Issue - meetings
100 Whitechapel road and land rear at Fieldgate Street & Vine Court (PA/13/3049)
Meeting: 29/01/2015 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 6)
6 100 Whitechapel Road and land rear at Fieldgate Street (PA/13/3049) PDF 3 MB
Proposal:
Demolition of existing vehicle workshop and car showroom; erection of a residential development comprising a total of 185 dwellings (comprising 10 studios; 65 x 1 bed; 71 x 2 bed; 27 x 3 bed; 12 x 4 bed) in an 18 storey building facing Fieldgate Street; and 2 buildings ranging in height from 8-12 storey building facing Whitechapel Road and Vine Court, provision of ground floor retail, office and restaurant spaces (Class A1, A2 and A3), café (A3); 274.9 sqm extension to the prayer hall at the East London Mosque and provision of pedestrian link between Fieldgate Street and Whitechapel Road, extension to existing basement to provide 20 disabled car parking spaces, motorcycle spaces, 360 bicycle parking spaces and bin storage in basement, associated landscape and public realm works.
Recommendation:
To REFUSE the application for the reasons set out in the Committee Report.
Additional documents:
- Fieldgate Street- committee report (final rev 2) agenda, 21/07/2014 Strategic Development Committee, item 6
PDF 1 MB
- Update Report, item 6
PDF 106 KB
Decision:
Update Report tabled.
Officers reported that the application had been moved from the deferred items part of the agenda (Part 5) to the Planning Applications for Decision section (Part 6) due to the substantial changes made to the application since last considered by the Committee in July 2014. The application would be considered in its entirety afresh. The application had been subject to consultation (as per the standard process) and the public and applicant had been notified of their right to speak at this meeting.
On a vote of 2 in favour and 6 against the Committee resolved not to accept the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission.
Councillors Khales Uddin Ahmed, seconded by Councillor Muhammad Ansar Mustaquim moved a motion that the application be granted subject to the legal agreement and conditions set out in the update report.
On a vote of 6 in favour 0 against and 2 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission PA/13/3049 at 100 Whitechapel road and land rear at Fieldgate Street & Vine Court be GRANTED for the Demolition of existing vehicle workshop and car showroom; erection of a residential development comprising a total of 185 dwellings (comprising 10 studios; 65 x 1 bed; 71 x 2 bed; 27 x 3 bed; 12 x 4 bed) in an 18 storey building facing Fieldgate Street; and 2 buildings ranging in height from 8-12 storey building facing Whitechapel Road and Vine Court, provision of ground floor retail, office and restaurant spaces (Class A1, A2 and A3), café (A3); 274.9 sqm extension to the prayer hall at the East London Mosque and provision of pedestrian link between Fieldgate Street and Whitechapel Road, extension to existing basement to provide 20 disabled car parking spaces, motorcycle spaces, 360 bicycle parking spaces and bin storage in basement, associated landscape and public realm works SUBJECT to the Section 106 Agreement and conditions set out in the update report.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Officers reported that the application had been moved from the deferred items part of the agenda (Part 5) to the Planning Applications for Decision section (Part 6) due to the substantial changes made to the application since last considered by the Committee in July 2014. The application would be considered in its entirety afresh. The application had been subject to consultation (as per the standard process) and the public and applicant had been notified of their right to speak at this meeting.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application and the update and the Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Mohamed Zabadne and Councillor Shahed Ali spoke in support of the scheme highlighting the following points:
· The strength of local support for the scheme including a petition with thousands of signatures.
· The merits of the scheme including: new affordable units with family sized housing, a new access route, wheelchair accessible housing and disabled parking spaces in accordance with requirements, local investment, many new jobs, the creation of an active frontage at ground floor given the new commercial units and the extension of the Mosque that could only be provided at that point due to the site constraints.
· That the Greater London Authority (GLA) were happy with the changes to the scheme to reduce the impacts which included: the creation of the access link, setting back the buildings to improve permeability, the introduction of commercial units at ground floor level, increasing the number of family sized accommodation, a reduction in single aspect units and improving the internal layout of the buildings.
· Only three reasons for refusal remained as set out in the Officers report. Turning to these, it was commented that the height and design of the scheme would be sympathetic to the area. The height had previously been reduced. The GLA were satisfied with the height. Comments about this were subjective. The density of this scheme was within the accepted parameters in policy unlike many other consented schemes.
· Other developments, notable the City Pride development approved by this Committee, were taller than this scheme, had a higher density, included off site affordable housing and had a greater impact on sunlight and daylight. So the scheme compared favourably with this and it was surprising that Officers were still recommending refusal.
· Welcomed the s106 agreement and the level of affordable housing which despite the changes, the developer had worked hard to maintain to their credit.
In response to Members questions about the GLA’s response, it was considered that the applicant had complied with their requests. The scheme had been substantially amended to mitigate the concerns. Councillor Shahed Ali reported that he had discussed the application with local residents and they welcomed the scheme. He had not received any objections personally about the scheme from the local community and in total, very few people had objected. None of the immediate neighbours had objected.
