Proposal:

Councillor Kahar Chowdhury (Chair)

Update report was tabled

Jerry Bell introduced the application for a hybrid planning application (part detailed, part outline) for the demolition of existing buildings and the comprehensive, mixed-use, re-development of the site, comprising a maximum of 218,991sqm (GEA) of floorspace.

This application for planning permission was considered by the Strategic Development Committee on 9^th June 2021.

The application was deferred by members to request that officers further consider the proposal in relation to

·   fire safety measures,

·   sunlight and daylight assessments,

·   water pressure,

·   affordable housing compared with a previous planning permission,

·   and the mix of town centre uses.

The Committee also requested an additional site visit for members to further consider the relationship with Friars Mead. This took place on 13^th September 2021.

Rikki Weir provided a brief overview of the scheme, describing the application site and the key features of the scheme.

The application has been updated with additional information relating to the Committee’s reasons for deferral as set out in the report.

Focusing on the reasons for deferral, Members noted an update on the following issues, as set out in the report.

·       The fire safety issues. The London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the Greater London Authority (GLA) considered that the submitted fire safety information complied with the relevant policy and the requirements.

·       The sunlight and daylight impacts on Friars Mead/ concerns about the adequacy of the assessment. It was noted that BRE have confirmed that the information available to Members (in the Environmental Statement, the applicant’s supplementary report and BRE’s independent review) is sufficient to enable members to fully assess daylight and sunlight impacts. The BRE confirm that properties in Friars Mead would have windows which would experience minor impacts or minor to moderate adverse daylight impacts. However, these properties would generally continue to receive satisfactory levels of sunlight.

·       The water pressure issues. It was noted that the Council had held a meeting with Thames Water and they have provided reassurances regarding the plans to increase the capacity of the network to accommodate local development. They had also confirmed that for Waste Water, there would be enough Foul Water sewerage network infrastructure capacity and Surface Water network infrastructure capacity for both the Detailed and Outline components of the application. Thames Water also have a legal obligation to provide a minimum level of water pressure. There would also be pre–commencements conditions to ensure that the development would be planned in such a way to address the water needs of the development.

·       Concerns about the level of affordable housing compared to the previous 2014 permission. It was confirmed that, as set out in the update report, on 17th September 2021 the applicant had agreed to provide 10 additional affordable homes, increasing the proportion from 25% to 27% from the previous committee. Overall, it was considered that the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing had been secured as confirmed by LBTH viability team. The proposed 27% was in excess of the 16.5% that was considered to be the maximum reasonable provision when the application was initially submitted in 2019. It was also noted that the previous, expired 2014 consent scheme did not secure the 35% affordable housing but 31% and that the current scheme would provide additional benefits secured for the Borough. These included additional financial contributions and a new primary school.

·       The standard of the affordable housing would be high and would be located around the site in good locations.

·       Regarding the Town Centre Uses, changes had been made to the plans with the introduction of the D2 uses (assembly and leisure uses) and the restriction on B1 flexible commercial floor space,

In addition amendments had been made to the application to:

·       abandon the tunnelling works beneath Mudchute Park in relation to the sewage works.

·       alter the proposed access route to Mudchute Park, ensuring that some trees and a hedgerow in the Park would not be removed.

·       To provide additional electric charging points for the commercial car parking spaces.

·       To include a target within the s106 for 40% of ASDA workforce to be local

The scheme would deliver a wide range of public benefits which were noted, and a lengthy set of planning obligations. The Officers recommendation remained to grant permission

In response to the presentation, the Committee asked a number of questions about the following issues:

·       The decision to provide D2 uses and place restrictions on B1 flexible commercial floor space. Officers were satisfied that this should address the concerns and that the proposal should provide a mixed range of town centre uses.

·       It was confirmed that 30% of the flexible commercial space (A1-A4, B1 and D2) would be offered as affordable at a 30% discount to small, local businesses and the D2 space could accommodate leisure uses. The Committee discussed how the details of this would be secured, particularly in respect of securing opportunities for local small businesses. It was noted that the details of this would be secured in the s106, and this could include for an example, a definition of a small business. The applicant could also be encouraged to use best endeavours to secure this. Contributions had also been secured for local employment which were noted.

