Issue - meetings
Quay House, 2 Admirals Way, London E14 (PA/14/00990)
Meeting: 06/11/2014 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 5)
5 Quay House, 2 Admirals Way, London E14 (PA/14/00990) PDF 61 KB
Proposal:
Demolition of the existing building and redevelopment to provide a residential led, mixed use scheme to include a tower of 68 storeys (233 metres AOD) comprising 496 residential units, 315.3 sq.m. (GEA) of flexible commercial uses including retail/financial and professional services/café/restaurant uses (Use Classes A1 to A3), a residents’ gymnasium and associated residential amenity space, car and cycle parking and landscaping.
Recommendation:
To REFUSE planning permission subject to any direction from the Mayor of London.
Additional documents:
- Quay House report (RL 12-09-14), 25/09/2014 Strategic Development Committee, item 5
PDF 9 MB
- Update Report Quay House, item 5
PDF 24 KB
- Update Report, item 5
PDF 48 KB
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 4 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 1 against and 2 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission PA/14/00990 at Quay House, 2 Admirals Way, London E14 be REFUSED for the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment to provide a residential led, mixed use scheme to include a tower of 68 storeys (233 metres AOD) comprising 496 residential units, 315.3 sq.m. (GEA) of flexible commercial uses including retail/financial and professional services/café/restaurant uses (Use Classes A1 to A3), a residents’ gymnasium and associated residential amenity space, car and cycle parking and landscaping for the following reasons as set out in the Deferred Committee report:
The proposed development exhibits clear and demonstrable signs of overdevelopment which include:
· a limited and compromised public realm which would not provide a high-quality setting commensurate with a building of such significant height;
· an insensitive relationship with South Dock southern quayside, which as a result would provide little visual relief, be overbearing and fail to provide a human scale of development at street level;
· a failure to provide an active and engaging frontage on its southern façade due to its awkward geometry and design at lower levels;
· a failure to provide high quality child play space which, as a result, would not provide high quality residential accommodation.
As a result the proposed development would not be sensitive to the context of its surroundings or successfully bridge the difference in scale between Canary Wharf and surrounding residential area.
Accordingly, it would fail to provide a sustainable form of development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and would be contrary to the Development Plan, in particular policies 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7 of the London Plan (2011), policies SP02, SP10 and SP12 of the Tower Hamlets’ Core Strategy (2010) and policies DM4,DM24 and DM26 and Site Allocation 17 of the Tower Hamlets’ Managing Development Document that taken as a whole, have an overarching objective of achieving place-making of the highest quality, ensuring that tall buildings are of outstanding design quality and optimise rather than maximise the housing output of the development site.
2. In the absence of a legal agreement to secure Affordable Housing and financial and non-financial contributions including for Employment, Skills, Training and Enterprise, Community facilities, Leisure facilities, Education, Health, Sustainable Transport, Public Realm, Streetscene and Built Environment, Highways and Energy, the development fails to maximise the delivery of affordable housing and fails to mitigate its impact on local services, amenities and infrastructure. This would be contrary to the requirements of Policies SP02 and SP13 of the LBTH Core Strategy, Policy DM3 of the LBTH Managing Development Document and Policies 3.11, 3.12 and 8.2 of the London Plan and the Planning Obligations SPD.
Councillors Md. Maium and Muhammad Ansar Mustaquim could not note on the item having not been present at the previous Committee meeting on 25th September 2014 where the application was considered.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application and the update.
Robert Lancaster (Planning Officer) presented the deferred report. It was reported that the Committee considered the application at its last meeting on 25th September 2014 where Members resolved to defer the consideration of the application for a site visit to better familiarise themselves with the site and surrounds. The Officers recommendation remained to refuse the scheme for the reasons set out in the deferred report.
The Committee were reminded of the site location, the surrounds and the key features of the scheme. They were also informed that Officers had now agreed with the Applicant the Head of Terms of the proposed legal agreement and a draft unilateral undertaking had been submitted. However, it was proposed that the reason for refusal on this matter should remain a reason (reason 2) given that a legal agreement had not been entered into and the need to highlight the importance of such a legal agreement in the event of an appeal.
It was also reported that, since the last meeting, Officers had met with the Applicant to consider the concerns and the Applicant had submitted informal information to address some of the concerns (as referred to in the deferred report). The Applicant had also advised that if these amendments could not be fully assessed in time for this Committee meeting, then the Committee should take the scheme as submitted. Given the lack of time to assess and consult on these amendments before the Committee meeting, the scheme remained as originally submitted. Furthermore it was considered that the proposed amendments would not address all of the reasons for refusal or deal with the overdevelopment aspects of the scheme.
In response to questions, Officers considered that the scheme showed clear and demonstrable signs of overdevelopment due to the density of the scheme in relation to the site constraints. Officers objections were not merely based on the height of the scheme rather the symptoms of overdevelopment. Officers had engaged with the Applicant over a long period of time to express their in principle concerns about the scheme.
The views of Greater London Authority (GLA) remained as in September as detailed in their August letter (that had been circulated again to Committee Members). Officers read out a recent e-mail from the GLA dated November 2014 reiterating their concerns about the scheme.
Councillor John Pierce seconded by Councillor Amina Ali moved a motion that the application be deferred to allow Officers to engage further with the Applicant with a view to amending the scheme. On being put to the vote, this motion was lost.
On a vote of 4 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 1 against and 2 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission PA/14/00990 at Quay House, 2 Admirals Way, London E14 be REFUSED for the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment to provide a residential led, mixed use scheme to include a tower of ... view the full minutes text for item 5
Meeting: 25/09/2014 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 6)
6 Quay House, 2 Admirals Way, London E14 (PA/14/00990) PDF 9 MB
Proposal:
Demolition of the existing building and redevelopment to provide a residential led, mixed use scheme to include a tower of 68 storeys (233 metres AOD) comprising 496 residential units, 315.3 sq.m. (GEA) of flexible commercial uses including retail/financial and professional services/café/restaurant uses (Use Classes A1 to A3), a residents’ gymnasium and associated residential amenity space, car and cycle parking and landscaping.
Recommendation:
That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, planning permission is REFUSEDfor the reasons set out in the Committee report.
Decision:
Update Report tabled.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission PA/14/00990 at Quay House, 2 Admirals Way, London E14 for the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment to provide a residential led, mixed use scheme to include a tower of 68 storeys (233 metres AOD) comprising 496 residential units, 315.3 sq.m. (GEA) of flexible commercial uses including retail/financial and professional services/café/restaurant uses (Use Classes A1 to A3), a residents’ gymnasium and associated residential amenity space, car and cycle parking and landscaping be DEFERRED to enable a site visit to be held so that Members can better acquaint themselves with the site and surrounds.
(Members present: Councillors Sirajul Islam, Danny Hassell, Amina Ali, John Pierce, Helal Uddin, Suluk Ahmed, Julia Dockerill, Harun Miah, Gulam Kibria Choudhury)
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application and the update and the Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
John Halnam, Philip Binns (Greenwich Conservation Group) and Councillor Andrew Wood spoke in objection to the scheme. The objectors made the following the points:
· Highlighted the importance of the site as a gateway site to surroundings area. The Council now had a unique opportunity to look at the whole of the Admirals Way site and improve the townscape. But this scheme would not achieve this.
· The impact of the proposal on the setting of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site. Should the proposal be resubmitted, additional material should be submitted to supplement the applicant’s Heritage and Townscape Visual Assessment Analysis.
· Height of the building in relation to the size of the site. If built, it would be the tallest residential building in the country, but on a very small piece of land.
· Overdevelopment of the area in view of the number of recently approved schemes and applications pending nearby. The cumulative impact of these developments needs to be properly explored.
· The density in excess of the Greater London Authority (GLA) guidance.
· The lack of child play space and nearby play space.
· The lack of car parking spaces.
In response to questions, the speakers commented on the expected increase in population from the many new and proposed developments in the area, including developments at Marsh Wall and South Quay. They also commented on the need to maintain views of the General Wolfe Statue and that insufficient consideration had been given to this.
Julian Carter and George Kyriacou spoke in support of the scheme. They pointed to the benefits of the scheme as summarised below:
· The redevelopment of a vacant site. The existing building was no longer fit for purpose.
· The level and quality of the housing, including affordable family housing with separate kitchens.
· That English Heritage and the Greater London Authority had raised no objections.
· The quality of the commercial units which would create new jobs and animate the area.
· The quality of the amenity and child play space, the merits of the public realm improvements.
· The Section 106 Agreement and the generation of ‘new homes bonus’ money for the Borough.
· The developer’s experience in delivering high profile developments.
· The positive impact on the Dockside and quality of the southern elevation.
· That the plans would facilitate the comprehensive redevelopment of the area.
In response to questions about the play space, the speakers considered that the plans catered for each age group, including a range of different types of space. Details of the s106 were in the committee report, pursued as per the normal process. The cumulative impact of other developments and plans in the area had been assessed and overall, the impact of this development would be acceptable. The affordable housing would be genuinely affordable at social target rents and at the Council’s agreed rent levels. Comprehensive redevelopment of the area by ... view the full minutes text for item 6