Officers clarified that they had no objection to the density ... view the full minutes text for item 6
Meeting: 21/07/2014 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 8)
8 100 Whitechapel road and land rear at Fieldgate Street & Vine Court (PA/13/3049) PDF 677 KB
Proposal:
Demolition of existing vehicle workshop and car showroom; erection of a residential development comprising a total of 221 dwellings (comprising 46 studios; 92 x 1 bed; 52 x 2 bed; 20 x 3 bed; 11 x 4 bed) in an 18 storey building facing Fieldgate Street; and 2 buildings ranging in height from 8-12 storey building facing Whitechapel Road and Vine Court, provision of ground floor retail and restaurant spaces (Class A1 and A3), café (A3); 274.9 sqm extension to the prayer hall at the East London Mosque and provision of pedestrian link between Fieldgate Street and Whitechapel Road, extension to existing basement to provide 20 disabled car parking spaces, motorcycle spaces, 360 bicycle parking spaces and bin storage in basement, associated landscape and public realm works.
Recommendation:
That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, Planning Permission is REFUSED for the reasons set out in the Committee Report.
Decision:
Update Report tabled.
On a show of hands, with 2 voting in favour of the recommendation to refuse, the Committee resolved not to accept the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission and a motion was then put to grant permission for the application.
On a vote of 6 in favour to grant the application and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission (PA/13/3049) at 100 Whitechapel road and land rear at Fieldgate Street & Vine Court be GRANTED for the demolition of existing vehicle workshop and car showroom; erection of a residential development comprising a total of 221 dwellings (comprising 46 studios; 92 x 1 bed; 52 x 2 bed; 20 x 3 bed; 11 x 4 bed) in an 18 storey building facing Fieldgate Street; and 2 buildings ranging in height from 8-12 storey building facing Whitechapel Road and Vine Court, provision of ground floor retail and restaurant spaces (Class A1 and A3), café (A3); 274.9 sqm extension to the prayer hall at the East London Mosque and provision of pedestrian link between Fieldgate Street and Whitechapel Road, extension to existing basement to provide 20 disabled car parking spaces, motorcycle spaces, 360 bicycle parking spaces and bin storage in basement, associated landscape and public realm works Subject to:
2. Any Direction by the London Mayor.
3. The prior completion of a legal agreement that the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate and complete.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission, as necessary.
Councillor Amy Whitelock Gibbs could not vote on this item having not been present at the start of the item.
In giving reasons for their decision, the Committee considered that the scheme would provide much needed family sized housing in Whitechapel that would help families on the housing waiting list. The provision of smaller units was also welcomed given the number of smaller families and single people also in need of accommodation in the area. These benefits outweighed the concerns over the quality of the accommodation (reason 4.5 of the proposed reasons for refusal) due to the fact that the site was a landlocked site.
Whilst having regard to the concerns about the scale, form, height, appearance and layout of the scheme on the setting of the area (reason 4.3 of the report), the Committee commented that that the site fell within the boundary of the Whitechapel Vision Masterplan SPD area. This supported taller buildings in the area.
It was also considered that the standards required in terms of amenity (daylight, sunlight, privacy etc. (reasons 4.5) could not reasonably be achieved due to the confined nature of the site. In view of these issues, there needed to be some flexibility in assessing the sunlight and daylight impacts and other amenity impacts.
Furthermore, it was considered that benefits of the scheme outweighed the impact on amenity. It was also noted there had been no objections from the neighbouring Tower House.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application at 100 Whitechapel road and land to the rear at Fieldgate Street & Vine Court. The Committee previously considered the application at its April 2014 meeting where, contrary to the Officer recommendation to refuse permission, the Committee were minded to grant permission. Since that time, the Committee Membership had changed following Annual Council and it was now required to consider the application afresh.
A number of issues had been resolved since the previous Committee meeting. However Officers were still recommending a refusal due to the nature of the concerns as detailed in the Committee report.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Glenda Parkes spoke in support of the proposal highlighting the level of support for the scheme from residents, local business amongst other people and bodies. There were few representations in objection to the scheme. She highlighted the benefits of the scheme including: new jobs, the pedestrian link to improve permeability, new housing - a number with wheelchair access and the replacement of the unsightly vehicle workshop amongst other features. There had been no objections from the neighboring Tower House that would increase in value as a result of the proposal. Any development of the site would present challenges given the ‘landlocked’ nature of the site. The scheme generally complied with the sunlight and daylight requirements. The overall benefits of the scheme outweighed these impacts.
Councillor Shahed Ali spoke in support as a ward Councillor and a longstanding resident of the area. The area was of mixed character with commercial uses. He outlined the merits of the proposals in terms of the new link to improve permeability, the public realm improvements, the proposed new jobs and additional affordable housing. He considered that the housing mix was appropriate for the site with the level of smaller units. The community benefits far outweighed the concerns. The Mosque offered a range of facilities and services open to all. Everyone would therefore benefit from the expansion of the Mosque.
Councillor Abdal Asad also spoke in support of the scheme as a ward Councillor. He explained the benefits for the Tower House development. He welcomed the plans to improve permeability and the expansion of the Mosque. The previous Committee in April 2014 were minded to approve the scheme. He recommended that the Committee should also approve the scheme.
Shay Bugler (Planning Officer) gave a detailed presentation of the application highlighting the site location, the adjoining Conservation Areas, the relationship of the scheme with the nearby Tower House development, the height in relation to the surrounding buildings and the public transport rating for the site. He advised the Committee of the outcome of the public consultation on the scheme.
The principles of redevelopment of the site and the prposed mix of land uses are supported by Development plan policies. However, there were a number of major concerns. Since the April 2014 meeting, five of the previous reasons for refusal had ... view the full minutes text for item 8