Proposal:

Erection of a 56 storey building comprising of 396 Residential (Class C3) Units, Community Use (Class D1) together with basement, ancillary residential facilities, access servicing, car parking, cycle storage, plant, open space and landscaping and other associated works.

Recommendation:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions and informatives.

Update report tabled.

On a vote of 3 favour and 2 against, the Committee RESOLVED

1.            That the planning permission be GRANTED at South Quay Plaza 4, Marsh Wall, London, E14 for the Erection of a 56 storey building comprising of 396 Residential (Class C3) Units, Community Use (Class D1) together with basement, ancillary residential facilities, access servicing, car parking, cycle storage, plant, open space and landscaping and other associated works(PA/15/03073)  subject to:

2.            Any direction by The London Mayor.

3.            The prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the update report (dated 28^th July 2016)

4.            That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within normal delegated authority.

That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to recommend the conditions and informatives in relation to the matters set out in the 12 May 2016 Committee report

Update report tabled.

The Chair reported that the Council had received representations from objectors to address the Committee. Given that the application was a deferred item and that the Council’s Constitution did not allow public speaking on deferred items he was not minded to approve this request. The Chair then asked the Committee if they had any objections to this decision and they indicated that they agreed with the Chair on this matter.

Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) reported that the application was previously considered by the Committee on 12 May 2016 where Members were minded to refuse the scheme for the following reasons:

·         Excessive density.

·         Impact on infrastructure particularly the transport network, the highway and social infrastructure including education and health facilities.

·         Unacceptable level of affordable housing.

·         Impact on residential amenity in terms of sunlight and daylight.

Since that meeting, the applicant had modified the application to help overcome the concerns as set out in the Committee report.

Jermaine Thomas (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the revised application reminding Members of the site location plan, nature of the existing site and the site designation in policy. He showed the Committee images of the proposed scale and massing of the proposal in context with surrounding buildings.

As mentioned above, the applicant had proposed changes to the proposals to provide:

·         189sqm community facility (D1 use) provided at ground floor level

·         All 49 on site affordable units (1,2,3 and 4 beds) provided at Social Target Rent Level

·         Replacement of 27 intermediate units with 27 market sale units

·         A £7 million commuted sum to deliver affordable units off site

·         S106 clause securing expansion of approved SQP2 Nursery from 678sqm to 891sqm prior to occupation of the development (SQP4)

He explained the implications of the changes drawing attention to the revised  housing mix and the updated viability appraisal including the revised cost of delivering the off site intermediate units.

It was also explained that Highway Services had no objection to the scheme and that any impact would be mitigated by the Community Infrastructure Levy. Regarding the density, the Greater London Authority had no concerns about the plans. The proposal exhibited one symptom of overdevelopment relating to the sunlight and daylight impact. However, this was a common problem experienced in building tall buildings in a  dense urban area.  Overall, Officers felt that given the significant public benefits of the scheme, it cannot be considered that the resultant harm outweighed this. Therefore, Officers considered that the previous issues had been addressed and Officers were recommending that the application be granted permission.

Mr Thomas advised that should the Committee be minded to refuse the scheme there were suggested reasons for refusal set out in the update report.

In response to the presentation, Members asked questions about the proposed community facilities, in particularly whether they could be ring fenced for community activities. They also asked about the density of the scheme, the tests in policy for assessing overdevelopment, the sunlight and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

Proposal:

Erection of a 56 storey building comprising of 396 residential (Class C3) Units, Retail (Class A1-A4) Space, together with basement, ancillary residential facilities, access servicing, car parking, cycle storage, plant, open space and landscaping and other associated works.

The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.

Recommendation:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions and informatives.

Update report tabled,

On a vote of 0 in favour and 7 against, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.

Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed and Councillor  Danny Hassell seconded a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 7 in favour and 0 against, it was RESOLVED:

That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at South Quay Plaza 4, Marsh Wall, London, E14 for the Erection of a 56 storey building comprising of 396 residential (Class C3) Units, Retail (Class A1-A4) Space, together with basement, ancillary residential facilities, access servicing, car parking, cycle storage, plant, open space and landscaping and other associated works

The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over:

·         Excessive density.

·         Impact on infrastructure particularly the transport network, the highway, social infrastructure including education and health facilities.

·         Unacceptable level of affordable housing.

·         Impact on residential amenity in terms of sunlight and daylight.

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.

Update report tabled

Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the erection of a 56 storey building comprising of 396 residential (Class C3) Units, Retail (Class A1-A4) Space, together with basement, ancillary residential facilities, access servicing, car parking, cycle storage, plant, open space and landscaping and other associated works.

The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.

Richard Horwood (Chair, Isle of Dogs Neighbourhood Planning Forum), Jim Kean (Discovery Dock East Tenants Association) and Councillor Andrew Wood (Ward Councillor) spoke in opposition to the application. They expressed concern about the impact that the scheme would have on social infrastructure. The infrastructure must be in place first including the new South Quay bridge before the scheme was implemented to mitigate the impact. The current bridge has been deemed inadequate by TfL. They also considered that the height of the scheme would be out of keeping with the area and the South Quay Masterplan. They also objected to the density of the scheme more than double that recommended for the PTAL for the application in guidance.

In terms of the land use, the scheme  conflicted with the GLA policy produced in March 2016 expressing a preference for commercial use of the site (not residential). Concerns were also expressed about  the adequacy of the combined access route (given the expected usage figures including those for large vehicles) that would result in increased traffic congestion on the highway and the impact on neighbouring sunlight and daylight (given the findings in the Committee report). Concern was also expressed about the quantum, and quality of the child play space. Reassurances were also sought about access rights to  existing parking spaces.

In response to questions from the Committee, the speakers clarified their concerns about the impact that the scheme would have on the transport network. They also answered questions about the cumulative impact from this and other schemes on the  nearby junction, increased traffic congestion from the development, the unsuitability of the current bridge, the methods used for calculating the PTAL rating in the Committee report, the lack of play space and the changes to GLA policy.

Mike Nisbet, Patrick Campbelland James McAllister addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. They considered that the application would regenerate a vacant site maximising the development potential of the site in accordance with policy resulting in the delivery of good quality new homes that would be tenure blind, new public realm, a consolidated assess route and generous levels of child play space. Consultation had been carried out and the scheme had been amended to mitigate the concerns. Care had been taken to minimise the impact of the scheme and the developer would continue to engage with the local community.

The speakers were mindful of the concerns about the impact on the highway and the combined assess route. They reassured Members that a detailed transport assessment had been carried out.  The findings showed that the combined access route could support  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6