no indication that the Greater London Authority intended to do this. There was a full s106 that complied with policy to mitigate the impact on infrastructure. Therefore, any refusal on this basis would be ... view the full minutes text for item 6