Recommendation:

Demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment to provide four buildings, including a tall building of up to 25 storeys, comprising residential units and flexible commercial space (A1/A2/A3/B1) at ground floor level and alterations to façade of retained building, together with associated ancillary floorspace, cycle and car parking, landscaping and highway works.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report published

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment to provide four buildings, including a tall building of up to 25 storeys, comprising residential units and flexible commercial space and associated works. The update report included additional representations and a number of clarifications including corrections to the level of affordable housing provision.

Kevin Crilly presented the report providing an overview of the site, which had an excellent PTAL rating.

Member were advised of the following issues:

·       Details of the previous consented scheme. Due to this, the existing homes and businesses on site had  already been vacated so were vacant.

·       Consultation had been undertaken. The main issues raised were noted.

·       Height of each block and what they would provide in terms of their uses.

·       The proposals included the reprovision of the 50 social rent homes and in addition to this, there would be a net uplift in social rent homes, facilitated by grant support. The proposals had been viability tested. It is also recommended that the s106 agreement secure an early stage review.

·       Officers were mindful of the conflict with policy in terms of aspects of the housing mix, but on balance given the wider benefits of the application, considered that this was acceptable.

·       The proposal would deliver a number of additional public benefits. This included: improvements to public realm and lighting, a pocket park a court yard, and landscaping improvements

·       Other benefits  included: the delivery of flexible retail and commercial uses with enhancements to facades

·       Design. The scheme was considered to have an acceptable relationship with surrounding properties and the setting of the area.

·       Height of the development. The development would meet 3 out of the 4 points of the exception criteria for tall buildings outside the Tall Building Zone. Officers also felt that significant weight should be given to the regenerative benefits and the role of the height in supporting the viability of the scheme. Taking these factors into account, it was considered that a tall building in this area was acceptable.

·       That, in relation to the heritage assessment, the proposals  would have a limited impact on views of the Church of St Mary, the listed buildings and setting of the area. It was considered that the public benefits of the proposals would outweigh any harm so the application complied with the tests in the NPPF.

·       That in terms of neighbouring amenity, the proposals broadly complied with policy. Properties would retain a reasonable level of sunlight and daylight.

·       The transport proposals included the provision of cycle parking and facilities.

·       Contributions had been secured including for improvements to the nearby cycle highway and cycle facilities. 

Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission. 

The Chair then invited the registered speaker to address the Committee.

Councillor Andrew Wood expressed concerns about the application. He considered that it was too small for the site given  the site’s development potential and the PTAL rating. There was a need for more housing in the borough, since Tower Hamlets is missing it’s housing targets. Therefore, it should match the example of taller buildings elsewhere such as those in Newham and deliver more affordable housing. 

Councillor Zenith Rahman, ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application. She expressed support for the scheme, highlighting the community benefits such as the additional affordable housing, the new pocket park and the community café. She stated that, as a community worker, she recognised the need for these facilities and they were welcome.

Councillor Dan Tomlinson ward Councillor, also addressed the meeting. Whilst he expressed support for the new homes, which were much needed in the area, he also noted that some concerns had been raised about the height of the development and the impact on sunlight and daylight on neighbouring properties. He stressed the need for ongoing engagement with residents over the course of the development, especially during the construction phase, particularly with the residents of Regent’s Court. Current provision for cyclists in the area was unacceptable and the report only proposed modest contributions in this respect, but more was needed especially to facilitate safer and more convenient cycle turns at the nearby junction. He proposed that a condition be imposed limiting the number of occupants that could move in until the completion of the works to improve the cycle routes.

The applicant’s representatives, Duncan Cumberland Babu Bhattaherjee

spoke in support of the application highlighting the following points:

·       Site was in need of regeneration.

·       Applicant had worked closely with Officers and had consulted residents, and will continue to work with the community.

·       Extension community consultation had been carried out.

·       That the scheme would deliver a number of community benefits and the developer was eager to deliver the scheme. It was important that the development started soon given the time limits on the grant.

