Agenda item
30 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9TP (PA/20/02588)
Proposal:
Demolition of existing building and erection of a 48 storey building (plus basement and lift pit) to provide 1,068 student accommodation bedrooms and ancillary amenity spaces (Sui Generis Use) along with 184.6sqm of flexible retail / commercial floorspace (Use Class E), alterations to the public highway and public realm improvements, including the creation of a new north-south pedestrian route and replacement public stairs. This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement.
Recommendation:
Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions and a legal agreement
Minutes:
Update report was published
Jerry Bell introduced the application for the demolition of existing building and erection of a 48 storey building to provide student accommodation bedrooms and ancillary amenity spaces - along with flexible retail / commercial floorspace and alterations to the public highway and public realm improvements.
Katie Cooke presented the report, highlighting the following points:
· The site location, the surrounding area and the site allocations in policy
· Overview of the proposal, including the layout.
· That two round of public consultation had been undertaken. The outcome of this was noted and the issues raised, as set out in the Committee report and the update report.
· Officers considered that in land use terms, that the scheme complied with policy. This was due to a number of reasons including: the difficulties with providing large office floor space on the site, the pipeline line of new office space in the area, and sites unsuitability to provide residential accommodation. The provision of student space is supported in view of the location and increasing demand for such accommodation.
· A Fire Report had been provided. The GLA and the London Fire Authority have raised no objections.
· The scheme would deliver a number of benefits, in addition to high quality student accommodation. These were noted including: retail/commercial space, amenity space, biodiversity benefits and carbon reduction/energy efficiency measures.
· The principle of providing a tall building in this location accorded with policy. Overall, the height, scale and massing was supported by officers and comparable with other developments in area. It would be of a high quality design, and it was considered to respond positively to it’s context. Images of the proposed development were noted. This included the cumulative views from General Wolf Statue, and along Marsh Wall/Millharbour. Overall, it would form a positive addition to area.
· The scheme had been designed to limit impacts on neighbouring developments, including measures to prevent overlooking, Given the retained levels of residential amenity, the losses were not considered sufficient enough to warrant refusal. The benefits of the development would outweigh this.
· In terms of the Highways issues, the proposals would be car free with cycle parking spaces and a cycle hire scheme.
· A range of number of planning obligations had been secured. The scheme would be liable for both the Mayor of London’s and the Borough’s Community Infrastructure Levy.
Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee
Ralph Hardwick and Councillor Andrew Wood (Canary Wharf Councillor), spoke in objection to the application regarding the following points:
· Lack of disabled parking spaces contrary to London Plan.
· Adequacy of the waste collection issues.
· Adequacy of the proposed servicing at Cuba Street.
· Air quality issues given the provision of the gas boiler system.
· Obstruction caused by construction process. This will hold up traffic on Marsh Wall.
· No indication of cycle routes.
· Fire Safety issues – given the separation distances between this development and the Cuba Street site. Has anyone looked at the risk of fire spreading between buildings?
· That the sunlight/daylight policies equally applied to high density areas.
· Lack of consideration to the Isle of Dogs Neighbourhood Plan and GLA Opportunity Area Framework in relation to infrastructure needs.
Jon Roshier spoke in support of the application: It was noted that:
· The applicant had worked to coordinate the scheme with the Cuba Street site development and will continue to do so.
· There had been a huge growth in the need for student accommodation in the area given the number of universities/ proposed ones in the nearby area. This will also free up residential housing. It would be of a high quality and would be a tenure blind development
· The other benefits of the scheme included the delivery of a pedestrian route, new commercial space, new jobs with measures to reduce the construction impact
· Impact on parking should be minimal, for the reasons set out in the report and presentation.
· The applicant had agreed a Waste Management Strategy with the council and had a completed a Fire Safety Strategy. There would be conditions requiring on ongoing dialogue with the Fire Authority.
· The speaker also provided reassurances about the infrastructure assessment.
The Committee then asked questions of the registered speakers and Officers regarding the following points:
· Use of student accommodation during summer breaks. (Secondary use). It was noted that the permission sought to provide student accommodation. It may be used out of term time for short term events, such as conferences, so long as the primary uses remained student accommodation.
· The energy efficiency measures. The applicant confirmed that the gas boiler would only be used as a back up.
· The proximity between the development and the Cuba Street site, in view of the issues raised at the meeting about fire safety. Officers noted the concerns about this. It was emphasised that a fire safety statement had been provided. The Fire Authority was satisfied with this and that further work will be carried out at the Building Control stage in line with the usual procedures. The separation distances generally met the guidelines – with some exceptions. It was also noted that the measures previously highlighted, should protect amenity.
· The proposals to create jobs. The applicant commented on the criteria for calculating this. It was also proposed that a contribution will be secured, as detailed in the update report, (as a maximum contribution) to compensate for any shortfall in providing the 33 construction phase apprenticeship places on site. In relation to this, Shahi Mofozil, explained the role of Council’s employment team in helping to delivering these commitments.
· It was confirmed that a Waste Management Strategy been agreed as set out in the conditions. An overview of the key features was noted.
· The servicing arrangements and the impact on traffic. It was noted that Highways Services had reviewed the plans and that the Cuba Street option was considered to be a better alternative to Marsh Wall. These arrangements will be secured by condition.
· Accessibility of the facilities to the occupants. It was confirmed that everyone would have access to the facilities and the amenity space.
· Affordability of the rents. Officers and the applicant highlighted the criteria for setting rent levels for the affordable units and the eligibility requirements.
On a vote of 7 in favour and 1 against the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission is GRANTED at 30 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9TP for the following development
· Demolition of existing building and erection of a 48 storey building (plus basement and lift pit) to provide 1,068 student accommodation bedrooms and ancillary amenity spaces (Sui Generis Use) along with 184.6sqm of flexible retail / commercial floorspace (Use Class E), alterations to the public highway and public realm improvements, including the creation of a new north-south pedestrian route and replacement public stairs (PA/20/02588)
Subject to:
2. Prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations, set out in the Committee report.
3. 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
Supporting documents: