Agenda item
100 Violet Road, London, E3 3QH
Decision:
Ms Annamaria Mignano addressed the committee in objection. Ms Jade Khilji then addressed the committee on behalf of the applicant.
Mr Bell corrected two typographical errors in the officers’ report:- At paragraph 4.2 the split between social rented and intermediate tenures should read ’78:22’, not ’68:22’; and at paragraph 8.52 the number of child bed spaces should read ‘21/26’, not ‘62’.
Councillor Archer moved and Councillor Eaton seconded an AMENDMENT that the application be deferred to allow for (i) consultation with the head office of Providence Row Housing Association, proprietors of the adjacent Heather Lodge; (ii) a corridor study of the area to be completed; and (iii) investigation of the possible provision of car club spaces and additional disabled parking spaces in the development. On a vote of 1 for and 6 against with 1 abstention the amendment was defeated.
After consideration of the information set out in the officers’ report and update report, and the points raised by the speakers, on a vote of 7 for and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED:-
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED for the demolition of the existing 2190sqm (GIA) building at 100 Violet Road, E3 3QH currently used for clothing manufacture (Use Class B1c); and redevelopment to provide buildings of between five and nine storeys for mixed-use purposes including 73 residential units (Class C3) (1 x studio; 20 x 1 bedroom; 36 x 2 bedroom; 16 x 3 bedroom), 1,300 sqm (GIA) of floorspace for the manufacture of clothing (Use Class B1c) and 100 sqm (GIA) of flexible commercial floorspace (Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/A5) or Gymnasium (Class D2), with associated roof terraces, landscaping, access and servicing, subject to:-
(a) Any direction by the Mayor of London; and to
(b) The prior completion of a legal agreement, to the satisfaction of the
Chief Legal Officer, to secure the items listed at paragraph 3.2 of the
officers’ report
(2) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement above.
(3) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed at paragraphs 3.5 and 3.7 of the officers’ report, as amended by paragraph 4.1 of the officers’ update report and subject to a further amendment to secure the following:-
- Hammer drilling/piling works shall be undertaken for no more than two hours in any continuous session and shall then cease for at least one hour before resuming.
(4) That, if by the decision date specified in the PPA, the legal agreement has not been completed to the satisfaction of the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services), the Corporate Director, Development & Renewal be delegated the authority to refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
Owen Whalley, Head of Major Project Development, introduced the application for consideration by the Committee.
Ms Annamaria Mignano addressed the committee in objection to the application. Ms Mignano stated that she represented other homes and businesses in the area and outlined concerns about the proposed development. She felt that there was a lack of any coherent strategic guideline for this stretch of road and this was a missed opportunity which could lead to damaging planning permissions being given on an ad hoc basis. Any proposed building on this site should be set back at least 5m from the existing pavement, should have no overhang above the pedestrian area and no waste bins at the front. Ms Mignano expressed concern at the quality of the materials proposed for the development; and considered that at least 25% of any section 106 contribution should be spent in the immediate area of the development.
Ms Jade Khilji addressed the committee on behalf of the applicant. She stated that the owner had operated a clothing business in the borough since 1973 and wanted to remain in the locality and contribute to regeneration but needed to improve the premises and was proposing significant investment to do so. 90% of the business’s employees were local workers. Ms Khalji stated that the facilities and design features of the proposed development were in line with adopted policies and were designed to benefit the area and address any concerns expressed. The development would be car-free, culturally sensitive and would respect the building’s heritage and locality and incorporate the highest standards of sustainability.
Mr Bell presented the application to the Committee including the main elements of the proposal and the key planning considerations as set out in the officers’ report circulated with the agenda and the update report tabled at the meeting. He corrected two typographical errors in the officers’ report:- At paragraph 4.2 the split between social rented and intermediate tenures should read ’78:22’, not ’68:22’; and at paragraph 8.52 the number of child bed spaces should read ‘21/26’, not ‘62’.
