Issue - meetings
225 Marsh Wall (the Innovation Centre, Angel House)
Meeting: 04/10/2017 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 4)
4 225 Marsh Wall, E14 9FW (PA/16/02808) PDF 107 KB
Proposal:
Full planning application for the demolition of all existing structures and the redevelopment of the site to provide a building of ground plus 48 storey (maximum AOD height 163.08m) comprising 332 residential units (Use Class C3); 810 square metres of flexible community/ office floorspace (use class D1/ B1); 79 square metres of flexible retail/restaurant/community (Use Class A1/A3/D1), basement cycle parking; resident amenities; public realm improvements; and other associated works.
The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.
Recommendation:
That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, planning permission is APPROVED subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
- 5.4, 17/08/2017 Strategic Development Committee, item 4 PDF 2 MB
- Update 225 Marsh Wall, item 4 PDF 51 KB
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 3 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 paragraph 5.3 of the Committee report dated 4th October 2017 including the additional proposed condition set out in paragraph 1.1 of the Committee update report. On a vote of 3 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission at 225 Marsh Wall, E14 9FW be REFUSED for Full planning application for the demolition of all existing structures and the redevelopment of the site to provide a building of ground plus 48 storey (maximum AOD height 163.08m) comprising 332 residential units (Use Class C3); 810 square metres of flexible community/ office floorspace (use class D1/ B1); 79 square metres of flexible retail/restaurant/community (Use Class A1/A3/D1), basement cycle parking; resident amenities; public realm improvements; and other associated works (PA/16/02808) for the following reasons set out in paragraph 5.3 of the 4th October 2017 Committee report and paragraph 1.1 in the update report .
1. The excessive scale and height of the proposed development within its local context would not be proportionate to the sites position outside of the Canary Wharf major centre and would not maintain the transition in height between Canary Wharf to the north and the lower rise buildings to the south and east. The proposed scale, height and massing would result in a development that fails to present a human scale of development at street level, is too large for the plot size, is overbearing, is unduly prominent in local views and detracts from the low-rise character of the area to the south and east. The proposed development therefore fails to respect the features that contribute to the area’s character and local distinctiveness and demonstrates clear symptoms of over development and excessive density. This is contrary to Strategic Objectives SO22 & SO23 and Strategic Policies SP10 and SP12 of the Core Strategy (2010), Policies DM24, DM26 and DM27 of the Managing Development Document (2013) and Policies 3.5, 7.4, 7.6, 7.7 & 7.8 of the London Plan (2016).
2. In the absence of a legal agreement to secure agreed and policy complaint financial and non financial contributions including for employment, skills training and enterprise and transport matters the developer fails to mitigate its impact on local services, amenities and infrastructure. The above would be contrary to the requirements of Policies SP02 and SP13 of the LBTH Core Strategy, Polices 8.2 of the London Plan, (2016) and LBTH Planning Obligations SPD, (2016).
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Area Planning Manager (East)) introduced the application for full planning application for the demolition of all existing structures and the redevelopment of the site to provide a building of ground plus 48 storey residential led development with commercial and community uses and associated works.
Kate Harrisson (Planning Services) presented the report reminding the Committee of the site location and the nature of the surrounding area including the developments nearby. The Committee were advised that the application for planning permission was considered by the Strategic Development Committee on 17th August 2017. The Committee voted against the officer’s recommendation for approval and were minded to refuse the application on the grounds of
· Overdevelopment of site due to the:
· Height,
· Density,
· Impact on infrastructure and
· the failure of the proposal to provide an adequate transition between the higher rise commercial area to the north and the low-rise residential areas to the south and east
The applicant had not made any changes to the scheme.
Officers had drafted detailed reasons for refusal reflecting the Committees proposed reasons set out in the 4th October 2017 Committee report and the update report.
In relation to the concerns around infrastructure, officers strongly advised that this should not be included as a reason for refusal as officers did not consider this to be a robust reason for refusal and unlikely to be defendable at appeal. The Marsh Wall East site allocation did not require the inclusion of any on site community infrastructure. Furthermore, the applicant would make the policy compliant contribution through the Community Infrastructure Levy payment and had committed to a number of additional Section 106 payments including contributions to buses in the area. However, a reason had been drafted should members seek to refuse the scheme on these grounds. Officers had also drafted an additional standard reason for refusal relating to the absence of a legal agreement.
The Committee supported the two proposed reasons set out in paragraph 5.3 of the Committee report and paragraph 1.1 of the Committee update report.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 3 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 paragraph 5.3 of the Committee report dated 4th October 2017 including the additional proposed condition set out in paragraph 1.1 of the Committee update report. On a vote of 3 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission at 225 Marsh Wall, E14 9FW be REFUSED for Full planning application for the demolition of all existing structures and the redevelopment of the site to provide a building of ground plus 48 storey (maximum AOD height 163.08m) comprising 332 residential units (Use Class C3); 810 square metres of flexible community/ office floorspace (use class D1/ B1); 79 square metres of flexible retail/restaurant/community (Use ... view the full minutes text for item 4
Meeting: 17/08/2017 - Strategic Development Committee (Item 5)
5 225 Marsh Wall, E14 9FW (PA/16/02808) PDF 2 MB
Proposal:
Full planning application for the demolition of all existing structures and the redevelopment of the site to provide a building of ground plus 48 storey (maximum AOD height 163.08m) comprising 332 residential units (Use Class C3); 810 square metres of flexible community/ office floorspace (use class D1/ B1); 79 square metres of flexible retail/restaurant/community (Use Class A1/A3/D1), basement cycle parking; resident amenities; public realm improvements; and other associated works.
The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.
Recommendation:
That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, planning permission is APPROVED subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, conditions and informatives.
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 1 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 not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 6 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at 225 Marsh Wall, E14 9FW for the demolition of all existing structures and the redevelopment of the site to provide a building of ground plus 48 storey (maximum AOD height 163.08m) comprising 332 residential units (Use Class C3); 810 square metres of flexible community/ office floorspace (use class D1/ B1); 79 square metres of flexible retail/restaurant/community (Use Class A1/A3/D1), basement cycle parking; resident amenities; public realm improvements; and other associated works. (PA/16/02808)
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
Overdevelopment of site due to the:
Height,
Density,
Impact on infrastructure and
the failure of the proposal to provide an adequate transition between the higher rise commercial area to the north and the low-rise residential areas to the south and east
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:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of all existing structures and the redevelopment of the site to provide a building of ground plus 48 storeys comprising 332 residential units, flexible community/ office floorspace, retail/restaurant/community and associated works.
Kate Harrison (Planning Services) presented the report explaining the site location, the nearest local amenities, (existing and proposed), the emerging developments and the changes made to the application in relation to the height, number of units, the increase in affordable units, and the improved public realm and child play space. Consultation had been carried out and the results of the Council’s consultation was noted.
The Committee were advised that the proposal would deliver 25% affordable housing with a split of 64% (affordable rent) /36% (intermediate) with 50% of the affordable rent units at Tower Hamlets Affordable Rent and the other 50% at London Affordable Rent. 50% of the units within the affordable tenure would be family sized (3 bedrooms or more). The residential units would benefit from community space and child play space. All units would have private amenity space. There would be a slight under provision in under five child play space, but the applicant could make an area of the public open space in to play space should the permission be granted. The proposal included the reprovision of 810sqm of office space that would also benefit from being flexible B1 (office)/ D1 (community) space to help ensure occupation of the units.
The development would be of a high quality design with height stepping down from the Canary Wharf Major Centre. It would provide public open space that would link with the approved open space at Meridian Gate to the west. It was considered that the height would be appropriate for the area and preserve strategic views. Whilst there would be some impact on local views, on balance it could be considered that the benefits of the development would outweigh this.
The impact on neighbouring privacy and outlook would be acceptable given the separation distances. The impact on daylight and sunlight from this development in isolation would generally be negligible to minor adverse. There would be some moderate and major adverse impacts, but these could be attributed mostly to the design of the neighbouring properties impacted as well as the cumulative impacts from other surrounding developments, (and the proposed Skylines development), typical within an urban environment.
Subject to the recommended conditions and obligations, Officers were recommending that the planning permission was granted permission.
The Committee asked questions about access to the communal amenity space and the entrances to the affordable and private units. It was confirmed that the entrance to the affordable houses would be in a visible location and of a good quality design. All of the occupants of the development would have access the child play space at the second floor, but access to the communal space at the roof level would be restricted to the occupants of the ... view the full minutes text for item 5