Issue - meetings
Site at 14 to 16 Clegg Street, 13 to 15 Cinnamon Street and 125 to 129 Wapping High Street, London E1W PA/15/03561
Meeting: 23/11/2016 - Development Committee (Item 4)
Proposal:
Partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of all three sites to create 41 residential units and a retail unit along Wapping High Street, together with associated hard and soft landscaping works and the provision of cycle parking across all three sites. Site A would contain the majority of the units, with 27 flats; Site B would contain 10 and Site C, the 4 town houses.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT full planning permission subject to any direction by the London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Additional documents:
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 6 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the Committee report dated 23 November 2016 and on a vote of 6 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be REFUSED at Site at 14 to 16 Clegg Street, 13 to 15 Cinnamon Street and 125 to 129 Wapping High Street for Partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of all three sites to create 41 residential units and a retail unit along Wapping High Street, together with associated hard and soft landscaping works and the provision of cycle parking across all three sites. Site A would contain the majority of the units, with 27 flats; Site B would contain 10 and Site C, the 4 town houses (PA/15/03561) for the following reasons as set out in the Committee report, dated 23 November 2016:
Impact of highway network
1. The existing narrow streets and lack of dedicated drop-off provision will result in a detrimental impact upon the safety and free-flow of traffic in the surrounding street network due to the servicing requirements and vehicle movements generated by the proposal, contrary to policies SP09 of the Core Strategy 2010 and DM20 of the Managing Development Document 2013 which seeks to ensure that new development does not have an adverse impact upon the safety and capacity of the road network.
Impact of neighbour’s amenity
2. The proposed development will have unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties due to a detrimental reduction in daylighting and sunlighting conditions of neighbouring residential properties located within Ross House and 10-12 Clave Street. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy SP10(4) of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DM25 of the Council’s adopted Managing Development Document (2013) require development to protect, and where possible improve, the amenity of existing and future residents and buildings occupants, together with the amenity of the surrounding public realm.
Impact of heritage assets
3. The proposed development, by way of the design, scale, height, and profile, compared to the buildings to be demolished, would appear as a visually incongruous to the local area and fails to respect the scale, proportions and architecture of the former buildings. As a result, the development would cause less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Wapping Wall Conservation Area and would fail to preserve the character of this heritage asset. The harm identified to the designated heritage asset is not outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.
As a result the proposal is not considered to be sustainable development, contrary to paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), and fails to meet the requirements of Policy SP10 of the Council’s ... view the full decision text for item 4
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of all three sites to create 41 residential units and a retail unit along Wapping High Street, together with associated works.
He reported that the application was previously considered at the 28 September 2016 meeting of the Development Committee where Members deferred the consideration of the application for a site visit. Following which, the application was brought back the Committee on 26th October 2016 where Members were minded to refuse the application for the reasons in the updated Committee report.
Officers have since considered the Committee proposed reasons and had drafted suggested detailed reasons for refusal as set out in the updated report.
Tim Ross, (Planning Services) gave a brief presentation on the application and the suggested reasons for refusal. He advised that since the October Committee meeting, comments had been received from objectors about the impact of the development on the nearby Tasman House and the properties adjacent to Site C. The objectors considered that the impact on which should be included in the Committee reasons for refusal. However, Officers considered that the properties in Tasman House would not be significantly affected by the application given the level of BRE compliance in relation to daylight and sunlight, so did not consider that these issues should be included in the Committee’s reasons.
In response, Members supported the suggested reasons for refusal and concurred with Officers views regarding Tasman House, as reported above.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 6 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the Committee report dated 23 November 2016 and on a vote of 6 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be REFUSED at Site at 14 to 16 Clegg Street, 13 to 15 Cinnamon Street and 125 to 129 Wapping High Street for Partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of all three sites to create 41 residential units and a retail unit along Wapping High Street, together with associated hard and soft landscaping works and the provision of cycle parking across all three sites. Site A would contain the majority of the units, with 27 flats; Site B would contain 10 and Site C, the 4 town houses (PA/15/03561) for the following reasons as set out in the Committee report, dated 23 November 2016:
Impact of highway network
1. The existing narrow streets and lack of dedicated drop-off provision will result in a detrimental impact upon the safety and free-flow of traffic in the surrounding street network due to the servicing requirements and vehicle movements generated by the proposal, contrary to policies SP09 of the Core Strategy 2010 and DM20 of the Managing Development ... view the full minutes text for item 4
Meeting: 26/10/2016 - Development Committee (Item 4)
Proposal:
Partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of all three sites to create 41 residential units and a retail unit along Wapping High Street, together with associated hard and soft landscaping works and the provision of cycle parking across all three sites. Site A would contain the majority of the units, with 27 flats; Site B would contain 10 and Site C, the 4 town houses.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT full planning permission subject to any direction by the London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Additional documents:
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 6 against and 0 abstentions, 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 6 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at Site at 14 to 16 Clegg Street, 13 to 15 Cinnamon Street and 125 to 129 Wapping High Street for the partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of all three sites to create 41 residential units and a retail unit along Wapping High Street, together with associated hard and soft landscaping works and the provision of cycle parking across all three sites. Site A would contain the majority of the units, with 27 flats; Site B would contain 10 and Site C, the 4 town houses. (PA/15/03561)
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
· Impact on the residential amenity of existing residents particularly in terms of loss of sunlight and daylight to Ross House.
