Agenda item
Greenheath Business Centre, 31 Three Colts Lane, London
Decision:
On a vote of 2 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 some of the existing commercial buildings, erection of a side roof extension plus atrium to the existing Greenheath Business Centre in connection with its use as class B1 business space (10,275 sqm), the erection of new 9 and 16 storey buildings in connection with the use of the premises as 101 units (253 beds) of student accommodation and 572 sqm of commercial floorspace (Class B1) at the Greenheath Business Centre, 31 Three Colts Lane, London and RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED on the following grounds:
1) Loss of daylight/sunlight to neighbouring properties;
2) The height of the building being out of character with the surrounding area; and
3) The over concentration of student accommodation in an area divorced from the universities.
Minutes:
Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for the demolition of some of the existing commercial buildings, erection of a side roof extension plus atrium to the existing Greenheath Business Centre in connection with its use as class B1 business space (10,275 sqm), the erection of new 9 and 16 storey buildings in connection with the use of the premises as 101 units (253 beds) of student accommodation and 572 sqm of commercial floorspace (Class B1) at the Greenheath Business Centre, 31 Three Colts Lane, London.
Mr Jeremy Taylor spoke in objection on behalf of the residents of Sunlight Square, on the grounds that the proposal would create a transient student population and would destroy the character of the East End. He felt that the design was ugly and that the development would create an unacceptable level of noise for surrounding residents.
Ms Petra Salva spoke in objection on the grounds that the Borough had a greater need for affordable housing and that Tower Hamlets should not provide student housing for the rest of London. She felt that the development was too high and would overshadow residents, causing a loss of daylight and sunlight.
Mr Angus Boag spoke on behalf of the applicant for the development. The building in its current form was not fit for purpose and the cost of renovating would be unviable without the addition of the student housing. He informed the Committee that it was intended to create a centre of excellence of small fashion businesses; and read out a statement of support from London Metropolitan University.
Councillor Phil Briscoe spoke on behalf of the residents. He outlined the concerns over the provision of student housing instead of much needed affordable housing; the open space and roof terrace provision which would create a noise nuisance; and the height which would impact on the daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties.
Mr Stephen Irvine, Development Control Manager, presented a detailed report on the application. He outlined the reasons why the application had been recommended for approval and addressed the points raised by the speakers. The proposal was in line with policies for the provision of student housing; it would generate employment and improve a run down industrial area; and it was acceptable in terms of traffic and sustainable energy. Tests had been carried out on daylight and sunlight and although there was a loss, it was considered, on balance, to be a small loss and would not therefore justify a refusal on those grounds.
Members expressed considerable concern over the concentration of students in the area, taking into account the other student housing approvals in the vicinity. It was felt that Tower Hamlets should not shoulder the responsibility for housing all London’s students. Concern was also expressed over the need for affordable housing provision in the Borough and the environmental and social impact of the development.
Mr Irvine advised of the location of both the residential and industrial uses in the area. He informed the Committee that the GLA had considered the height and design acceptable; and the application had been screened relating to its environmental impact. The Committee was reminded that it would need to demonstrate the harm caused by such a development in order to refuse.
RESOLVED that in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 14.1.13 (motion to extend the meeting under Rule 9) the meeting be extended by up to 1 hour.
Members accepted the contribution that students could make to an area. However, they were concerned that the area was becoming saturated. Members asked questions relating to the walking distance to the nearest station, the impact on local health services and the height of the building. Mr Kiely reminded the Committee that the proposal would also create important workspace for the Borough and therefore create employment. He explained the measures proposed to mitigate the potential noise nuisance, particularly the positioning of the entrances and exits. Members were also advised that the students would be registered with the GP from their home town and would not therefore impact on local surgeries.
On a vote of 2 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 some of the existing commercial buildings, erection of a side roof extension plus atrium to the existing Greenheath Business Centre in connection with its use as class B1 business space (10,275 sqm), the erection of new 9 and 16 storey buildings in connection with the use of the premises as 101 units (253 beds) of student accommodation and 572 sqm of commercial floorspace (Class B1) at the Greenheath Business Centre, 31 Three Colts Lane, London and RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED on the following grounds:
1) Loss of daylight/sunlight to neighbouring properties;
2) The height of the building being out of character with the surrounding area; and
3) The over concentration of student accommodation in an area divorced from the universities.
Supporting documents: