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 be achieved. Therefore a commuted sum had been proposed to make up the shortfall. 

In response to questions about the permeability of the site, Amit Malhotra confirmed that the future plans for the arches and removal of the wall were conceptual images only and were not a part of the application.

Officers advised that their advice had been consistent throughout the planning process, and were willing to continue with the negotiations to resolve the issues. However the applicant had reached the stage where they wished for a decision on the application to be made, preventing further negotiations to take place.

Officers also advised that the following wording should be removed from the first reason for refusal (regarding the affordable housing offer split and viability) on planning grounds, as the application did not qualify for the Mayor of London’s fast track approach to development viability:

‘that could be generated by the development and does not meet the 50% threshold required by the GLA Affordable Housing and Viability SPG which is applied as the site is ‘public land’

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:

That subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, planning permission is REFUSED at 255-279 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E2 0EL for the 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 amenity space for the following reasons as set out in the Committee report:

1.         Affordable housing offer, split and viability

The proposed affordable housing split at 46:54 in favour of intermediate tenure does not accord with Council’s policy which requires a 70:30 split in favour of rented tenure.

The application fails to deliver the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing on site.

As such the proposal is not in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019), Chapter 5, and development plan policies including London Plan policy 3.12 (MALP 2016), the GLA Affordable Housing and Viability SPG (2017), Core Strategy policy SP02 (2010), Managing Development Document policy DM3 (2013) and Emerging Local Plan policies S.H1 and D.H2 (2019).

2.         Residential mix

Specific housing mix targets are set within Managing Development Document policy DM3 to account for housing issues local to Tower Hamlets; such as the need for family sized dwellings and social rented tenures. The proposed unit mix across all housing types does not accord with the current targets of Managing Development Document policy DM3 (2013) and does not accord with the principles set out within development plan policies including Core Strategy policy SP02 (2010) or within Emerging Local Plan policies S.H1 and D.H2 (2019). The proposal is also contrary to Chapter 5 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019).

3.         Wind/microclimate

Insufficient wind/microclimate information has been provided and as such Council cannot ensure that amenity to residents and the public realm will not be negatively affected or that the proposed mitigation methods are sufficient or appropriate to mitigate any adverse effects. The application is therefore contrary to development plan policies including London Plan policies 7.6 and 7.7 (MALP 2016), Core Strategy policy SP10(4) (2010), Managing Development Document (2013) policies DM24, DM25 and DM26, Emerging Local Plan policy S.DH1 (2019) and the Mayor of London Sustainable Design and Construction SPG (2014) which all seek to protect existing and future amenity.

4.         Highway Safety

The scheme proposes an overreliance on Birkbeck Street which would create conflicts between users i.e. cycling, pedestrian, accessible parking spaces and servicing vehicles which will be required to reverse onto or off the site, endangering public safety. The scheme would therefore have adverse and unacceptable effects on the safety of the public highway and is contrary to Chapter 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) and development plan policies including London Plan policy 6.1 (MALP 2016), policies SP08 and SP09 of the Core Strategy (2012), policy DM20 of the MDD (2012) and policies S.TR1, D.TR2, D.TR4 of the Emerging Local Plan (2019).

It is also considered that the Highways issues presented on site are a symptom of over-development and as such the proposal is also contrary to London Plan policy 3.4 (MALP 2016), the Mayor of London Housing SPG (2016), Core Strategy policy SP02 (2010), MDD policy DM24 (2012) and Emerging Local Plan policy D.DH7 (2019).

5.         Design and heritage

The proposed layout, height and massing arrangement poorly relate to the site and are considered out of keeping with the site context, townscape and heritage assets.

The proposal does not successfully integrate the proposed uses on site with the surrounding area, does not improve the permeability of the area and creates an overbearing relationship to adjacent sites.  The scheme does not have regard to the form, function and structure of the area and does not make an overall positive contribution to wider area and as such, the proposal is not considered to be of the highest quality.

Less than substantial harm would be caused to adjacent heritage assets which have not been justified and are not outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.

The proposal is not considered to be of the highest quality and is contrary to NPPF Chapters 12 and 16 (2019) and development plan policies including London Plan policies 3.5, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8 (MALP 2016), Core Strategy policy SP10 (2010), Managing Development Document policies DM23, DM24, DM26 and DM27 and Emerging Plan policies S.DH1, D.DH2, S.DH3 and D.DH4 (2019).

It is also considered that the design and heritage issues presented on site are a symptom of over-development and as such the proposal is also not in accordance with London plan policy 3.4, Housing SPG, LBTH Core Strategy policy SP02, LBTH MDD policy DM24 and emerging plan policy D.DH7.

6.         Planning Obligations

In the absence of agreed heads of terms and a legal agreement to secure agreed and policy compliant financial and non-financial contributions including for employment, skills, training and enterprise and transport matters the development fails to mitigate its impact on local services, amenities and infrastructure. 

The above would be contrary to the requirements of development plan policies including policies SP02 and SP13 of the LBTH Core Strategy (2010), policy 8.2 of the London Plan (MALP 2016), LBTH's Planning Obligations SPD (2016) and policy D.SG5 of the Emerging Local Plan (2019).?