Proposal:

Demolition of existing modular buildings and construction of a part-one and part-seven storey building comprising community use (Class E (e-f) and Class F1) at ground floor level and 15 x residential dwellings (Class C3) above together with associated amenity areas, cycle and car parking (in the form of 1 x accessible parking bay), refuse/recycling stores and landscaping, including refurbishment of existing play and amenity space adjoining Trinidad Street and provision of replacement MUGA

Recommendation:

Grant Planning Permission, subject to conditions

Update report published.

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of existing modular buildings and construction of a building -  comprising community use and residential dwellings with associated works.

Adam Garcia presented the report advising that:

·       In land use terms, the proposed development would re-provide and enhance community facilities. It would provide much needed affordable housing, which is appropriate for the site’s location.

·       All of the housing would be affordable accommodation, and the Housing mix, (whilst it slightly deviated from the policy targets in terms of the bedroom mix) was broadly in line with policy and was considered acceptable due to the public benefits . All of the units would be of a high quality standard.

·       The development would positively respond to the local context.

·       The development would result in the loss of 7 trees. 5 of which were of low quality. 7 replacement trees would be planted.

·       It was noted that a number of properties would experience daylight and sunlight impacts, at Padstow House and West Point. Overall the residual levels were in line with BRE guidance.

·       Open space would be provided, resulting in an increase in readily accessible space compared to PA/15/03148.

·       The scheme would provide contributions to local employment and training.

·       Officers were recommending that the scheme was granted planning permission.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the committee

Alno Lesch and Volha Leech (local residents), expressed concerns regarding the following issues:

·       That the development would put increased pressure on infrastructure and services.  It would worsen existing problems on the estate including estate management issues. The area was already overpopulated. THH needs to resolve these existing issues.

·       The development was higher than surrounding buildings.

·       Suitability of this site for the development given the site constraints.

·       Other sites were more suited to providing housing.

·       The loss of green space and trees was not justified for a small amount of housing, and a hotel. Concerns over the quality of replacement trees.

·       Quality of the proposed open space due to poor location and security issues.

·       Harmful impacts on residential amenity

·       Overdevelopment of area.

Councillor James King, the Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee.

He reported on the following issues :

·       The use of the portacabin by the TRA, SPLASH as well as Limehouse Bangladeshi Cultural Association. It has been stated they were interested in leasing this facility. Clarification was sought on this

·       Whilst he supported the proposal, he sought clarification on the use of the E/F1 portion and its suitability for use as a prayer room for the Muslim community.

·       He sought assurances from THH regarding outstanding estate management issues.

·       He also requested further details on the proposed green space at the site.

·       His points of clarification were set out in the Committee update report.

The applicant’s representative Tim Waters and Anthony Jones addressed the Committee.

They highlighted the key features of the scheme and the main benefits including:

·       The regeneration of the site to provide good quality affordable housing (100% of the accommodation), whilst providing a community facility. This would be larger in size, fitted to a ‘shell and core’ standard that could accommodate different end users.

·       Increasing the size or changing the design of the scheme would impact on the green space.

·       All of the technical reports supported the scheme,

·       The existing permission had lapsed, PA/15/03148.

·       The developer had consulted widely and the residents views had been taken into account. The Council were mindful of the feedback regarding the need for improved child play space, communal space, pressures on local services, and estate management issues The Council worked with THH in relation to these issues.

The Committee asked a number of questions of Officers and the registered speakers around the following issues:

·       The difficulties in providing any 4 bed units, which complied with the necessary standards, due to the site constraints.

·       The installation of efficient sound proofing given the site’s proximity to the DLR. All of the units would have to comply with the relevant standards in this regard.

·       The impact on the existing green space. It was confirmed that the existing area comprised areas of open space of poor quality or not currently accessible. Taking this into account, it was confirmed that the proposal would deliver a net increase in good quality open space.

·       The proposed community facility and the plans to accommodate community groups. It was emphasised that the proposal met the policy  tests regarding existing community uses. Only the land use could be secured by planning policy, not a specific end user, however it would be able to accommodate and be adapted to suite a  range of end users.

·       Impact on residential amenity. It was considered that due to the mitigating factors (orientation of the buildings/the windows closet to the development/the good separation distances), that the development would have a minimal impact in terms of overlooking.

·       Public access to the MUGA

·       The Committee also discussed and received reassurances regarding the impact on infrastructure.

Councillor Kevin Brady moved and Councillor Abdul Mukit seconded additional conditions regarding the submission of a noise and vibration survey and a management strategy for the replacement MUGA, ensuring public access is maintained.

On a vote of 5 in favour and 0 against the Committee RESOLVED:

1.             That, planning permission is GRANTED at Community Centre and Adjoining Land, Gill Street, London, E14 8AN for the following development

·       Demolition of existing modular buildings and construction of a part-one and part-seven storey building comprising community use (Class E (e-f) and Class F1) at ground floor level and 15 x residential dwellings (Class C3) above together with associated amenity areas, cycle and car parking (in the form of 1 x accessible parking bay), refuse/recycling stores and landscaping, including refurbishment of existing play and amenity space adjoining Trinidad Street and provision of replacement MUGA. (PA/20/02552)

2.             Subject to the conditions and informations set out in the Committee report and the additional conditions agreed at the meeting regarding: the submission of a noise and vibration survey and a management strategy for the replacement MUGA, ensuring public access is maintained.