Agenda item
Cuba Street Site, Land At North East Junction Of Manilla Street And Tobago Street, Tobago Street, London (PA/20/02128)
Proposal:
Erection of single tower block accommodating a high density residential led development (Use Class C3) with ancillary amenity and play space, along with the provision of a flexible retail space at ground floor (Use Class E), the provision of a new publicly accessible park and alterations to the public highway.
This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement.
Recommendation:
Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations
Minutes:
Update reports published.
Jerry Bell introduced the application for the erection of single tower block accommodating a high density residential led development, with a publicly accessible park, and commercial use.
Kevin Crilly presented the report, providing details of the following issues:
- The character of the site and the surrounding area, including new and consented developments. This also included views from key points from the surrounding area. The site had an excellent PTAL rating.
- An overview of the recent Planning history including the refused application
- Key features of the application.
- Outcome of the two rounds of public consultation following amendments to the layout. 62 individual objections were received and a Petition in objection with 37 signatories. The main issues raised were noted.
- The land use. The provision of a tall residential led development in this location would be in line with policies for the area. It would help meet the Borough’s housing targets (including a significant amount of family houses across all tenures). It would provide 30.15% of high quality affordable homes by habitable room. This was considered to represent the maximum amount of affordable housing that could be delivered, according to the viability assessment that had been reviewed. There would also be a late stage review mechanism. The development would be tenure blind.
- The proposed development responds positively to its local context and would be of appropriately high architectural quality.
- The proposal would provide publicly accessible open space, with a proposed park.
- The on site child play space had a focus on younger children, and would be accessible to all occupants. A contribution had also been secured for facilities for older children via the s106.
- The scheme had been designed to minimise impacts on neighbourhood amenity including sunlight and daylight impacts and overlooking. Whilst there would be some impacts, on balance, it was noted they would be less severe than the previously refused application. Taking into account the context and the various mitigating factions, Officer did not considered that they were significant to warrant refusal.
- In terms of fire safety, the application includes a Fire Statement which has been amended to address the concerns raised by the London Fire Authority as part of the consultation process of this application. The layout had been amended to introduce a second stair case which all the occupants would have access to, as well as the introduction of other changes, including increasing the size of the remaining three lifts
- In terms of the Highways issues, the proposals would be car free. it was also proposed to provide on street car parking places for disable residents and cycle parking spaces. Details of these plans were noted and as well as the operation of the servicing arrangements.
- A range 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 permission.
Ralph Hardwick, Rehanaz Begum, local resident and Councillors Andrew Wood and Kyrsten Perry (Canary Wharf Councillors) spoke in objection to the application regarding the following points:
- That the proposals would be contrary to the Local Plan.
- Scale and size would be too much for the area.
- Increased parking pressure, given application of the parking permit transfer scheme.
- Adequacy of the servicing arrangements.
- Lack of on - site disable car parking spaces contrary to the 3% policy requirements. Spaces would be on the public highway.
- Harm to neighbouring amenity, particularly properties at Manilla Street. The objector’s property would be in close proximity to the development, windows would be directly facing. The occupants relied on these windows facing the development for light. Other nearby properties would be also severely affected
- Overdevelopment of site. Too dense for area.
- Cumulative impacts on amenity. It was requested that these were reviewed, and whether the applicant could provide further mitigation measures against these impacts.
- Need to ensure that the construction impacts were minimised and that the green space is publicly accessible.
- Fire safety issues.
- Pressure on Infrastructure. Concerns were expressed about the lack of adherence to the GLA Opportunity Area Framework or the Isle of Dogs Neighbourhood Plan in relation to the delivery of infrastructure.
Members of the applicant’s team spoke in support of the application:
Jon Roshier, Role Judd and Simon Ryan. The following points were noted:
- Applicant had worked with the Council and had amended the plans with a view to addressing the concerns and delivering a range of benefits, including the public park. The proposed development delivers the requirements of the Site Allocation and accords with the Development Plan.
- Provided details of the new housing. This would be tenure blind with shared access to communal space. Facilities would be accessible to all occupants.
- The measures to protect residential amenity, including the setting back of the development from Manilla Street and to provide a good outlook.
- A number of on - street disable bays will be provided as set out in the report.
- The changes to address fire safety matters, including measures to provide appropriate fire safety systems. The Applicant will continue to liaise with the Fire Authority about the Fire Safety measures.
- Provided assurances about the infrastructure issues, in terms of the electricity supply and securing a condition to ensure there was sufficient water supply to serve the development.
- Conditions would be secured to manage construction impacts.
The Committee then asked questions of the registered speakers and Officers regarding the following points:
- Infrastructure issues. Matthew Pullen gave an overview of the infrastructure briefing note that had been circulated to the Committee – including the role of the Committee in relation such issues. The utility companies had a statutory requirements to meet needs. This paper also sets out the longer term plans for increasing infrastructure capacity
- The Committee also note 3D views of the proposals and the surrounding area.
- The sunlight and daylight assessment. The report set out in detail the findings, including the impacts on the properties that would be most affected, and also that the scheme had been designed in such a way to limit the impact. It was confirmed that the losses in real terms would only be small, due to the factors highlighted in the report restricting light to these existing properties. With the permission of the Chair, the Committee heard from William Whitehouse, the Council’s daylight and sunlight external advisor, on the assessment. He explained in further detail the nature of these existing constraints and the need to take into account that that the site was vacant.
- On balance, given the findings, it was considered that the impacts will be consistent with other high density developments where supported. The benefits of the scheme would outweigh any impacts. The social rented units would be of good quality. Many would overlook the park.
- The level of on - site play space for under 12 year olds broadly met policy requirements. In addition, the green space on site may also provide informal child play space, as well as the nearby parks, including for older children.
- The provision of off site disable parking – given the policy requirements. It was noted that the proposal would still provide a significant proportion of the required space. TfL had considered the proposals. On balance, given the need to provide the green space on site, in accordance with the site allocation, they felt that the proposal were acceptable.
- Application of the permit transfer scheme and increased parking pressure. It was noted that the car free agreement should minimise this.
- The level of affordable housing in relation to policy. Officers were mindful of the shortfall of larger intermediate units, and also the focus on affordable family sized units, where there was most demand. Overall, Officers considered that the development provided a good balance between smaller and larger units across all tenures. Regarding the two entrances, the applicant confirmed that they had been designed in such a way to ensure they would be next to each other and would be visually indistinguishable. Jack Leafe (Council’s Viability Officer) provided a brief overview on the discussions with the applicant regarding the level of affordable housing, and the factors taken into account in relation to the viability review.
- Fire safety issues and measures to address. It was confirmed that the applicant had engaged with the Fire Authority on all matters. Further details would be considered and submitted as part of the building control process. The Fire Authority were satisfied with the details submitted so far.
- Overdevelopment issues. It was noted that the applicant had worked hard to provide a high density scheme, with a number of benefits including the provision of open space, to minimise the impacts.
On a vote of 6 in favour and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That subject to any direction by the Mayor of London planning permission is GRANTED at Cuba Street Site, Land At North East Junction Of Manilla Street And Tobago Street, Tobago Street, London, for the following development:
· Erection of single tower block accommodating a high density residential led development (Use Class C3) with ancillary amenity and play space, along with the provision of a flexible retail space at ground floor (Use Class E), the provision of a new publicly accessible park and alterations to the public highway.(PA/20/02128)
Subject to:
2. Prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations, set out in the Committee report and the amendment to section 8.2 of the officer’s report to include a financial obligation of £42,197 towards Development Co-ordination, set out in the update report.
3. That the Corporate Director of Place is delegated the power to negotiate the legal agreement. If within six 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
Councillor Kabir Ahmed voted against the development.
Supporting documents: