]

Home > Council & democracy > Council meetings > Agenda item - North Quay, Aspen Way, London, E14 (PA/20/01421 and PA/20/01412)

Agenda item

North Quay, Aspen Way, London, E14 (PA/20/01421 and PA/20/01412)

Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 23rd September, 2021 6.30 p.m. (Item 5.1)

Proposal

Application for OUTLINE (Ref PA/20/01421) planning permission (all matters reserved) for the redevelopment of the North Quay site for mixed use comprising:

· Demolition of existing buildings and structures;

· Erection of buildings and construction of basements;

· The following uses:

- Business floorspace (B1)

- Hotel/Serviced Apartments (C1)

- Residential (C3)

- Co-Living (C4/Sui Generis)

- Student Housing (Sui Generis)

- Retail (A1-A5)

- Community and Leisure (D1 and D2)

- Other Sui Generis Uses

- Associated infrastructure, including a new deck over part of the existing dock;

- Creation of streets, open spaces, hard and soft landscaping and public realm;

- Creation of new vehicular accesses and associated works to Aspen Way, Upper Bank Street, Hertsmere Road and underneath Delta Junction;

- Connections to the Aspen Way Footbridge and Crossrail Place (Canary Wharf Crossrail Station);

- Car, motorcycle, bicycle parking spaces, servicing;

- Utilities including energy centres and electricity substation(s); and

- Other minor works incidental to the proposed development.

LISTED BUILDING APPLICATION (Ref: PA/20/01412) Stabilisation of listed quay wall and associated/remedial works, as well as demolition/removal of the false quay in connection with the erection of a mixed-use development.

Recommendation

Grant Outline Planning Permission subject to conditions and a legal agreement

Grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions

Minutes:

Councillor Abdul Mukit MBE (Chair)

Update report was tabled

Jerry Bell introduced the application for outline planning permission (all matters reserved) for the redevelopment of the North Quay site for mixed use.

Max Smith presented the report, explaining the site and the surrounds, including images of the extant permission. The application was in outline and would be controlled by a number of documents.

The Committee noted the following:

• That the proposed complied with the aims in the North Quay site allocation, for an employment led scheme. That officers raised no objections to the proposed night time uses and the casino.

• An overview of the parameter plans and the indicative scheme showing how the development may look.

• That public consultation had been carried out resulting in the receipt of 30 representations in objection, 6 neither in support or objection and 7 in support. The issues raised were noted.

• Details of the various land use options, including a summary of the residential option.

• Under the residential housing option, the scheme could provide 30% housing affordable. The viability of this option had been tested. It was found that the maximum level of affordable housing that could be provided had been secured. Should student accommodation or co – living space may form part of the scheme – the scheme would deliver 35% of these units, through on site or off site provision.

• It was recommended that a condition be secured to secure a minimum level of residential floor space subject to the caveat, requested by the applicant, allowing this to be waived if a substantial amount of Life science floor space was brought forward.

• That the development would deliver a range of public benefits. These include substantial contributions to employment and affordable workspace

• Other key benefits of the scheme included public realm improvements. These included: new access routes and public open space.

• The application is generally acceptable from a transport perspective, providing a high density car-free scheme with disabled access parking.

• It would also provide improvements to permeability. These included additional pedestrian and cycling routes through the site - along with improvements to Poplar footbridge as sought in the Site Allocation, as well as a dockside pedestrian route.

• Whilst there would be some impact on the Grade II* Listed St. Matthias Church, any harm cased would be less than substantial and would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. Any harm can be addressed through detailed design at the reserved matters stage.

• In daylight/sunlight terms, there would be major impacts on a number of residential properties under the maximum parameters. It is likely that the final design, would result in a lesser impact as evidenced by the assessment of the Indicative Scheme.

• The Council would retain considerable influence at reserved matters stage to ensure that the ultimate development would be of sufficient quality, regardless of which development scenario is pursued.

Given the merits of the scheme and the public benefits, the development complied with policy and Officers were recommending that it was granted planning permission and listed building consent.

The Chair invited the following registered speakers to address the Committee:

Barry Carpenter spoke in objections raising concerns about the development in relation to:

• Fire safety issues due to the height and the adequacy of the evacuation plans. This was because the site was hemmed in.

• Aircraft safety give sites close proximity to the London City Airport.

• That the development was too tall and that the height needs to be reduced to make it more acceptable.

Howard Dawber and Jason Syrett spoke in support the scheme. They drew attention to the following:

• The applicant had met with objectors and were happy to continue to talk to the speaker to answer questions/respond to any issues.

• That the Fire Authority and the City Airport had raised no concerns and the applicant would continue to engage with them.

• That the applicant had worked hard to provide a high quality development and to provide robust plans that would inform the final plans. The plans would improve and reconnect the site to the docks and the wider area, would be a high sustainable development, energy efficient and would provide green space. It would enable the CW Group to bring forward the next generation of businesses.

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

• The arrangements for ensuring certain aspects of the scheme were delivered at an earlier stage, such as the necessary infrastructure. Officers advised that this would be managed through the s106 agreement. In discussing this the applicant provided examples of how each phase of the scheme could be delivered.

• As this was an outline planning consent, Members requested that the reserved matters application would be submitted to the Committee for it to decide. The Council’s Constitution provided for this.

• It was confirmed that the proposal sought to significantly improve public access to the area and provide cycling routes. The applicant provided an overview of the key benefits. These included the enhancements to the cycle routes along Aspen Way with the addition of soft landscaping to improve its appearance. The development would open up the site, creating links to the Poplar footbridge. The plans sought to make the site as welcoming as possible to the public and residents of the north and south of the site.

• That the applicant had carried out community consultation over a number of months as set out in their Statement of Community Involvement.

• That in response to the Council’s Consultation 30 objections were received. The applicant had worked hard to understand and mitigate any concerns especially the impact on those most affected. The applicant underlined their commitment to continue to work with the residents. In response to further questions, the applicant was mindful of the issues raised by residents as set out in the Committee report (about CCTV mitigation measures etc) and undertook to take these on board at the reserved matters stage.

• The ecology and biodiversity improvements. The applicant advised that they had carried out a lot of work on the wider estate to provide such enhancements. Such improvements would be a key feature of this development. Details of these proposed benefits were noted including the provision of green roofs, and the fish wall.

• The discussions about the provisions of life science space, as a primary use of the site.

• The height of the scheme. The applicant noted that the height of the proposed buildings varied, and there were a number of potential building heights. The tallest element in any scenarios would sit below 1 Canada Square.

• The works to the Banana Wall (Grade 1 Listed). Officers outlined the plans for the wall. Officers considered that the impact would be neutral and the appearance of the wall would be consistent with that of the rest of the dock wall.

• The proposals to provide 30% affordable housing given the policy targets. Clarification was also sought on the maximum housing parameters. It was confirmed that the applicant had taken a commercial decision to provide 30% affordable housing. The Council’s Viability Team had reviewed this offer and had concluded that this could reasonable be secured. Viability Review mechanism would also be included in the s106, to secure more affordable housing if values increased. The Committee heard from Jack Leafe, the Council’s Viability Officer about the assessment. Overall Officers felt that these outline plans in respect of the housing, were acceptable.

• The viability of the two other options had not been tested (student accommodation or co – living space). Concerns had been expressed about these options.

• That some of the over 12 play space may need to be provided off site – similar to other schemes. (under the maximum housing option). It was felt that this could be supported – given that the proposed site was within walking distance of the development and that it would provide a public benefit. The quality of the play space may be affected if it all of which was to provided on site.

• In relation to the sunlight and daylight assessment, Officers provide further details of the assessment. A number of properties would experience a loss of light – based on the worst case scenario, and the results were in general better than the previously approved scheme. The existing levels of sunlight and daylight were high as the site was currently vacant, so that the impacts were relative. The properties affected would still continue to receive an acceptable level of light. Such impacts were to be expected given the scale of the development and the expectations in the site allocation for a tall building on this site. It was hoped that this could be mitigated at the reserved matters stage.

• The impact on the Grade II* Listed St. Matthias Church, from the indicative plans would be limited, but it was emphasised that it was anticipated that this could be resolved at the reserved matters stage. Changes had been made to the scheme to minimise the impacts.

• In terms of the safety issues raised by the objector, officers had carried out the necessary due diligence check and had no concerns about the safety issues. The applicant also underlined their commitment to continue to work with the relevant authorities on the plans.

• Contributions had been secured to provide local employment which were noted. The CWG worked closely with local colleagues, universities and businesses to facilitate training and to help people in work. Through such initiatives, they proactively worked to fulfil these obligations.

On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:

1. That, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, planning permission and listed building consent is GRANTED at North Quay, Aspen Way, London, E14 for the following development