Issue - meetings
Site 1 Land at 3 Millharbour and
Site 2 Land at 6, 7 and 8 South Quay Square, South Quay Square, London
Meeting: 08/10/2015 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 5)
Proposal:
The demolition and redevelopment with four buildings: Building G1, a podium with two towers of 10 - 38 storeys and of 12 - 44 storeys; Building G2, a four floor podium with two towers of 34 and 38 storeys inclusive of podium; Building G3, a tower rising to 44 storeys; and Building G4, a four floor podium with a tower of 31 storeys inclusive of podium.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement , conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
- 3 Millharbour- Deferred Item Report (PB), 21/07/2015 Strategic Development Committee, item 5
PDF 97 KB
- Update July, item 5
PDF 67 KB
- Millharbour east and west committee report, 04/06/2015 Strategic Development Committee, item 5
PDF 5 MB
- SDC040615updatereport, 21/07/2015 Strategic Development Committee, item 5
PDF 4 MB
Decision:
Councillor Danny Hassell (Chair)
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission be GRANTED at Site 1 Land at 3 Millharbour and Site 2 Land at 6, 7 and 8 South Quay Square, South Quay Square, London for the demolition and redevelopment with four buildings: Building G1, a podium with two towers of 10 - 38 storeys and of 12 - 44 storeys; Building G2, a four floor podium with two towers of 34 and 38 storeys inclusive of podium; Building G3, a tower rising to 44 storeys; and Building G4, a four floor podium with a tower of 31 storeys inclusive of podium (PA/14/03195)
Subject to
2. Any direction by The London Mayor.
3. The prior completion of a legal agreementto secure the planning obligations set out in the 4th June 2015 Committee report and 8th October 2015 Committee report.
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 authority to recommend the conditions and informatives in relation to the matters set out in the 4th June 2015 Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Danny Hassell (Chair)
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the demolition and redevelopment of the site.
He explained that the application was initially considered at the 4 June 2015 meeting of the Committee where Members deferred the consideration of the application for a site visit and to address concerns about the scheme. The application was brought back to the Committee on 21 July 2015 where Members, having considered the additional information, were minded to not to accept the scheme due to concerns over:
· Insufficient provision of affordable housing and the affordability of the family sized intermediate units.
· Lack of supporting infrastructure to accommodate the density of the scheme in particularly the additional car parking and servicing from the development.
Nasser Farooq, (Deputy Team Leader, Planning Services, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. He reminded Members of the site location and surrounding developments, the proposed layout, height of the scheme, the number of units and the proposed new school.
In relation to the affordable housing, it was noted that according to the viability appraisal, the maximum amount that the scheme could provide had been secured and that the 3 bed intermediate units would be affordable in line with the Greater London Authority (GLA) affordability criteria. However, in view of the concerns about the affordability of the units, the application had been amended to omit 19 of the three bed intermediate units and to replace these with a range of smaller units within the same tenure. The proposed rent levels for the units were clarified. It was also clarified that the 3- 4 bed affordable units would be delivered at social rent and that this had been factored into the viability appraisal.
In relation to highways, whilst the width of the proposed servicing route remained the same, Officers still considered that it was appropriate for servicing. In support of this, the applicant had provided information showing likely usage of this route during peak hours. Transport for London and LBTH Highways had reviewed this information and considered that it was acceptable. The servicing would be conditioned which would include details of servicing hours to avoid peak hours.
It was also pointed out that the level of car parking fell short of the maximum allowed in policy for the density proposed.
As a result, Officers remained of the view that the scheme should be granted permission. However, if Members were minded to refuse the scheme, they were directed to the three suggested reason in the deferred report.
In response to questions, Officers clarified the proposed rent levels for the social rent units that excluded service charges. The rents would be ensured in perpetuity and controlled by way of a S106 obligation.
The viability report had been tested, based on the premises that the 3-4 four bed affordable units would be delivered as social rent (which it always had been). The report was found to be sound. There would be opportunities to reassess ... view the full minutes text for item 5
Meeting: 21/07/2015 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 7)
Proposal:
The demolition and redevelopment with four buildings: Building G1, a podium with two towers of 10 - 38 storeys and of 12 - 44 storeys; Building G2, a four floor podium with two towers of 34 and 38 storeys inclusive of podium; Building G3, a tower rising to 44 storeys; and Building G4, a four floor podium with a tower of 31 storeys inclusive of podium.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement , conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
Decision:
Councillor Danny Hassell (Chair)
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission and 5 against, the Committee did not accept the recommendation.
Accordingly, Councillor John Pierce seconded by Councillor Maium Miah proposed that the application be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 5 in favour of this recommendation and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at Site 1 Land at 3 Millharbour and Site 2 Land at 6, 7 and 8 South Quay Square, South Quay Square, London (PA/14/03195) for
· The demolition and redevelopment with four buildings: Building G1, a podium with two towers of 10 - 38 storeys and of 12 - 44 storeys; Building G2, a four floor podium with two towers of 34 and 38 storeys inclusive of podium; Building G3, a tower rising to 44 storeys; and Building G4, a four floor podium with a tower of 31 storeys inclusive of podium. (PA/14/03195)
Members were minded to refuse the scheme in view of concerns over:
· Insufficient provision of affordable housing and the affordability of the family sized intermediate units.
· Lack of supporting infrastructure to accommodate the density of the scheme in particularly the additional car parking and servicing from the development.
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 refusal and the implications of the decision.
Minutes:
Councillor Danny Hassell (Chair)
Update Report Tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item reminding Members that the application was initially considered at the 4th June 2015 meeting of the Committee where it was resolved that it should be deferred for a site visit (held on 13th July) and to address four issues as set out in the Committee report.
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader, Development and Renewal) presented the report, addressing the four areas in further detail. He reminded Members of the site location, the existing site use and the proximity to the major developments nearby. He also described the key features and the layout of the proposal showing visual images of the various plans. In terms of the child play space, it was confirmed that the level proposed exceeded policy requirements by 564sqm and was of good quality, including a destination playground. Most of which would be located at ground floor level. There were also generous levels of community space including new parks.
In terms of the affordable housing, it was confirmed that the proposed rent levels complied with the Greater London Authority (GLA) affordably criteria at the upper levels
It was also confirmed that the servicing route was of sufficient width to allow two vehicles to pass (as shown by the highway assessment). Furthermore, whilst not a planning matter, that there had been meetings between Lanterns and the developer over the re-provision of the Lanterns facilities in the development. Whilst they continued to meet, no agreement had yet been reached. The latest position on this matter was set out in the update report.
In summary in view of the merits of the scheme and the above advice, Officers remained of the view that the scheme should be granted planning permission.
In response, Members expressed concern at the affordability of the three bed intermediate units given their removal from the 2 Millharbour scheme due to lack of affordability. Members doubted that they were genuinely affordable and questioned the evidence showing that they were.
Concern was also expressed at the overall level of the affordable housing (taking into account the proposed contributions, the new school and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) relief). In view of these concerns, Members questioned the viability assessment and asked that it be explained in further detail, especially the factors taken into account and the scope for capturing further profit from the scheme should the market conditions improve. For example in the form of an overage clause.
Members also asked if a condition could be added to safeguard the D1 community use in the scheme, the discussions with Lanterns, the density of the scheme per hector given the Public Transport Accessibility Level rating (PTAL) and the level of mitigation for this.
Questions were also asked about the quality of the new school, the standards applied, the number of car parking spaces available for the family sized units. It was asked whether a condition could be added to secure a ... view the full minutes text for item 7
Meeting: 04/06/2015 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 6)
Proposal:
The demolition and redevelopment with four buildings: Building G1, a podium with two towers of 10 - 38 storeys and of 12 - 44 storeys; Building G2, a four floor podium with two towers of 34 and 38 storeys inclusive of podium; Building G3, a tower rising to 44 storeys; and Building G4, a four floor podium with a tower of 31 storeys inclusive of podium.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement , conditions and informatives.
Decision:
Update Report Tabled
Councillor John Pierce, seconded by Councillor Danny Hassell proposed that the application be deferred for the following reasons.
On a vote of 5 in favour 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be DERRERED at Site 1 Land at 3 Millharbour and Site 2 Land at 6, 7 and 8 South Quay Square, South Quay Square, London for the demolition and redevelopment with four buildings: Building G1, a podium with two towers of 10 - 38 storeys and of 12 - 44 storeys; Building G2, a four floor podium with two towers of 34 and 38 storeys inclusive of podium; Building G3, a tower rising to 44 storeys; and Building G4, a four floor podium with a tower of 31 storeys inclusive of podium (PA/14/03195)
Members were minded to defer the scheme for the following reasons:
· To carry out a site visit to better understand the impact of the scheme.
· Clarification of the highway assessment (with particular focus on how two large goods vehicles could pass along the service route to Millharbour East and the impact from the traffic lights near the entrance)
Members also raised concerns about the affordability of the three bed intermediate units, the entrances for the different tenures, the amount and nature of the child play space (including the amount of roof top play space) the impact on infrastructure from the scheme and the D1 use.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable the site visit to be carried out and for Officers to prepare a supplementary report addressing the other issues.
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Janet Viola (Lanterns Centre of Arts, Care & Education) spoke in objection to the proposal. She sought clarification as to whether the facility would be provided to Lanterns in the D1 community space in the development in accordance with the original plans. The developer had originally agreed to this and this was part of the public consultation. However, the developer has since stated that this was dependant on whether Lanterns could raise the funds. If not, they would need to make alternative plans. The application should be deferred until this issue had been clarified.
She stressed the need for the facility in view of the community benefits and that its relocation into the D1 space would comply with policy. She also referred to the inclusion of the facilities in the Lanterns Court development in 2008 to ensure its survival secured via the legal agreement.
In response to questions, she explained that the facility catered for everyone in the community. It included a commercial nursery and a theatre. She was under the impression that all of the businesses were to be relocated.
She also answered questions about: the level of engagement with the developer and Officers over the plans; the nature of the previous s106 agreement, the shortage of nursery places in the area in view of the new developments and clarified the capacity of the proposed nursery. She also explained the design of the theatre highlighting the many unique aspects.
Richard Horwood (Pan Peninsula Leaseholders and Residents Association) and Councillor Andrew Wood (Ward Councillor) also spoke in objection to the scheme. They objected to the density of the scheme. The scheme would add a further 3000 residents to the area adding to the huge increase in population already guaranteed from the recently approved schemes in South Quay. There would be a fourfold increase in population from these developments, unprecedented in the UK, without any plan in place for dealing with the infrastructure requirements. The area would have the largest density in the UK and the impact on services would be ‘endless’. Whilst the new school and parks were welcomed, demand would still greatly outstrip supply. For example the child yield from the Wood Wharf scheme alone would fill the school. There would also be a lack of child play space for the whole area. The suggested reasons for refusing item 6.2 of the agenda, 50 Marsh Wall also applied to this scheme given the similarities in the schemes
The speakers also questioned whether two large vehicles could pass along the route at Millharbour East. They also expressed concern about the impact from vehicles trips from the development and shared Ms Viola’s concerns about the future of Lanterns in the development.
In view of these issues, the speakers considered that the application should be deferred for a site visit to explore these issues.
David West (Applicant’s Architect) ... view the full minutes text for item 6