Issue - meetings
(Locksley Est Site D) Land adjacent to 1-12, Parnham Street, London
Meeting: 08/11/2017 - Development Committee (Item 4)
Proposal:
Residential development comprising 17,one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranges from five to eight storeys.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives
Additional documents:
- Canal and River Trust consultation response Appendix to Locksley Deferral Report, item 4 PDF 262 KB
- PA 17 01618 - Locksley D, 11/10/2017 Development Committee, item 4 PDF 8 MB
- update report locksley, item 4 PDF 45 KB
Decision:
Councillor John Pierce (Chair) for this item
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 2 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 Andrew Cregan proposed and Councillor Chris Chapman seconded a motion that the officer recommendation to grant planning permission be REFUSED (for the reasons set out in paragraph 5.2 of the deferred Committee report dated 8th November 2017) and on a vote of 3 in favour, 2 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission at (Locksley Estate Site D) at land at Salmon Lane and adjacent to 1-12 Parnham Street, London be REFUSED for residential development comprising 17,one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranges from five to eight storeys (PA/17/01618) for the following reasons as set out in paragraph 5.2 of the 8th November Committee report
1. The proposed development results in a loss of open space, which would not be adequately off-set by the public benefits of the development. The development would conflict with policy SP04 of the adopted Core Strategy which seeks to protect open spaces.
2. The proposed development by virtue of its height, design and siting with a lack of setback from the Regents Canal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Regents Canal Conservation Area, and the Blue Ribbon Network. As such, the proposal fails to accord with policy (134) of the NPPF, policy 7.24 of the London Plan, policy SP10 of the adopted Core Strategy and policies DM12 and DM27 of the Managing Development Document.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Councillor John Pierce (Chair) for this item
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the residential development comprising 17, one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranged from five to eight storeys.
Nasser Farooq (Planning Services) presented the report reminding the Committee of the nature of the existing site and surrounds, the appearance of the proposal and the proposed landscaping works for the site and the wider area. He advised that the application for planning permission was considered by the Development Committee on 11th October 2017. At the committee, members were minded not to accept the officer recommendation and were minded to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:
· Loss of a publically accessible open space.
· The impact on the setting of the Canal Towpath and the Regents Canal Conservation Area.
Since that decision, the applicant had amended the rent structure for the housing to provide all 17 affordable units at London Affordable Rent. Previously, the application proposed a 50/50 split between London Affordable Rent and Tower Hamlets Living Rent. The table in the Committee report showed the various rent options including the proposed London Affordable Rents.
Regarding the impact on open space,Members were reminded of the key characteristics of site A and B in terms of its use. Officers remained of the view that the site could not be considered “publically accessible open space” as defined in Council’s Core Strategy given the absence of a formal agreement for the use of the wider space. Nevertheless, it could be considered that the site fell within the wider definition of open space given it’s community value and that it providedvisual amenity value. The development would result in the loss of approximately 31% of this space. However the remainder of the site would be allocated towards the provision of communal amenity, play space, and landscaping works. Given this and the wider benefits of the scheme, Officers considered that the proposal was acceptable on this ground.
Regarding the impact on the Canal towpath and its setting, members were reminded that the proposal had been set back further from the towpath (compared to the January 2017 application). Members also noted the comments of the Canal and River Trust (CaRT) as set out in the attachment to the deferral report.
In summary, Officers considered that whilst the proposal would result in the loss of partly un-used and inaccessible open space, that this would be outweighed in planning policy terms by the benefits of delivering new social housing, biodiversity benefits and other benefits. Officers therefore considered that the proposal should be granted planning permission. However, if the Committee remained minded to refuse planning permission, two reasons were provided based on the discussion at the previous committee meeting.
On a vote of 2 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 ... view the full minutes text for item 4
Meeting: 11/10/2017 - Development Committee (Item 5)
Proposal:
Residential development comprising 17,one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranges from five to eight storeys.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives
Decision:
Councillor John Pierce (Chair) for this item
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 2 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 Andrew Cregan proposed and Councillor Chris Chapman seconded a motion that the officer recommendation to grant planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 3 in favour, 2 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at (Locksley Estate Site D) at land at Salmon Lane and adjacent to 1-12 Parnham Street, London be NOT ACCEPTED for residential development comprising 17,one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranges from five to eight storeys (PA/17/01618).
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
· The impact on the setting of the Canal Towpath and the Regents Canal Conservation Area.
· Loss of publically accessible open space.
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
Councillor John Pierce (Chair) for this item
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the residential development comprising 17,one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranged from five to eight storeys.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.
Alicia Joseph and Randone Francesco (local residents) spoke in objection to the application. They considered that the site should remain green space and provide a community garden for such things as food growing. Residents had held a number of meetings with local organisations including local schools and the Canal and Rivers Trust who were supportive of this approach in view of the community benefits. It was also felt that the proposal would have an oppressive effect on the surrounding area. Concern was also expressed about the significant biodiversity of the site and the clearing of the site and it was felt that the site should be brought back into use in its original state prior to the tree clearing. Reference was also made to the representations opposing the proposals. Overall, it was considered that the concerns with the previous application had not been addressed.
In response to questions, the speakers explained their concerns about the lack of engagement with residents about the plans (up until this new application had been submitted in the summer). They also emphasised the biodiversity value of the site, its current use as green space (noting it was locked because of security concerns but that local resident with a key could open it) and informal nature reserve, and outlined their alternative plans for the site. They also clarified their concerns about the clearing of trees without planning permission and the adverse effects of this in terms of the biodiversity value of the site. At this point, Officers clarified that none of the trees affected were protected and that they were not in the Conservation Area, therefore, this would not have been a breach of planning control.
Tim Bell (Architect) and John Coker (LBTH Housing) spoke in support of the application. They drew attention to the changes to the scheme to address the previous concerns in terms of the height, measures to further protect amenity, the setting of the canal and also the biodiversity enhancements. They also advised of the character of the existing space marked as A and B in the Committee report. Site A would accommodate the new housing and had been fenced off. The site had become overgrown and was cleared in 2016. Residents were informed of these works and only one response was received to the consultation. Site B had a gate and had been used by a few residents and the entire site carried no special protection. This area would provide green space and be opened up for the community. Overall, there would be a net increase in biodiversity benefits. The proposals would also provide much needed affordable housing including units at TH Living rents and London Affordable rents ... view the full minutes text for item 5