Members of the Committee asked a number of questions about the application relating to the sunlighting/daylighting effect on neighbouring properties; the lack of 4+ bedroom properties proposed; the design and orientation of the building; the potential for car club and disabled parking spaces; the need for a corridor study of the area; the proposed density of the development; limited access to the amenity space provided; the appropriateness of light industrial use in this development; consultation with the owners of the neighbouring Heather Lodge and with potential occupants of Caspian Wharf Blocks A, C and D; whether local residents had requested any meetings with planning officers or submitted any petition about the proposals.
In response the officers reported that:-
· Full daylight and sunlight tests had been carried out as described in the report and in compliance with BRE guidance. Overall the impact of the development in terms of daylighting and sunlighting, overshadowing and privacy was considered acceptable.
· Directional or obscured windows were used as necessary. There would be no windows on the ground-6th floors of the elevation of Caspian Wharf to the south of the site, and only secondary wndows to the upper floors.
· The development included a good mix of 2 and 3 bedroom accommodation. 3 bedroom units were considered family sized accommodation.
· The amenity space provided was primarily for use by the residents of the development and was adequate for this purpose.
· The front of the building, entrances etc would face onto Violet Road.
· There was provision for a car club at Caspian Road which residents could access
· The constraints of the site could accommodate only one disabled parking space but there was space nearby for further on-street spaces if required.
· The application must be determined on the basis of existing polices and it would not be appropriate to defer pending a corridor study that was not currently underway.
· The density of the proposed development would not result in overdevelopment and in view of a number of beneficial aspects of the scheme, on balance a high density mixed use development was justified in this location.
· The commercial uses on the ground floor would act as a buffer between the light industrial and residential elements of the scheme.
· There had been substantial consultation on the scheme in excess of statutory requirements. Consultation had been undertaken with the residents and manager of Heather Lodge (64-68 Violet Road) as set out in the update report. It was not possible to consult with potential occupants of a neighbouring block under construction but purchasers would undertake a search for planning permissions and would therefore be aware of the proposed scheme.
· No petition had been received. Local residents had sought a meeting but officers were unable to meet with objectors or supporters when considering an application.
Councillor Eaton suggested that, particularly in view of the vulnerability of the occupants of Heather Lodge, there should be a tighter restriction on hammer drilling/piling works that that currently proposed. The officers confirmed that a further condition could be included to this effect.
Councillor Archer moved and Councillor Eaton seconded an AMENDMENT that the application be deferred to allow for (i) consultation with the head office of Providence Row Housing Association, proprietors of the adjacent Heather Lodge; (ii) a corridor study of the area to be completed; and (iii) investigation of the possible provision of car club spaces and additional disabled parking spaces in the development. On a vote of 1 for and 6 against with 1 abstention the amendment was defeated.
After consideration of the information set out in the officers’ report and update report, and the points raised by the speakers, on a vote of 7 for and 1 against, the Committee
RESOLVED:-
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED for the demolition of the existing 2190sqm (GIA) building at 100 Violet Road, E3 3QH currently used for clothing manufacture (Use Class B1c); and redevelopment to provide buildings of between five and nine storeys for mixed-use purposes including 73 residential units (Class C3) (1 x studio; 20 x 1 bedroom; 36 x 2 bedroom; 16 x 3 bedroom), 1,300 sqm (GIA) of floorspace for the manufacture of clothing (Use Class B1c) and 100 sqm (GIA) of flexible commercial floorspace (Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/A5) or Gymnasium (Class D2), with associated roof terraces, landscaping, access and servicing, subject to:-
(a) Any direction by the Mayor of London; and to
(b) The prior completion of a legal agreement, to the satisfaction of the
Chief Legal Officer, to secure the items listed at paragraph 3.2 of the
officers’ report
(2) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement above.
(3) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed at paragraphs 3.5 and 3.7 of the officers’ report, as amended by paragraph 4.1 of the officers’ update report and subject to a further amendment to secure the following:-
- Hammer drilling/piling works shall be undertaken for no more than two hours in any continuous session and shall then cease for at least one hour before resuming.
(4) That, if by the decision date specified in the PPA, the legal agreement has not been completed to the satisfaction of the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services), the Corporate Director, Development & Renewal be delegated the authority to refuse planning permission.
Supporting documents: