There were no declarations of interests

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 28 March 2019.

That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 28 March 2019 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair

To RESOLVE that:

1)   in the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

2)   in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director Place is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

3)    To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee.

The Committee RESOLVED that:

1)  In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director, Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

2)  In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director, Place is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

3)  To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and the meeting guidance.

There are no items.

There were no items.

Proposal:

A hybrid planning application (part outline/part full) comprising:

1.) In Outline, with all matters reserved apart from access, for a comprehensive mixed-use development comprising a maximum of 195,000 sqm (GEA) (excluding basement and secondary school) of floorspace for the following uses:

• Residential (Class C3);

• Business uses including office and flexible workspace (Class B1);

• Retail, financial and professional services, food and drink uses (Class A1, A2, A3 & A4);

• Community, education and cultural uses (Class D1);

• A secondary school (Class D1) (not included within the above sqm GEA figure);

• Assembly and leisure uses (Class D2);

• Public open space including riverside park and riverside walk;

• Storage, car and cycle parking; and

• Formation of new pedestrian and vehicular access and means of access and circulation within the site together new private and public open space.

2. In Full, for 66,600 sq.m (GEA) of residential (Use Class C3) arranged in four blocks (A, B, C and D), ranging from 4 (up to 23m AOD) 5 (19.7m AOD), 6 (up to 26.9m AOD), 8 (up to 34.1m AOD), 9 (up to 36.3m AOD) 12 (up to 51.3m AOD) and 14 (57.6m AOD) storeys in height, up to 2700 sq.m GIA of office and flexible workspaces (Class B1), up to 500 sq.m GIA community and up to 2000 sq.m GIA leisure uses (Class D1 & D2), up to 2500 sq.m GIA of retail and food and drink uses (Class A1, A2, A3 and A4) together with access, car and cycle parking, energy centre, associated landscaping and new public realm, and private open space.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations.

Update report tabled.

Paul Buckenham (Planning Services) introduced the application for a hybrid planning application (part outline/part full) for a mixed used comprehensive development of the site.

Elizabeth Donnelly (Planning Services) presented the report, describing the site location, the nature of the outline planning application and the key features of each phase of the scheme.

It was noted that the overall development would deliver a mix of land uses contributing to sustainable development in line with the site designations.

The Committee noted that the development would deliver:

·         2800 new housing with 35% affordable housing (up to 980 affordable homes), helping meet housing targets.

·         A policy complaint tenant split of affordable housing to be delivered in phase 1 of the scheme. The standard of the accommodation would be of a high quality and meet the relevant standards.

·         Provision of amenity and play space across phase 1 that exceeded the policy requirements.

·         Retail, leisure and community uses.

·         Land for a new school to be transferred to the Council to deliver.

·         Open space. This included a public park within phase 1 of the scheme and a new river walkway, opening up a previously closed route and facilitating access to the surrounding area.

·         Improved permeability through the site and to the surrounding area.

·         Measures to safeguard the provision of the land for future bridge connections.

·         Financial contributions for improved bus connectivity.

·         That the proposed design and building heights would be in keeping with the area.

In terms of the amenity impacts, it was noted that the development would cause some impacts to neighbouring properties particularly in terms of sunlighting and daylighting. However, officers were satisfied that the buildings had been designed in a manner in order to minimise impacts.

The Committee also noted the outcome of the consultation and the key issues raised.

Tom Ridge, addressed the Committee.  He expressed concern about the treatment of the retained gasholder no 1 bays and landscape setting, highlighting its historic importance. He expressed the opinion that features of the gasholder(s) should be retained and displayed. He also referred to his letter of 30 April 2019, proposing six conditions. He expressed concern that the letter had not been included in the update report and requested that these conditions should be agreed. He felt that the bays should be given equal importance as the green link.

Councillor Andrew Wood also addressed the Committee. He expressed concern in respect of public transport issues given the low PTAL rating of the site.  He expressed concern about the poor quality of the existing pedestrian route to the Canning Town station and the lack of progress with building a new bridge. He stressed the need for action to improve the transport capacity, particularly the bus capacity to accommodate phase 1 of the development. He was of the view that the application should be deferred pending the completion of an in-depth transport study, or a condition should be attached to secure this.

With the permission of the Chair, Steven Tomlinson (London Legacy Development Corporation)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposal:

Demolition of existing buildings on site and redevelopment to provide 189 residential units and 1,676 sqm of flexible commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1 and/or D1) in two buildings ranging from 5 to 15 storeys, along with disabled parking, servicing, cycle parking, public realm and amenityspace.

Recommendation:

Refuse planning permission

Update report tabled.

Paul Buckenham (Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings on site and redevelopment to provide a residential lead development

Christina Gawne (Planning Services) presented the report, highlighting the site surrounds and key features of the application.

The Committee noted the following issues in respect of the application:

·         The concerns around the proposed affordable housing split and the commuted sum.

·         Concerns about the overall residential mix.

·         That the standard of the new dwellings broadly met the housing standard requirements.

·         That the impact on amenity was considered to be acceptable. Whilst it was noted that a number of neighbouring properties would experience impacts, given the mitigating factors (transient nature of the surrounding student accommodation, the design of the buildings that restricted exposure to light), such impacts were considered to be acceptable.

·         The concerns regarding the lack of information submitted to assess the wind/microclimate effects, and the consequences of this.

·         The public highways issues in view of the safety concerns.

·         The design and heritage issues. Officers considered that the proposed 15 storey element in particular would be out of context with the area and detract from the character of the area. The design would incur harm, albeit less than substantial harm, upon neighbouring heritage assets. Officers were of the view that the public benefits of the scheme, which were greatly reduced due to the above mentioned issues, would not be significant enough to outweigh the harm caused.

For the reasons set out in the report, Officers were recommending that the application was refused permission.

Councillors Gabriela Salva Macallan and Tarik Khan addressed the Committee. They expressed concerns regarding the failure to comply with GLA’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPF and the commuted sum for off site affordable housing, given the expectations in this regard for former public land. They also expressed concern about the wind climate issues and additional parking congestion in the surrounding streets.

Amit Malhotra (applicant’s representative) spoke in support of the application, highlighting the benefits of the application and that the Council’s consultation had resulted in more representations in support than objection. The application had been amended to address the concerns raised at the pre application stage by the Council about the development. He considered that the revised application provided the maximum amount of affordable housing that could be delivered working within the design parameters requested by the Council. Mr Malhotra also noted that the current offer may not be available at a later stage if the Committee refused the application. Mr Malhotra also provided assurances about the servicing plans and that the micro climate issues could be mitigated by conditions. The proposals were of a high quality design would bring the site back into use. The GLA considered that the application was acceptable.

Members Questions to applicant’s representative:

In response to questions about the commuted sum, it was reported that the application when initially submitted achieved a tenure compliant split. However, due to the nature of design changes, this could no longer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2