Issue - meetings
Phoenix House
Meeting: 18/02/2016 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 5)
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings that range in height from 3 to 14 storeys containing 153 units including 28 undercroft and surface car parking spaces and a central landscaped courtyard
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
- Phoenix Works SDC 19 Nov, 19/11/2015 Strategic Development Committee, item 5 PDF 74 KB
- Commitee Report October 2015 - Phoenix Works PB (3), 08/10/2015 Strategic Development Committee, 19/11/2015 Strategic Development Committee, item 5 PDF 3 MB
- Update Report, 19/11/2015 Strategic Development Committee, item 5 PDF 209 KB
Decision:
On a vote of 0 in favour, 4 against and 0 abstentions the Committee did not agree the recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed and Councillor Andrew Cregan seconded a motion that the planning permission be REFUSED (for the reasons set out in the Committee report dated 18th February 2016) and on a, vote of 4 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions it was RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission be REFUSED at Land at corner of Broomfield Street and Upper North Street known as "Phoenix Works", London, E14 6BX (PA/15/01601) for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings that range in height from 3 to 14 storeys containing 153 units including 28 undercroft and surface car parking spaces and a central landscaped courtyard for the following reasons set out in paragraph 5.2 the Committee report dated 18th February 2016(PA/15/00641)
2. Overdevelopment
The proposed development would result in overdevelopment of the site, evidenced by the residential density which would substantially exceed the range set out in table 3.2 of the London Plan, without having demonstrated exceptional circumstances and in a location outside of the nearest town centre, not supported by Local Plan policies relating to density. The development would have an overall scale and bulk of development that would be harmful to the visual amenities of the area and harmful to residential amenity of neighbouring properties through loss of daylight and sunlight. The proposed development would therefore conflict with policies 3.4 and 7.;4 of the London Plan (2015), the London Housing SPG (2012), policies SP02 and SP10 of the Core Strategy (Tower Hamlets Local Plan), DM24 and DM25 of the Managing Development Document (Tower Hamlets Local Plan).
3. Design and relationship to the canal
The proposed development would result in an unsatisfactory design relationship between the proposed buildings and the Limehouse Cut canal and its towpath, arising from the proliferation of projecting balconies, the proximity of ground floor private amenity terraces and an unbroken elevation that would dominate this section of the canal towpath. The relationship of ground floor residential terraces would not provide adequate separation to provide a suitable level of privacy for the occupiers of the proposed units. The proposals would therefore adversely affect the special character of the canal and its use and enjoyment by the public for leisure and recreation as part of the London and Tower Hamlets Blue Ribbon Network. The proposed development would conflict with policies 7.4, 7.6 and 7.24 of the London Plan 2015; policies SP04 and SP10 of the Core Strategy (Tower Hamlets Local Plan) and policies DM12 and DM24 of the Managing Development Document (Tower Hamlets Local Plan).
4. Place-making vision for Poplar
The proposed high density and high rise development would conflict with the place making vision for Poplar, included in Annex 9 to the Core Strategy (Tower Hamlets Local Plan), which seeks to focus higher density development in and around Chrisp Street town centre; provide lower and ... view the full decision text for item 5
Minutes:
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced and presented this application for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings ranging in height to provide a residential led development. He advised of the site location near the Canal and Bartlett Park, comprising buildings of varying heights. Turning to the proposal, the Committee were advised of the key features of the application and noted images of the elevations and the surrounding area.
In terms of the history at Committee, Members resolved to defer the application at the 8 October 2015 meeting for a site visit where Members requested further information on the comparative heights and the daylight/sunlight impacts. The application was then brought back to the Committee with the requested information on 19 November 2015. The Committee were minded to refuse the application for the following reasons:
· Overdevelopment of the site.
· Height, build and massing.
· Impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of daylight and sunlight, particularly the properties at the north of the site.
· Impact on the towpath.
· Conflict with the Council’s Core Strategy’s Vision in respect of the area.
Officers had since assessed the Committee’s suggested reasons, as set out in the new committee report. Officers considered that the development showed few physical signs of overdevelopment and that the height and massing would be appropriate in its context. However, it was recognised that there would be some conflict with policy.
The Officers recommendation remained to grant the application, but mindful of the Committee views, Officers had drafted suggested reasons for refusal for use by the Committee should they refuse the scheme.
In response, the Chair noted the reduction in height of the scheme to reduce the impact but did not feel that the changes went far enough to address the concerns.
On a vote of 0 in favour, 4 against and 0 abstentions the Committee did not agree the recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed and Councillor Andrew Cregan seconded a motion that the planning permission be REFUSED (for the reasons set out in the Committee report dated 18th February 2016) and on a, vote of 4 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions it was RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission be REFUSED at Land at corner of Broomfield Street and Upper North Street known as "Phoenix Works", London, E14 6BX (PA/15/01601) for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings that range in height from 3 to 14 storeys containing 153 units including 28 undercroft and surface car parking spaces and a central landscaped courtyard for the following reasons set out in paragraph 5.2 the Committee report dated 18th February 2016(PA/15/00641)
2. Overdevelopment
The proposed development would result in overdevelopment of the site, evidenced by the residential density which would substantially exceed the range set out in table 3.2 of the London Plan, without having demonstrated exceptional circumstances and in a location outside of the nearest town centre, not supported by Local ... view the full minutes text for item 5
Meeting: 19/11/2015 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 5)
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings that range in height from 3 to 14 storeys containing 153 units including 28 undercroft and surface car parking spaces and a central landscaped courtyard
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
- Commitee Report October 2015 - Phoenix Works PB (3), 08/10/2015 Strategic Development Committee, item 5 PDF 3 MB
- Update Report, item 5 PDF 209 KB
Decision:
On a vote of 1 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission 3 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed and Councillor Andrew Cregan seconded a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on vote of 3 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstentions, it was RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at Land at corner of Broomfield Street and Upper North Street known as "Phoenix Works", London, E14 6BX (PA/15/00641) for
· Demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings that range in height from 3 to 14 storeys containing 153 units including 28 undercroft and surface car parking spaces and a central landscaped courtyard (PA/15/00641)
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over:
· Overdevelopment of the site.
