Proposal:

Demolition of existing building, construction of an 8 storey building and a 6 storey building to provide 62 affordable dwellings (affordable housing tenure) and 398 sq.m B1 floorspace with amenity space, access, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works

Recommendation:

Grant personal planning permission with conditions.

At this point in the meeting, Councillor Dan Tomlinson left the meeting and was replaced by Councillor Kevin Brady.

An update report was tabled.

Jerry Bell introduced the application for Demolition of existing building, construction of an 8 storey building and a 6 storey building to provide 62 affordable dwellings (affordable housing tenure) and 398 sq.m B1 floorspace with amenity space, access, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works. Mr Bell provided a summary of the history of the application, including the events that led up to the Judicial Review and the quashing of the Committee’s previous decision to approve. Solomon Agutu, the Committee’s legal advisor, provided further details of the Judicial Review. Messrs Bell and Agutu stressed that the application before the Committee was unchanged from that previously considered.

Katie Cooke (Planning Services) presented the report describing the nature of the site and the surrounding area, public transport connectivity and the outcome of the consultation, resulting in the receipt by the Council of 42 individual letters of objection; 4 petitions against (with a total of 311 signatures) and 1 letter of support. Ms Cooke summarised the key issues raised in consultation responses.

Ms Cooke briefly summarised the results of the assessments relating to:

• Land use;
• Heritage (including conservation areas);
• Highways;
• Daylight and sunlight (supported by Mr Gareth Owens);

Ms Cooke then highlighted selected planning obligations to be secured by Condition.

Officers considered that the application, complied with policy so should be granted.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Melanie Rainbird addressed the Committee. Ms Rainbird advised that the residents of the nearby Tomlins Grove properties have concerns over sunlight and daylight issues arising from the development:

• Residents have commissioned independent expert advice on the Council’s daylight and sunlight assessment. The expert advice has yet to be produced and their request to defer the application until the advice is ready was refused. 
• Neighbouring properties would be severely affected and losses are above those in BRE guidelines and should be considered against policy. 
• Documents supplied by objectors were included in the report for the previous, September 2019 Development Committee (when the application was deferred) but excluded from the report for tonight's meeting.
• The proposed building is out of scale with the local area. Residents would like to see revised proposals with a lower height, to lessen loss of daylight.
• Residents feel the decision should be deferred until their concerns have been fully considered.

Alistair Baker addressed the Committee. Mr Baker told the Committee he believed this application was contrary to Council policy in three main areas: height, density and amenity play space for children. Mr Baker provided further detail to support this assertion, including extracts from the London Plan, the Local Plan, and English Heritage. Regarding the height of the proposed development, Mr Baker stated that claims in the officer’s report of nearby 10 storey neighbouring buildings are factually incorrect.

Councillor Dan Tomlinson addressed the Committee. Councillor Tomlinson:

• Expressed concerns with the street scene of Arnold Road at present and asked that if the Committee were minded to approve the application, it ensure that appropriate conditions were put in place to improve the street scene before residents can move in.
• Expressed concerns with the height of the building and daylight sunlight losses which he felt were outside of guidelines. He urged the Committee to consider whether this loss amounted to unacceptable material loss.
• Asked the Committee to note that daylight/sunlight experts had questioned the accuracy of some information in the officer’s report.
• Asked the Committee to consider the risks of challenge to a decision to approve and encouraged it to defer the matter if it felt the information before it was unsatisfactory.

Councillor Rachel Blake, Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Planning, Air Quality and Tackling Poverty, addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. Councillor Blake:

• Stressed that the scale of housing need in Tower Hamlets is severe and justified the scale of the proposed development.
• Encouraged the Committee to ask detailed questions regarding daylight and sunlight analysis.

Yasmin Ali, Principal Project Manager, addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. Ms Ali:

• Provided details of the different accommodation types and how the proposal would help to meet the Council's ambition to increase the supply of housing.
• Summarised a range of additional benefits arising from the development, beyond the supply of housing.
• Outlined plans to deliver improvements in the Arnold Road street scene, including those proposed to be secured through planning conditions.

Aiden Cosgrove, Daylight and Sunlight Consultant, addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. Mr Cosgrove provided further detail on the daylight and sunlight assessment and offered advice to the Committee on the appropriate interpretation of the Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines. Mr Cosgrove advised the Committee that, whilst analysis suggests the application contains a high level of adherence to guidelines, a degree of flexibility is appropriate when applying them.

Dorian Crone, Heritage and Design Consultant, addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. Mr Crone provided further details relating to the heritage assessment of the existing site, including separation from local conservation areas. Mr Crone concluded that the impact on heritage is considered minimal, to positive, compared to existing site.

Questions to Officers

In response to questions from the Committee, officers:

• Provided guidance on ways of interpreting the BRE daylight sunlight guidance and explained how the technical assessment might translate into actual experience of those affected. Officers stressed that the Committee must decide whether the application presents an unacceptable material deterioration to daylight and sunlight levels.
• Explained the rationale for inclusion of a gated element (including door entry system) in the design.
• Provided further detail on the technicalities which prevent the ability of the Committee to require a Section 106 agreement on the development and how this would be mitigated by the imposition of conditions. 
• Provided further detail of the assessment of open space provision and how the proximity of nearby open spaces factored into this assessment.
• Explained they were satisfied that consultation on the application had been undertaken in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.
• Provided further detail to support their assessment of the appropriateness of the building design and appearance.

Questions to Objectors

In response to questions from the Committee, objectors:

• Expressed concern that errors had been found in the daylight and sunlight assessment previously considered by the Committee on this application and stressed that, without independent analysis, the Committee could not be certain that the revised assessments did not also contain errors.
• Questioned why improvements to the street scene of Arnold Road had yet to be realised by the Council, despite the application being first proposed several years ago.

Questions to Applicants team

In response to questions from the Committee, the applicant’s representatives:

• Provided rationale for the proposed height of the building. The applicant explained that they feel the proposed height provides the optimisation of the site without adversely impacting neighbours.
• Provided an update on actions to date to improve the street scene of Arnold Road, including discussions with the Council's Public Realm Team and neighbouring commercial businesses.
• Provided a brief summary of the scale of housing need in the borough and why they felt the application represented a welcome step toward meeting that demand.

On a vote of 6 in favour none against, the Committee RESOLVED:

1.    That subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, conditional planning permission is GRANTED subject to the planning conditions and informatives set out in paragraphs 8.2 to 8.5 of the report.