Update report was tabled

Update report was tabled

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of the existing office and job centre building and the erection of building of up to 8 storeys comprising 84 residential units. He also highlighted the key issues in the update report.

Victoria Coelho presented the application, explaining the site context and the key features of the proposals. Consultation had been carried out and 10 objections were received. The key issues raised related to the height,  loss of light and overshadowing, increased traffic and the impact on biodiversity of the canal.

In terms of the assessment, it was noted that:

1.    The loss of the current office space and the provision of a residential development, was acceptable and justified given the poor quality of the existing office space and the relocation of the job centre building. It was considered that the benefits of the  proposal outweighed the benefits of continued employment use.

2.    The scheme provides 37% affordable housing by habitable room, (increased from 19%) with a 69/31 tenure split. This allowed for the scheme to be considered eligible for the fast track route.

3.    The standard of accommodation is considered to be high, in terms of the internal spaces, the private and communal amenity space. The scheme can accommodate the majority of child play space within the communal amenity space.  Whilst the provision marginally fell short of policy when combined with the communal space requirements, the proximity of nearby parks can accommodate play space for 12+ years

4.    The height, massing and design are considered to appropriately respond to the local context, due to amongst other things the varied building heights.  It would relate well and would integrate well with the area. The enhanced pedestrian link was welcomed.

5.    The daylight and sunlight, assessment had been independently assessed. This found that the impact on neighbouring properties would acceptable for an urban setting. The properties would continue to receive acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight including the properties that would experience a material reduction in light. In terms of the concerns around overlooking, it was recommended that privacy screening to the roof terrace, adjacent to Aspen Court, be secured by condition. 

6.    Biodiversity enhancements would be secured by condition. The Environment Agency were satisfied that the applicant had satisfied the requirements regarding flood defence subject to the conditions.

7.    Car and cycle parking and servicing are considered to be acceptable.

8.    Financial contributions had been secured and the scheme would be liable for both the Mayor of London’s and the Borough’s Community Infrastructure Levy.

9.    Officers recommend the proposed development be granted planning permission.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Tufyal Choudhury, a local resident of Coalmakers Wharf , spoke in objection to the application. Whilst not objecting to the principle of redeveloping the site, he expressed concerns about:

·       The scale and height of the development. It would be out of keeping with the area given the surrounding buildings were lower in height.

·       The major impacts on sunlight and daylight, from the height of the 8 storey building, particularly affecting ground and first floor properties.

·       Strength of local objections amongst the TRA.

·       Lack of engagement with residents by the developers.

·       That the 8 and 6 storey buildings should be reversed or more evenly spread across the development. 6 storey buildings would be sufficient.

Councillor David Edgar, ward Councillor, also expressed concerns about the application on behalf of local residents. Whilst noting the need for more housing and affordable housing, he expressed concerns about:

·       Scale and prominence of the 8 storey building near the canal given the nearby buildings were lower.

·       Impact of the 6 storey building on Dod Street. It would have more of an impact than the existing buildings.

·       Impact on neighbouring amenity.

·       Public access to the canal link. Would this be maintained?

Simon Marks spoke in support of the application. He advised that the principle of residential accommodation had already been established by the previous permission. The redevelopment for office use was no longer viable. The scheme would deliver a number of substantial benefits. This included: new affordable homes, improved public realm, that would enhance the appearance of the area. The density met the tests in policy and the site had good transport links. The impact on daylight and sunlight would be negligible. The massing and height of the buildings had been designed to minimise any impacts of the scheme and respect the local context. The number of affordable housing had been increased. 

Committee’s questions:

In response to the presentation, the Committee asked questions of the Officers and the registered speakers and the following points were noted:

·       Officers advised that public access to the pedestrian link would be secured in the s106.

·       Regarding the lack of 4 bed affordable units, it was noted that the application had been amended to increase the level of 3 bed units in response to concerns.  The housing mix was considered to be reasonable and to provide an acceptable number of family units.

·       Whether the development would be open plan. It was reported that whilst not specifically designed as such, the proposals had been designed in accordance with and met London Plan standards.

·       That prior approval had been granted for residential development with no affordable homes. This should carry little weight. This application should be considered on its own merits.

·       The increase in affordable housing, from 19% (requiring the submission of a viability assessment) to 37%, which met policy. The application now qualified for the fast track route and a viability assessment would no longer need to be submitted.

·       The viability assessment, (submitted with the original scheme) had been assessed. This found the offer of 19% affordable housing (with a surplus of £0.29m payment in  - lieu) to be the viable position . Officers had worked to increase the level of affordable housing.

·       Details of the sunlight and daylight impacts including the impact on rooms that did not comply with policy. The properties would retain adequate levels of sunlight and daylight.  So overall the impact would be moderate.

·       In response to questions, Tufyal Choudhury confirmed that the main issues from his point of view related to the size and height of the development

On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:

1.          That, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, planning permission is GRANTED at 13-15 Dod Street for

Demolition of the existing office and job centre building. Erection of building of up to 8 storeys comprising 84 residential units (Use Class C3) with basement car parking, associated hard and soft landscaping and infrastructure works. (PA/20/00123)

2.          Subject to 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,