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

·       The housing delivery targets. Councillor Wood stated that the Mayor of London has set housing targets. The recent review showed that the Borough had fell short of meeting the targets, which had consequences for the Council .Consideration should be given to developments in the Isle of Dogs to see what was possible for site with a  transport PTAL rating of 6.

·       The impact on the existing business and affordability of the rents to businesses especially small local businesses. The Committee sought clarity about the type of businesses the applicant sought to attract and whether local businesses could be given priority, when allocating the business space.

·       Officers confirmed that, since the business operators had already moved to Fairlie Court, none would be displaced.

·       The applicant’s speakers also reported that they had agreed leases with business operators on favourable terms. They also underlined their commitment to seek a range of occupants, complimenting existing businesses, including small and independent businesses.  

·       It was also confirmed that, given the flexible nature of the proposed units, and the introduction of the new uses classes,  it was possible that the units could be occupied by a range of types of businesses. In view of these discussions, the Committee proposed an additional condition requiring: the submission of a Marketing Strategy for the commercial units, with an obligation to exercise best endeavours to reach out to local businesses.

·       The Committee also discussed the measures to mitigate any noise disturbance from aircraft noise, as detailed in the noise assessment. The Committee proposed an additional condition requiring compliance with noise mitigation measures

·       It was also noted that the applicant had submitted details of their energy strategy. This has been reviewed by Officers and the GLA and they considered that this was acceptable. To ensure compliance with these measures, the Committee asked that an additional condition be added ensuring compliance with the Energy Strategy.

·       Members also sought clarity regarding the improvements for the Cycle Super Highway given the expected increase in cycle trips. The Committee discussed the need for this, particularly in relation to improving the safety of cycle routes near the junction, and the  difficulties in addressing this due to the complex constraints. The Committee  also heard about TfL’s indicative plans for such a scheme. Following the discussions, the Committee proposed amendments to the contributions for cycling as set out in resolution 2 below.

·       The Committee also discussed the affordable housing grant. It was noted that, in line with the requirements, all of the social rent units, would be provided at London Affordable Rent. It was also noted that the grant funding had been confirmed, but was time sensitive given the grant conditions requiring that the scheme was delivered on site by a certain time.

·       Members also sought clarification about the height of the scheme, the merits of changing the height and massing and how the development fitted in with the Bromley by Bow Master Plan

·       Officers further explained the key aspects of the assessment  of the application as set out in the report. Consideration had been given to changing the height and massing, and placing this elsewhere in the scheme, but due to the negative implications of this, the application had declined to do this. 

·     The Committee also sought and received assurances regarding the accessibility of the community café, the pocket park and the courtyard to all residents, with opportunities for the courtyard to be closed at night.

·     Other issues discussed included: clarification of the nature of the community café.

Councillor Kevin Brady moved and Councillor Val Whitehead seconded additional conditions as set out below in resolution 2 and 4 below.

On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:

1.             That, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, planning permission is GRANTED at Site at Stroudley Walk, London, E3 3EW (PA/20/01696) for the following development:

·       Demolition of existing buildings and structures and redevelopment to provide four buildings, including a tall building of up to 25 storeys, comprising residential units and flexible commercial space (A1/A2/A3/B1) at ground floor level and alterations to façade of retained building, together with associated ancillary floorspace, cycle and car parking, landscaping and highway works.

2.                 Subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the Committee report, and the following amendments agreed at the Committee meeting.

·       Conditions D and E of the financial contributions be combined to provide £270k for improvements to the Super Cycle Highway on Bow Road, with a cascade method to ensure that, in the event the improvements were not viable, this contribution be allocated to towards the TFL Cycle Hire Docking station.

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 report, in addition to the conditions agreed at the meeting regarding

·       Compliance with the Energy Strategy.

·       Compliance with Noise Mitigation Measures.

·       Submission of a Marketing Strategy for the commercial units, with an obligation to exercise best endeavours to reach out to local businesses.