Proposal:

Demolition of existing buildings at 49-59 Millharbour, 2-4 Muirfield Crescent and 23-39 Pepper Street and the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment including two buildings ranging from 26 storeys (90.05m AOD) to 30 storeys (102.3m AOD) in height, comprising 319 residential units (Class C3), 1,708sqm (GIA) of flexible non-residential floor space (Classes A1, A3, A4 and D1), private and communal open spaces, car and cycle parking and associated landscaping and public realm works. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement.

Recommendation:

That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission

Update report tabled.

On a vote of 0 in favour, 6 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.

Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the Officer recommendation be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and a vote of 6 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED:

That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at 49-59 Millharbour, 2-4 Muirfield Crescent And 23-39 Pepper Street, London, E14 be NOT ACCEPTED for the demolition of existing buildings at 49-59 Millharbour, 2-4 Muirfield Crescent and 23-39 Pepper Street and the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment including two buildings ranging from 26 storeys (90.05m AOD) to 30 storeys (102.3m AOD) in height, comprising 319 residential units (Class C3), 1,708sqm (GIA) of flexible non-residential floor space (Classes A1, A3, A4 and D1), private and communal open spaces, car and cycle parking and associated landscaping and public realm works.

The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over the following issues:

·         Height and the failure to step down

·         Overdevelopment of the site

·         Bulk and massing of the application.

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.

Nasser Farooq (Team Leader – East Area, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings at the site and the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the site including two buildings ranging from 26 storeys to 30 storeys

The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee

Councillor Dave Chesterton and Iain Dootson, local resident, spoke in opposition to the application. It was considered that the proposal did not comply with the Council’s stepping down policy for tall buildings, due to the height of the proposal. The proposal would exceed the height of the surrounding buildings. It would also harm the setting of the Glengall Bridge and impact on access to the area, particularly during the construction phase and cause overshadowing to properties. The proposals would increase parking stress. The travel information was out of date. The density of the proposal would be too high, and put pressure on local services that were already at capacity. There was also a lack of genuinely affordable housing and concerns about the suitability of the child play space.

In response to questions, the objectors explained in further detail their concerns about the height of the proposal in view of it’s proximity to low rise developments. It would create a ‘cliff edge affect’ and be not in keeping with the existing pattern of development near lower rise buildings that provided an more appropriate gradient in building. It would therefore conflict with policy and the emerging tall buildings policy. They also clarified their concerns about the affordability of the housing and felt that this would not offset the breach in tall buildings policy and the impact of local infrastructure.

Mark Gibney (Applicant’s representative) spoke in favour of the application. He advised of the changes made to the proposals, following engagement with the Council, the GLA and the Council’s Conservation and Design Advisory Panel.  The height of the building had been reduced and it was considered that it would conform with the policy and emerging policy and fulfilled the aspirations of the site allocation in policy. There would be conditions to mitigate the construction impact and preserve access. There would also be a generous level of play space, amenity space, public realm improvements and a car free agreement with opportunities for assessable parking spaces. TfL had not raised any concerns about the impact on the transport network. The scheme would provide a generous level of affordable housing weighted in favour of family sized units.

In response to questions, Mr Gibney reported that the applicant and officers had carried out a lot of work in terms of assessing the impact of the height. Overall, it was felt that it would broadly comply with the Council’s policy in terms of building heights. In response to further questions he provided assurances about the transport assessment. With the permission of the Chair, the applicant’s highways specialist, outlined the findings of the travel survey and explained that it complied with the relevant standard. So it included  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5