Agenda item
Innovation Centre, 225 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9FW (PA/21/00900)
Proposal:
Erection of a ground plus 55-storey residential building (Use Class C3), ground floor flexible commercial space (Use Class E), basement cycle storage, resident amenities, public realm improvements and other associated works.
Recommendation:
Refuse planning permission
Minutes:
Update report was published
Jerry Bell introduced the application for erection of a ground plus 55-storey residential building, ground floor flexible commercial space, basement cycle storage, resident amenities, public realm improvements and other associated works.
It was noted that the
• The proposal seeks to build on the extant consent to provide additional 58 residential units and increase in height of 7 storeys, adding further22m to the consented 49 storey building, ground plus 48 storeys (163.08m AOD).
• The proposal is for a total of 390 residential units, 85 of which would provide 25.9% of affordable housing offer by habitable room, with ground floor commercial space and associated works.
Aleksandra Milentijevic presented the report, highlighting the following:
· The site location and the surrounding area.
· Key features of the application.
· Details of the planning history, including an overview of the extant scheme compared to the proposed development.
· Outcome of the public consultation. 27 reps were received with 25 in support, collated by the applicant in a single document, 2 in objection and 1 further correspondence in support, set out in the update report. These were briefly summarised. The applicant had also carried out their own consultation.
· In land use terms – this had already been established. This was supported.
· Details of the housing mix and the affordable housing proposal. The LBTH viability team had reviewed the offer and had concluded that this was the maximum that could be supported.
· The amenity assessment. The impacts on the surrounding area were considered acceptable on balance, in terms of daylight and sunlight, privacy, outlook and construction impacts.
· The environmental matters were also considered to be adequate.
· Height of the proposed building. Officers explained the concerns in relation this, including the issues with the height difference with Madison Square. It was considered therefore that the proposal does not respond to its context and fails to deliver on the objectives and principles set out in the Local Plan policies on tall buildings and views, It would be detrimental to the townscape and the Canary Wharf Skyline, which was of Strategic Importance.
· The concerns about the waste management and collection methods for the proposed development. These were not considered appropriate for a building of this scale
· The concerns around the lack of policy compliant level of cycle storage spaces for future residents.
Overall, the planning balance exercise has not identified significant public benefits which would outweigh the harm caused by the application. On this basis, for the reasons set out in the report Officers recommend the refusal of planning permission.
Julian Carter spoke in favour of the application, highlighting the following:
The existing planning permission. This proposal will provide opportunities to provide further benefits – including additional affordable homes. The applicant was willing to provide 35% affordable homes in this part of the application. Applicant has confirmed that the 35% offer only relates to the uplifted units and not the whole scheme.
· Fire safety measures had been secured. The applicant was willing to provide additional measures such as sprinklers.
· The applicant was willing to redesign aspects of the development to provide additional cycle parking in the basement.
· That the waste collection arrangements were the same as for nearby developments.
· Site sits in the Canary Wharf Tall Buildings Zone and is still lower than the Madison Square development
· GLA supported the provision of the proposed high density residential led development.
The Committee then asked questions of the registered speakers and Officers regarding the following points:
· The Committee noted 3d images of the proposals.
· The issues around the height of the development. The Committee discussed whether the nearby consented buildings to the west of the development also complied with the stepping down policy.
· It was noted that these were granted permission prior to the introduction of the Council’s Tall Building study and the relevant policies set out the Committee report. In response Officers explained in further detail the Council’s policy on Tall Buildings in this location – including the approach to Marsh Wall west and East. It was Officer’s view that the proposal breached the principles in the relevant policies, set out in the Committee report, in view of the proposed buildings function, its location at the edge of the Tall Buildings Zone and that it would not response to the local context.
· The applicant also added that they had offered to address the waste collection issues and will amend the application to provide the required amount of cycle storage spaces. They were happy to accept conditions to ensure this.
· The level of affordable housing. The applicant reported that this proposal would provide: 52 social rented units, 39 intermediate units. A total of 91 units with 301 private units. This equated to 35% affordable units on the additional floors. In response, Officers confirmed the scheme overall will still fall short of providing 35% affordable housing in line with policy and that the policy required that the whole scheme must be taken into account when assessing if it met this target, rather than just part of the development. The consented scheme would deliver 25% affordable housing and this scheme sought to provide an additional 0.9% affordable housing when looking at the whole scheme.
· Officers explained the implementation of the housing policy requires the Applicant to take into consideration the overall affordable housing contributions, rather than the affordable housing offer on the uplift units.
· GLA comments on the application as set out in the Committee report.
(During the course of the meeting, the meeting was adjourned, including for the purposes of considering advise from Officers) and the Chair agreed to extend the meeting time by an hour)
On a vote of 3 in favour, 4 against with 1 abstention the Officers recommendation to REFUSE planning permission was not agreed.
Councillor David Edgar moved to DEFER the application for further consideration of the waste management and collection issues, the cycle storage space issues, and for Officers to bring forward the proposed Heads of Terms for a s106 agreement and list of appropriate conditions.
On a vote of 4 in favour, 4 against this proposal, with the Chair exercising a casting vote in favour of a deferral, it was RESOLVED that the planning application be DEFERRED at Innovation Centre, 225 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9FW for the following development:
· Erection of a ground plus 55-storey residential building (Use Class C3), ground floor flexible commercial space (Use Class E), basement cycle storage, resident amenities, public realm improvements and other associated works.
To allow further consideration of:
· The proposed waste management and collection method
· Cycle storage space
· A proposed Heads of Terms for the s.106 agreement.
· Proposed list of conditions
Supporting documents: