Proposal:

Demolition of the existing structures and the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of buildings ranging from 3 to 11 storeys in height and comprising:

?          5,620 sq. m GIA of office floorspace (Use Class B1a)

?          3,398 sq. m of industrial floorspace (Use Class B1c and B8)

?          699 sq. m of plant over basement, ground, first and second floor level including a publicly accessible ground floor café;

?          264 residential units (Use Class C3) including on-site affordable housing from ground to tenth floor level;

?          basement servicing areas;

?          landscaped open space; and

?          new pedestrian and service routes linking Schoolhouse Lane and Cranford Street and Cranford Street and the Highway.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report tabled.

Paul Buckenham (Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of the existing structures and the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of buildings ranging from 3 to 11 storeys in height.

Piotr Lanoszka, (Team Leader, Planning Services) presented the report, describing the site and the surrounds and the good transport links to the site. He explained the key features of the proposals, describing the layout, elevations, the quality of the communal amenity and play space and the measures to minimise any impacts.

The application had been significantly amended and consultation had been carried out on the original application and then on the amended application resulting in 26 representations to the original consultation, compared to 8 in response to the revised application.

Regarding the land use, there would be an uplift in employment benefits, due to the re – provision of light industrial/warehousing floorspace, and new SME office space. Other aspects of the development included:

·         Delivery of good quality housing with private amenity space

·         A policy compliant level of affordable housing. The proposals would deliver 35% affordable housing at a tenure split of 59.1% affordable rented (London Affordable Rent and Tower Hamlets Living Rent) to 40.9% intermediate (Shared Ownership/Intermediate Rent)

·         A high-quality well thought out design

·         Landscaping measures including a policy compliant level of play space

·         A publically assessable café and a new pedestrian and servicing routes.

In terms of the impact on the surrounding area, the proposal would have a less than substantial impact on the setting of the Free Trade Wharf building. In addition a number of the neighbouring properties would experience sunlight and daylight impacts, as detailed in the Committee report. The Committee noted details of the assessments. On balance, Officers were of the view that such impacts could be considered as acceptable given the benefits of the application and the urban setting.

The Chair then invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Wassim El-Solh and Robbie McIntyre (local residents) spoke in opposition to the application. They raised concerns that the development would result in a loss of light to windows at their properties as they were south facing (in relation to the development). This was due to the excessive height and massing of the proposal and the proximity of the most harmful features to their properties.

Concerns were also expressed about the accuracy of the applicant’s sunlight and daylight report, given the apparent decision to treat their development as one house, rather than individual apartments. Their properties would no longer be BRE compliant. The local residents expressed the view that the assessment should be reviewed to get an accurate assessment. 

The proposal would also be out of keeping with the setting of the area so would be contrary to planning policy.

Applicant’s presentation.

Philip Dunphy (Architect) and Bryony Gerega (Workspace) spoke in support of the application. They highlighted Workspace’s good track record in providing similar mixed used developments in the borough. It was also noted that the proposals would provide a range of benefits including: high quality flexible work space (targeting local businesses), a relocation strategy, helping business to return to the site if they wished, with a right of first refusal.  They also confirmed the level of good quality affordable housing and shared play space.

The applicant had detailed discussions with the Council, residents and stakeholders, and had made amendments to the scheme. 

The speakers were mindful of the concerns expressed by the objectors about the sunlight and daylight assessment. They provided reassurances that it was carried out on a ‘window by window basis’ to identify the impacts in accordance with the BRE Guidelines. They confirmed that any redevelopment of the site would affect sunlight and daylight exposure to some degree.

They also provided reassurances about the quality of the child play space in terms of the features to minimise the exposure to air pollution.

Members’ Questions to objectors.

In response to questions about the amenity impact, the objectors explained in further detail the scale of the sunlight and daylight impacts. It was explained that they currently had good access to light. Since their properties were south facing, the impacts would be significant.

Member’s Questions to Officers.

In response to questions about the applicant’s sunlight and daylight report, Officers provided further reassurances about the assessment. Officers had appointed an independent specialist (BRE) to review the information. Whilst the specialist found issues with the assessment submitted by the applicant, those irregularities were resolved by the independent specialist in their report..  Whilst it was noted that properties would experience significant reductions to daylighting and sunlighting , such impacts were to a large extent due to the empty nature of the existing site.  In summary, Officers were satisfied that even the windows most affected by the proposal at the ground floor of Fathom Court would generally still receive good access to daylight and sunlight for an urban area.

In response to questions regarding the mirror image assessment, Officers confirmed that the issues had been identified by the specialists and addressed during course of the BRE review. Subject to BRE’s clarifications and corrections, the technical report was correct and provided sufficient information to make a decision on. 

In response to further questions about air quality issues, it was noted that the proposals complied with emissions standards.  It was also noted that proposed buildings and the play space would be situated within suitable locations, set back from the highway. This would also reduce exposure to air pollution. The accommodation would also be equipped with mechanical ventilation. Regarding the child play space, the older children would have access to amenity space near the development and the applicant confirmed that the play area would meet the exposure guidelines.

In response to further questions, it was noted that officers had engaged in discussions with the applicant regarding the balance between the affordable housing and provision of affordable employment floor space. Whilst emphasis had been placed on delivering a good level of affordable housing and re - providing the commercial space, the development would also provide new SME space. Provision of affordable employment floorspace would not be possible without undermining the viability of the scheme. 

Regarding the provision of blue badge parking spaces, the applicant had agreed to an obligation in the s106 agreement to provide further on street blue badge parking spaces if needed.  It would also be required that a new energy strategy be submitted to identify potential more efficient and cost effective measures. 

Regarding the 59.1/40.9 tenure split, the applicant had carried out a viability assessment. The report found that increasing the level of affordable rented units any further would make the development more expensive to provide and would affect the viability of the scheme.

It was also noted that there would also be a condition requiring TfL approval of works since the development would be in the safeguarding zone of the Rotherhithe Tunnel. 

In response to questions about fire safety issues, the Committee noted the need for compliance with building regulations in respect of such matters.

RESOLVED:

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:

1.      That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, Planning permission is GRANTED at the Highway Business Park and The Highway Trading Centre, Heckford Street, London E1W 3HR for the demolition of the existing structures and the construction of a new mixed-use development consisting of buildings ranging from 3 to 11 storeys in height (PA/16/00417) SUBJECT to:

2.         The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report:

3.         That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to negotiate the legal agreement. If within three months of the resolution the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director for Place is delegated power to refuse planning permission.

4.         That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to impose conditions and informatives to address the matters set out in the report