·       The proposal to provide additional affordable housing and the phasing plans. Officers confirmed the proposed tenure split of the affordable housing. The units included large family housing. The proposals complied with policy and was a key benefit of the scheme. Further reassurances were also provided that the housing would be tenure blind and located throughout the development.

·       In terms of the timeline, it was envisaged that the development should take about nine years to build, with the delivery of the affordable housing split between the three phases. An overview of these plans was noted

·       The Committee also heard from the Council’s Viability officer, Jack Leafe about the assessment and the operation of the viability review mechanism.

·       That land reserved in the s106 potentially for a school site. The s106 only safeguarded the land for a school. However, it was open to the Council to decide how this should be taken forward, as detailed in the report

·       The impact on Mudchute Park. Reassurances were provided about the measures to mitigate the impact through for example providing like for like replacements of green spaces and uplift in biodiversity benefits as detailed in the report. This should mitigate the short term impacts on the park. In terms of the longer term impact, Officers, working with the Mudchute Park, had secured financial contributions for mitigation and after 10 years the costs of this should also eventually be offset and met by the additional Council Tax revenue from the development.

·       The concerns about the loss of trees, particularly during the construction phase. The Committee received further details about the changes to the access route to Mudchute Park. The daylight and the sunlight assessments would have taken into account the position in relation to the trees.

·       The Water pressures issues. Officers further explained the outcome of the meeting with Thames Water to consider their plans to upgrade the network as set out in update report.

·       The infrastructure impacts. It was confirmed that contributions had been secured for improvements to the transport network. TfL have also confirmed that they are satisfied that the planned phasing of the scheme should help to align with their planned DLR capacity improvements.

·       In response to further questions, the Committee heard from Matthew Pullen (Infrastructure Planning Manager) regarding the planned capacity enhancements to the DLR network so that it could accommodate more passengers.

On a unanimous vote in favour the Committee RESOLVED:

1.             That, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, planning permission is GRANTED at Asda –Crossharbour District Centre, 151 East Ferry Road, London, E14 3BT for the following development

·       A hybrid planning application (part detailed, part outline) for the demolition of existing buildings and the comprehensive, mixed-use, re-development of the site, comprising a maximum of 218,991sqm (GEA) of floorspace.

·       Full details are submitted for 526 residential units (Class C3), flexible commercial floorspace, including a new foodstore (17,087sqm GIA - A1-A4/B1/D2), a primary school (D1), community uses (D1), public bus parking and a site wide basement, with associated uses as part of the development including car parking (up to 410 spaces), cycle parking, and an energy centre. Building heights would range between a maximum of 17.4m AOD (3 storeys above ground level) and 60m AOD (15 storeys above ground level). Creation of new vehicular and pedestrian access and public realm works, including all ground floor hard and soft landscaping and other works incidental to the proposals, including a programme of interim works (which include a temporary multi-storey car park with 349 car parking spaces and a temporary access lobby to the retail foodstore).

·       Outline permission (with layout, scale, appearance and landscaping at upper levels being reserved) is sought for up to 111,137sqm GEA above podium level, comprising of between 1217 and 1446 residential units (C3), with associated private and communal podium amenity and landscaping, within four buildings with maximum heights ranging between up to 45.850m (AOD)/12 storeys and up to 115.50m (AOD)/32 storeys.

·       [The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement]

2.             Subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations in the Committee report dated 9^th June 2021, the additional conditions/ obligations within the report dated 23^rd September 2021 (regarding the matters set out below) and the update report

(a)                     

·               minimum 10% of flexible commercial floorspace to be employment and assembly and leisure uses (former B1/D2 use classes)

·               maximum 20% of flexible commercial floorspace to be employment and assembly and leisure uses (former B1/D2 use classes) with maximum 999sqm employment (former class B1 use class) floorspace

·               noise and ventilation details to be submitted for D2 use class

(b)                     

·               updated planning obligations to require reasonable endeavours to employ 40% local workers (to be defined) within the replacement Asda hypermarket.

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 dated 9^th June 2021 and 23^rd September 2021 including the clarifications in the update report