Agenda item
21 Wapping Lane, London E1W 2RH
Decision:
On a vote of 1 for, 3 against and 1 abstention, the Committee indicated that it did not support the officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and the construction of five buildings ranging in height from 3 storeys to 19 storeys plus plant (to maximum height of 70.15 AOD) for mixed use purposes to provide 382 residential units (Class C3), retail use (Class A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and/or community uses (Class D1) and/or leisure use (Class D2), car parking, landscaping, new vehicular and pedestrian access points and other ancillary work at 21 Wapping Lane, London, E1W 2RH, on the grounds that:
1) the proposal contained a significant retail element which would have a detrimental effect on the existing nearby retail;
2) the proposal did not comply with the Council’s affordable housing policy requirement; and
3) the healthcare contribution was not satisfactory.
Therefore it was RESOLVED that the item be DEFERRED to the next meeting to enable officers to draft the reasons for refusal and seek appropriate legal advice.
Minutes:
Mr Stephen Irvine, Development Control Manager, introduced the site and proposal for the demolition of all existing buildings and the construction of five buildings ranging in height from 3 storeys to 19 storeys plus plant (to maximum height of 70.15 AOD) for mixed use purposes to provide 382 residential units (Class C3), retail use (Class A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and/or community uses (Class D1) and/or leisure use (Class D2), car parking, landscaping, new vehicular and pedestrian access points and other ancillary work at 21 Wapping Lane, London, E1W 2RH.
Councillor Tim Archer spoke on behalf of the residents of the St Katharine’s & Wapping ward. He felt that the development was too large, resulting in a 10% increase in the Borough’s population. The density was excessive, the proposal would result in parking congestion and the contributions to education represented an underestimation. He asked that the Committee defer the application in order to reduce the height and carry out a further analysis of education and healthcare contributions.
Mr Matthew Gibbs spoke on behalf of the applicant. He addressed the points raised by Councillor Archer and explained the consultation which had been carried out. The scheme complied with policies relating to car parking and met quality indicators relating to density. The scheme was also supported by CABE, the GLA and English Heritage.
Mr Irvine presented a detailed report on the application. He explained that the development was in line with policy and was satisfactory in terms of the Environmental Statement and the level and mix of affordable housing. The scheme did not have any symptoms of overdevelopment and the contributions were in line with Government guidance, and were calculated using a formula which was applied across London. He advised that the contributions must be directly related to the development. The retail uses proposed would contribute to the local community and the development was of a high quality design.
Members asked for clarification relating to the symptoms of overdevelopment and raised a number of concerns relating to parking provision, the effect of the retail uses on the existing retail in the area, the affordable housing provision, the height and the density.
Mr Irvine explained the UDP policy which related to retail uses and the affordable housing toolkit assessment carried out. He advised that the Environmental Impact Assessment had examined the traffic impact and highways officers were satisfied. He also informed the Committee that there were no grounds for a refusal on density.
On a vote of 1 for, 3 against and 1 abstention, the Committee indicated that it did not support the officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and the construction of five buildings ranging in height from 3 storeys to 19 storeys plus plant (to maximum height of 70.15 AOD) for mixed use purposes to provide 382 residential units (Class C3), retail use (Class A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) and/or community uses (Class D1) and/or leisure use (Class D2), car parking, landscaping, new vehicular and pedestrian access points and other ancillary work at 21 Wapping Lane, London, E1W 2RH, on the grounds that:
1) the proposal contained a significant retail element which would have a detrimental effect on the existing nearby retail;
2) the properties which fronted onto the park posed a security risk;
3) the proposal did not comply with the Council’s affordable housing policy requirement; and
4) the healthcare contribution was not satisfactory.
Therefore it was RESOLVED that the item be DEFERRED to the next meeting to enable officers to draft the reasons for refusal and seek appropriate legal advice.
Supporting documents: