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.

Update report published

Jerry Bell introduced the reportfor the erection of a ground plus 55-storey residential building with ground floor flexible commercial space and associated works

Aleksandra Milentijevic presented the report highlighting the following:

• Key features of the proposal.

·       Overview of the planning history and details of the extant scheme.

·       That in land use terms the proposal would be compliant with policy.

• This proposal is for a total of 390 residential units, (58 more than the approved application). Of which 90 would be affordable units (19 more than the previous scheme). This equated to 26.6% of the total residential development per habitable room. On viability grounds, this was considered to represent the most that could be provided.
• According to policy, the affordable housing contribution for the scheme should be considered as a whole, rather than the contribution for this new proposal in isolation.

·       The quality of the housing would broadly meet standards, but the proposed communal space  arrangements at Level 53 would only be accessible to private tenure residents. There were also concerns about the segregated entrances in terms of promoting social exclusion.

• Other key aspects of the scheme included new public space  and a policy compliant level of child play space.
• Consultation had been carried out and details of the letters in support and objection were noted. Additional information had been provided by the applicant about noise impacts as set out in the update report.
• The Officers had concerns about the building height. This was in terms of the lack of compliance with the step down objectives for tall buildings in the Canary Wharf Tall buildings Zone in the Local Plan. As a result, it was considered that the proposed building would undermine the principles and objectives of the TBZ policy in the Local Plan, and adversely affect the townscape of the Canary Wharf area and its designation as the Skyline of Strategic Importance.
• That the amenity impacts remained acceptable.
• An Environmental Statement had been submitted. No objection had been raised to this.
• Details of the waste management plans were also noted. Whilst Officer were mindful that the proposed method did not comply with the Council’s waste policies, Officer’s did not consider that this would cause any additional harm.
• Details of the highway aspects were also reported.

Overall, Officers considered that planning balance exercise has not identified significant public benefits which would outweigh the harm caused to the townscape and Skyline of Strategic Importance, as well as the proposal’s failure to meet other Development Plan policies relating to design tall buildings. Officers were recommending that the application was refused permission.

The Chair invited Julian Carter to address the meeting, in support of the application highlighting the following:

• That compared to the extant scheme, this would deliver additional benefits. This included additional homes and affordable homes, amenity and play space, a more energy efficient building  and an additional CIL contribution. No weight had been attached to this only the proposed height
• The development was in a tall buildings zone and the nearby Madison building was taller. Wood Wharf already extended over the imagined line, shown in the presentation. He was of the view that it would be very difficult to spot from strategic views. The GLA was broadly supportive of the design of the development and that there would be no harm caused in heritage terms.
• It would step down from Canary Wharf.
• Less weight should be given to draft plans

The Committee asked a number of questions of the registered speakers and officers about:

• The sunlight and daylight assessment. Officers provided assurances about the level of BRE compliance
• The level of social housing and the rent levels. The proposal seeks to deliver 90 affordable homes comprising 64% affordable rented housing (50 units) and 36% intermediate housing (40 units). The affordable rented units would be split 50:50 between London Affordable Rent (LAR) and Tower Hamlets Living Rent (THLR)
• The height of the proposal and the skyline policy. Officers further explained in greater detail the concerns about the breach in the policy, and the key features of the policy.
• The key differences between the height and location of the Madison scheme and the proposal. It was noted the Madison development was located further to the west of Marsh Wall and closer to the centre of the Tall Buildings Zone. It had a sloping roof towards the application site and complied with the policy. This scheme would only be 2 metres shorter than the tallest element of the Madison development which would be a marginal difference and did not follow the pattern of buildings, specified in policy. The extant scheme provides the step down approach required by policy.
• The concerns about the consultation. The applicant stated that most of the letters in support were from the Isle of Dogs addresses. It was also confirmed that only one of the letters lacked an address.
• In conclusion, Members stressed the need to preserve building height policy. Going against this could set a precedence. They also noted the  GLA’s comments about lack of affordable housing and noted that the additional height was not providing this.
• Concerns were also expressed about access arrangements for the private and affordable accommodation.

On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:

That subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, planning permission is REFUSED at Innovation Centre, 225 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9FW (PA/21/00900)   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.

For the following reasons:

1.      The proposed development, by virtue of its height and scale within its context and relationship to the height and scale of nearby tall buildings, would fail to provide a step down approach towards the edge of the Canary Wharf Tall Building Zone nor provide any substantial variation of heights in this part of cluster. The proposal would harm the character and distinctiveness of the Canary Wharf townscape and would cause harm to the designated Canary Wharf Skyline of Strategic Importance. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy D3 and D9 of the London Plan, policies S.DH1, S.DH3, D.DH4 and D.DH6 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031, and the Isle of Dogs and South Poplar Opportunity Area Planning Framework (2019). The public benefits of the development, including the provision of housing and affordable housing would not be sufficient to warrant a departure from the Development Plan policies for managing height and scale within the Tall Building Zone.

2.      In the absence of a legal agreement to secure policy compliant financial and non-financial contributions including for affordable housing, employment, skills, training and enterprise, transport matters, public realm improvements including contributions towards active travel zone, and carbon offsetting contribution, the development fails to mitigate its impact on local services, amenities, infrastructure and environment. This is contrary to the requirement of policy DF1 of the London Plan, policy D.SG5 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031, and Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2021).