· Height, build and massing.
· Impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of daylight and sunlight, particularly the properties at the north of the site.
· Impact on the towpath
· Conflict with the Council’s Core Strategy’s Vision in respect of the area.
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:
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced and presented the application for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of new primarily residential buildings ranging in height.
It was noted that the application was previously considered at the last Committee meeting on 8th October 2015 where Members resolved to defer the application for a site visit.
At that visit, Members requested further information about two issues: the height of the application buildings in relation to that of the surrounding buildings and the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring amenity in terms of daylight and sunlight. Accordingly, the report now before Members clarified these issues.
Before presenting these findings, the Committee were reminded of the key features of the scheme including the site location and surrounds, the layout of the proposal, the access arrangements, the proximity to Bartlett Park, Craig Court and Werner Tower. The Committee also noted views of the proposal from the surrounding area.
In relation to the comparative height, it was reported that given the modest height difference between the tallest element of the proposal and the neighbouring buildings, that this was considered acceptable. The scheme would be in in keeping with the surrounding area. In terms of sunlight and daylight, it was reported that most of the windows within Werner Court and Craig Tower met the requirements in policy save for some exceptions. Details of the findings were set out in the report and reported to the Committee.
In conclusion, the additional information had been carefully considered and the Officer recommendation remained to grant the scheme.
In response to the presentation, Members asked questions about:
· the quality of the social housing (in view of the recent scrutiny review).
· the impact on the canal tow path at the front of the proposal given the width of the tow path.
· the possibility of imposing a condition regarding the cleaning and maintenance of the tow path.
· the wind mitigations measures in respect of the children’s play area.
· the public transport rating for the site given the density of the scheme.
· the bulk scale and massing of the scheme.
· overdevelopment of the site given the sunlight and daylight impact
· conflict with the Council’s Core Strategy that supported medium to lower rise developments in this particular area.
· the cycle storage plans
· the lack of lifts given the proposed number of storeys within the scheme.
In response, Officers explained that it would be possible to review the landscaping condition to include details of the wind mitigation measures in the child play space. It was also possible that a protocol is prepared and agreed between the applicant and the Canal and Rivers Trust concerning the cleaning and maintenance of the canal tow path. In relation to this point, the Committee received legal advice on what this could and could not cover in view of land ownership issues. The Committee then moved and unanimously agreed that, if granted, a condition should be added to the permission that no development take place until a protocol is ... view the full minutes text for item 5
Meeting: 08/10/2015 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 6)
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings that range in height from 3 to 14 storeys containing 153 units including 28 undercroft and surface car parking spaces and a central landscaped courtyard.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations and conditions and informatives.
Decision:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Marc Francis proposed seconded by Councillor Shahed Ali that the application be deferred for a site visit.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be DEFERRED at Land at corner of Broomfield Street and Upper North Street known as "Phoenix Works", London, E14 6BX for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings that range in height from 3 to 14 storeys containing 153 units including 28 undercroft and surface car parking spaces and a central landscaped courtyard (PA/15/00641).
The Committee were minded to defer the scheme for a SITE VISIT to enable Members to better understand the impact of the scheme on the area.
Councillor Gulam Robbani was not present for the consideration of this item.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings ranging in height containing for a mixed use development.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Catherine O'Mahony (Aqua Vista Development) Andy Ager (Silver Wharf Development) spoke in opposition to the scheme. Whilst supporting the development of the site to address anti social behaviour (asb) they objected to the scheme on the following grounds:
· Height and density of the scheme in relation to the surrounding area.
· That the scheme conflicted with the Council’s polices that stated that developments in this area should be low rise and low density unless there were good reasons why they shouldn’t be. This had not been demonstrated.
· Loss of light to neighbouring properties. Many of the neighbouring properties were single aspect properties and would lose a lot of light.
· Loss of privacy due to the position of the windows and balconies that faced neighbouring properties.
· Increased sense of enclosure.
· Lack of consultation by the developers, specifically with the units located behind the site. A site visit should be arranged to see how it was possible to exclude these households from the consultation and the assessment.
· Loss of views to Canary Wharf and Bartlett Park.
· A low rise scheme would address the concerns, protect the setting of area and comply with planning policy.
In response to Members questions, the speakers clarified their concerns about the height of the scheme, the impact from this on the surrounding area and the lack consultation by the developer. They expressed support for a low to medium density scheme at this site with taller developments nearer Chrisp Street as originally promised.
Krystian Groom (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the application. He spoke about the extensive nature of the consultation with residents and Officers. This included individual letters to surrounding residents, door step canvassing, stakeholder and consultation events and engagement with schools and the health services. As a result, the applicant had reduced the height, massing and increased the affordable housing within the scheme. As stated in the report, the scheme makes best use of a brown field site without leading to overdevelopment. This benefits of the scheme were explained.
In response to questions, he explained that consultation was carried out at both pre and post submission stage as detailed in the Statement of Community Involvement document. There was genuine support for the scheme. At this point, Officers reminded Members that the Localism Act 2011 required developers to engage and consult the community. It was up to the Committee to decide how much weight should be put on the developers consultation. However, it was suggested that more weight should be given to the Council’s consultation that could be more easily evidenced.
The speaker went on to report that the developer had worked closely with the health centre to facilitate it’s request for further funding to expand. He also answered ... view the full minutes text for item 6