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) addressed the Committee.  He referred to their representations about the connectivity issues and the delivery of the bridge. This was a longstanding aspiration for the London Legacy Development Corporation.  He considered that the current application could jeopardise the bridge’s delivery. He stressed the need for the details of the new bridge to be secured ahead of finalising the foot print of the application.

Simon Lewis, (St Williams) spoke in support of the application. He drew attention to the merits of the application in terms of: the connectivity and open space improvements, the provision of community facilities, the delivery of many new homes including family sized housing and the delivery of a land for a new school amongst other benefits.  He also highlighted the measures to safeguard land to deliver future river crossings. The application had been subject to a substantial amount of consultation and this had informed the proposal.

Questions to Objectors:

In response to questions about the revised condition regarding the retained elements of the gas holder, no1 bays, Tom Ridge emphasised his concerns about the summary of his representations in the update report (set out in full in his letter dated 30 April). He explained in further detail his concerns regarding the suitability of the proposed display bays.

Steven Tomlinson also clarified his concerns about the delivery of the 2010 bridge. He considered that agreeing the layout of the scheme as proposed without securing details of the bridge in advance of this may impeded its delivery.

Committee Questions to Officers:

In response to questions about the delivery of the bridge, it was noted that steps had been taken to facilitate the delivery of this. The finding of the applicant’s high level feasibility study had been independently reviewed by experts appointed by the Council. The report concluded that the development would deliver a feasible piece of land in terms of facilitating the future delivery of the bridge.

In response to further questions about the bridge, Officers outlined some of the consultations responses from external consultees and the lack of certainty around the bridge’s delivery and its timescale. It was confirmed that its deliver would require the cooperation of number of third parties and the resolution of issues that was outside of the applicant’s control. All that the Council could do in relation to this application was to seek the safeguarding of the land for crossings. Members were also reminded of the need to consider the application on its merits and that the plans met the Site Allocation Policy in relation to the future delivery of river crossings. It was also noted that the planning permission for the bridge granted permission in 2011 had expired.

Officers also confirmed that, since this application was (in part) an outline application and delivered in phases, the finer details would be regularly reviewed as part of the reserve matters applications should planning permission be granted. This approach would enable the Council to review each reserve matters applications and take any action necessary to facilitate plans for the delivery of the bridge. In addition, there was also a planning obligations requiring that a local connectivity study be carried out. Should the study identify any issues requiring the amendment of the scheme to facilitate new plans for a bridge, it would be possible that the plans could be amended at the reserved matters stage.

In relation to the responses received from TfL, Officers were mindful of their comments about the need for connectivity improvements, particularly at phase 2 of the scheme and beyond amongst other issues. In view of this, it was emphasised that, the transport plans would be continually reviewed as outlined above. It was also emphasised that contributions had been secured for bus capacity improvements in line with policy. It was also considered that a contribution for strategic transport infrastructure was not necessary to make the application acceptable. 

In view of the issues regarding the delivery of the bridge and the connectivity challenges, the Committee discussed whether it would be possible to secure further measures requiring that the connectivity of the site be improved before the future phases of the scheme was delivered. The Committee were keen to ensure that the plans could facilitate any new bridge’s delivery.

The Committee also discussed the possible of requiring that the bridge was delivered before phase 2 of the development could be progressed. In response, Officers expressed caution about delaying the implementation of the development pending the delivery of the bridge given the uncertainty around this and time it could take to deliver. Members would need to consider that such a condition was absolutely necessary on planning grounds to make the scheme acceptable.

Having considered the issues, Members agreed that the conditions should include the following in respect of the local connectivity study,

•           a more detailed condition regarding the need to submit a detailed transport study prior to the submission of the reserved matters for phase 2 stage of the application.

In response to questions about the retained gas holder no 1 bays, it was noted that Officers had worked with the East End Waterways Group, in drawing up this condition in the update report around the setting and the landscaping. It was noted that the proposals would be subject to further consultation with EEWG and other local groups. Officer’s also clarified that Mr Ridge’s letter had been made available on the Council’s website in line with the normal practice and that its content had been summarised and taken into account in drawing up the conditions.

Questions to the applicant:

In response to questions, Simon Lewis provided reassurances regarding the flood control measures, requested by the Environment Agency. He also provided assurances about the plans to locate the assessable apartments near the ground floor.

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:

1.       That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, conditional Planning permission is GRANTED at the Poplar Gas Works, Leven Road, London for a hybrid planning application (part outline/part full) for a comprehensive mixed used development, 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 Committee report including the following:

·         the indicative wording set out in paragraph 2.2 of the update report in respect of the planning condition no 32 listed in paragraph 8.6 of the Committee report

·        In relation to the local connectivity study, a more detailed condition regarding the need to submit a detailed transport study prior to the submission of the reserved matters for phase 2 stage of the application.