Recommendation:

Redevelopment of the site comprising demolition of existing buildings (including Harriott House, Apsley House, Pattison House, The Redcoat Centre and Redcoat Community Centre) to provide 412 residential units (Class C3) and 1,192m2 GIA of community use (Class E (e-f), Class F1 (e-f), Class F.2 (b)) provided across buildings ranging in height from 4-8 storeys, together with associated landscaped communal amenity space, accessible car parking, secure cycle parking spaces and refuse/recycling storage facilities.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission subject to conditions

Update report

Update report published.

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the redevelopment of the site comprising demolition of existing buildings to provide a residential led scheme.

Kitty Eyre presented the report highlighting the key features of the application including:

·       Site location, the nature of the surrounding area and the existing site use.

·       Heritage context.

·       The public engagement, consisting of three phases. The residents ballots revealed widespread support for the development. In response to the statutory consultation: 17 representatives were received, along with two petitions in objection, and 20 representations in support. The issues raised were outlined.

·       Regarding the land use, the principle of residential use has been established. The development would provide much needed new housing, with high quality community facilities.

·       The development would provide landscaped open space that exceeded local plan policy requirements, whilst a reduction from existing

·       The character, appearance, heigh and massing of the development will be in keeping with the local context.

·       The proposal would re-provide 70 affordable rented and shared ownership properties on the site of a high quality. It would deliver 55% affordable homes overall (including the re-provided units) and 42% affordable housing (excluding re-provided units). The proposal would be delivered in phases which was noted.

·       The impact in terms of amenity would be minimal.

·       The Committee also noted details of the transport matters, (including the policy compliant cycle storage, the wheelchair assessable parking), the environmental benefits and the financial and non - financial contributions.

Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.

The Chair invited registered speakers to address the meeting.

Councillor Motin Uz -  Zaman, the local Ward Councillor for Stepney Green, addressed the meeting in support of the application.  He noted the level of support for the application and the positive work between the council and community to develop the scheme. He also advised that the existing building was in a state of disrepair and this should regenerate the site, providing affordable homes and community facilities.

The Committee asked questions around the following issues:

·       Distance between the disabled parking and wheelchair assessable units. It was confirmed that 32 would be located  within a ground level car park with two on the inner street. Officers were mindful of the distances between some spaces and the wheelchair accessible units and had engaged with Transport Services about the possible of addressing this.

·       Electric vehicle charging points. It was requested that this should be increased to provide 50% from 20% given the need to provide such facilities. The Committee agreed to add an informative to this affect, as set out in the resolution

·       Sunlight and daylight impacts to neighbouring properties. These were set out in the assessment in the Committee report. Officers confirmed that the impacts complied with policy as detailed in the report. It was also considered that any development of the site would have some impact on daylight and sunlight levels to existing properties.

·       The impact on trees given the removal of trees. It was noted that most of the trees would be retained.  It was proposed that a number of semi mature replacement trees would be planted, as part of the landscaping condition, in view of the removal of the category b and c trees. Overall, there would be a net increase in trees and biodiversity due to the development.

·       Application of the Parking Permit Transfer Scheme. With the permission  of the Chair, James Walsh, from the applicant’s team, outlined the proposed approach. The terms of the scheme would apply to the scheme as it would be car free. However, Highways Services had confirmed that the existing tenants will retain current rights.

·       Accessibility of the landscaped open space to the occupants and the public.  It was noted that the two communal courtyards would only be accessible to the future occupants of the development and that all of the occupants would have access to that space.  The  inner street including play space would be fully open to everyone.

·       The differences between the Council’s and the GLA’s treatment of the resident leaseholder products, in terms of their classification as intermediate products as detailed in the report. The affordability of the rents which was set out in the Committee report

·       Results of the residents ballots. A Member noted that it would be useful if more information could be included in the report, such as the  number eligible to vote.

·       Noise proofing. It was confirmed that  conditions would be secured to ensure that the development met appropriate standards.

·       Quality of the replacement housing. It was noted that all would be of a good quality, modern, at the same or of a larger size, than existing properties with private amenity. The applicant would work with the occupants regarding the need to provide an open plan layout or not.

·       Damage to the environment from demolition works. It was confirmed that the proposed energy efficiency measures would result in a 72% net reduction in carbon emissions compared to the GLA baseline measurement. This exceeded London Plan requirements. In response to further questions about the merits of demolishing the building compared to refurbishment, Mr Walsh highlight the benefits of providing a new building. It was considered that the provision of a new building could better address the issues  and provide a more energy efficient building.

·       The status of the landlords offer set out the Cabinet report. The applicant provided reassurances that they fully intended to comply with this.

·       The plans to re-provide the community centre. It was noted that the community uses may accommodate a number of different uses classes, which could include a place of worship. It was proposed that conditions be secured regarding amplified noise and hours of prayer with  sufficient flexibility to accommodate prayer times.

·       Regarding the Petition, it was noted that changes had been made to the application to address the issues raised in the Petition regarding the light and ventilation to the main hall of the proposed community space. The plans have since been amended to provide windows on the east elevation, providing natural light and ventilation to the main hall.

Councillor Dan Tomlinson proposed and Councillor Kevin Brady seconded an additional informative recommending that the developer work towards the provision of 50% Electric Vehicle Parking Points. On a vote of 5 in favour and 2 against this was agreed.

On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:

1.       That, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, planning permission is GRANTED at Land comprising Harriot, Apsley & Pattison Houses and the Redcoat Community Centres, Stepney Green, London, E1 for the following development:

• Redevelopment of the site comprising demolition of existing buildings (including Harriott House, Apsley House, Pattison House, The Redcoat Centre and Redcoat Community Centre) to provide 412 residential units (Class C3) and 1,192m2 GIA of community use (Class E (e-f), Class F1 (e-f), Class F.2 (b)) provided across buildings ranging in height from 4-8 storeys, together with associated landscaped communal amenity space, accessible car parking, secure cycle parking spaces and refuse/recycling storage facilities.

2.             Subject to the conditions set out in the report with the additional informative agreed by the Committee that the developer work to provide 50% Electric Vehicle Parking Points