· Impact of the development on the north east corner of the site.
· Impact on heritage assets and the setting of the Conservation Area.
· Impact on the highway network.
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.
Councillor Gulam Kibria Choudhury did not vote on the application having not been present at the 28th September 2016 Committee meeting when the application was previously considered.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled
Jerry Bell, (East Area Manager, Planning Services), introduced the application for the partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of all three sites to create 41 residential units and a retail unit along Wapping High Street, together with associated works.
It was noted that the application was deferred at the previous Committee meeting on 28 September 2016 for a site visit.
Tim Ross, (Planning Services), presented the report. It was reported that since the previous presentation, Officers have received additional objections including a petition in objection from residents of Ross House and Officers considered that the issues raised had been addressed in the Committee report. Concerns had also been raised about the coal tar activities and Officers considered that any impacts from this could be managed through a pre commencement planning condition. Concerns had also been raised about segregation of tenures and child play space and it was noted that this was a product of the site constraints. It was also noted that at the previous September meeting, there had been some confusion about the number of signatures on an objectors petition. The update report clarified the position in respect of this.
Officers remained of the view that the application should be granted planning permission
The Committee asked about the impact from the development on neighbouring properties. In particularly, they sought clarity about the impact on Ross House from site A. In response, Officers showed images of the relationship between the proposal and site A. It was explained that while a number of windows would experience a reduction in light, the losses broadly speaking were relatively minor in nature. Furthermore, the properties in Ross House were dual aspect so overall would continue to receive good levels of light.
In response to questions about the impact on Tasman House from site B, and the mitigation to minimise the impact, it was explained that the plans as amended included set backs in the design of the development therefore would afford a decent separation distance between the two buildings. All of the windows within the house would be BRE complaint in terms of daylight amenity.
In response to questions about the impact on the highway network particularly from servicing activity, it was explained that given the relatively modest level of servicing activity predicted for the development, that the proposal should not have a harmful impact on the highway. It was also proposed that the existing refuse collection arrangements be maintained.
Officers also answered questions of clarity about the height of the proposal in relation to the surrounding area.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 6 against and 0 abstentions, 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 6 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee ... view the full minutes text for item 4
Meeting: 28/09/2016 - Development Committee (Item 5)
Proposal:
Partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of all three sites to create 41 residential units and a retail unit along Wapping High Street, together with associated hard and soft landscaping works and the provision of cycle parking across all three sites. Site A would contain the majority of the units, with 27 flats; Site B would contain 10 and Site C, the 4 town houses.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT full planning permission subject to any direction by the London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of all three sites to create 41 residential units and a retail unit along Wapping High Street, together with associated works.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee
Max De Vries, Angela Orphanou (residents of Cinnamon Street and Tasman House)and ward Councillors Denise Jones and Julia Dockerill spoke in objection the proposal. Whilst not opposed to the development of the site, they expressed concern about the plans on the grounds that they would harm neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of privacy, loss of sunlight and daylight. The sunlight assessment in the report was inaccurate.
They also questioned the suitability of sites A, B and C for family and disabled housing given the narrowness of the pavement. This could put at risk the safety of the occupants. They also objected to the lack of play space for the affordable housing.
Concern was also expressed about noise disturbance and disruption from the maintenance of the nearby ventilation shafts. This would adversely affect the amenity of the new occupants. They also expressed concerns about flood risk and also land contamination from the former gas works. The speakers pointed to a letter from the owners of Baltic Court questioning the suitability of the site for the development given these issues. The proposal should be deferred for an assessment of the issues.
They also expressed concerns about the height and the density of the proposal and that it would result in the overdevelopment of a constrained site given the above issues. It was also harm the character of the area. Concern was about expressed about the adequacy of the developer’s consultation. It was stated that a petition in objection had been collected containing over 200 signatures.
In response to Members questions, they discussed in further detail their concerns over the developers consultation and the lack of amendments to address the concerns. They also answered questions about the enforceability of the car free agreement, traffic congestion from the proposal given the nature of the streets. They stressed the need for measures to mitigate the highway safety issues.
The speakers also answered questions about the height of the development compared to the previous application, the amenity impact, noise nuisance, the strength of the local opposition and the proximity of parking spaces to the play space.
Julian Shirley and Gareth Watkins, Applicant’s agents, spoke in support of the application. The plans would regenerate a vacant site and the land use had been established. The complexities of developing the site had impacted on the viability of the proposals. The application had been carefully designed to respond positively to the area. The benefits of the plans included a policy compliant level of affordable housing with family housing. The light assessment had been independently tested and was considered to be acceptable and the proposals would safeguard privacy. A number ... view the full minutes text for item 5