Proposal:

Demolition of the existing buildings and structures and construction of a mixed use development comprising residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and non residential uses (Sui Generis), a basement, public realm works, landscaping, access, servicing, parking and associated works.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report published.

Paul Buckenham introduced the report for the demolition of the existing buildings and structures and construction of a mixed use development comprising residential dwellings and non residential uses with associated works.

­

Aleksandra Milentijevic presented the report, explaining the site location – and existing site layout and the character of the area. Public consultation had been carried out. No responses have been received from the community. A  letter of support was received from the Bellamy Close and Byng Street Residents’ Steering Group. The Isle of Dogs Neighbouring Plan  Forum had raised concerns about the weight given to this Isle of Dogs Neighbourhood Plan and this had been addressed in the update report. The applicant had carried out consultation as set out in the statement of community engagement.

Members noted the following:

·       The key features of the application. This included details of the proposed height and design. The benefits of the scheme included a communal area on the roof which would be assessable to all residents of Block C and a new pedestrian link. Door stop play space for children 0-5 would also be provided on site within the enclosed courtyard.

·       Given the lack of space for play space for over 5’s on site, a contribution would be secured for the provision of enhancements and upgrades to the nearby play area.

·       It would deliver good quality affordable housing. In total, the proposed development provides for 61% affordable housing by habitable room, inclusive of the re-provided social rented homes.

·       Without the re-provision, the proposal provides for 51% affordable housing. All would meet the minimum standards and would be provided over an increased floor space. There would be 14 wheelchair accessible dwellings. Details of the housing and tenure mix were noted

·       All of the existing occupants would have the right to accommodation in the development that meets the needs of their households.

·       The proposals had been subject to a successful resident ballot and the vast majority of the existing tenants voted in favour of the proposals.

·       The proposal also included the delivery of affordable workspace.

·       In land use terms, the proposals therefore met policy requirements and estate regeneration principles.

·       The applicant had submitted a viability assessment. This showed that the scheme delivered the maximum level of affordable housing that could viability be delivered taking into account the application for grant funding.

·       Regarding neighbouring amenity, it was noted that a number  or properties would experience sunlight and day light impacts. Details of the assessment were noted. Given the site’s location in an urban area, and the benefits of the application. Officers considered this on balance to be acceptable. 

·       The application would deliver environmental benefits. 

·       It would be liable for CIL contributions as set out in the report.

·       On this basis, the grant of planning permission is recommended.

The Chair invited Councillor Andrew Wood, the Ward Councillor to speak in support of the application. He advised that he was the Secretary of the Isle of Dogs Planning Forum. He welcomed the scheme on the basis that:

·       It was much shorter than other developments in area

·       Residents supported this.

·       It would provide new housing.

·       That the update report acknowledged the status of the Isle of Dogs Neighbourhood Plan, which when fully adopted would carry great weight.

·       Noted the merits of the use of 3D models for assessing planning applications.

In response to the presentation and the representations, the Committee asked a number of questions around the following issues:

·       It was clarified that the accommodation would be provided at London Affordable Rent. The difference between these rents and Tower Hamlets Living Rent was that they excluded service changes. Both worked out in rents terms as quite similar.

·       It was noted that the proposal to provide the accommodation at London Affordable Rent did not meet the policy requirement (of 50:50 split between London Affordable Rent and Tower Hamlets Living Rent) However, given the application for grant funding, the proposal was considered to provide on acceptable balance.

·       The development would be tenure blind in terms of the external doors and play spaces in line with requirements.

·       The occupants from all tenures would have access to the play space in the courtyard and the play space in the public path.

On a vote of 7 in favour and 0 against the Committee RESOLVED:

1.                     That, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London planning permission is GRANTED at15-27 Byng Street (odd), 29 Byng Street (Flats 1-6 Dowlen Court) and 1-12 Bellamy Close, London, E14 for the following development.

·                Demolition of the existing buildings and structures and construction of a mixed use development comprising residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and non residential uses (Sui Generis), a basement, public realm works, landscaping, access, servicing, parking and associated works. (PA/20/01065)

2.                    Subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the Committee 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,