Agenda item
438-490 Mile End Road, E1
Decision:
Ms Brenda Daley and Mr Tom Ridge each addressed the committee in objection to the application. Mr Charles Moran then addressed the committee on behalf of the applicant.
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 0 for and 7 against with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:-
That the officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing structures at 438-490 Mile End Road, E1 and the erection of a part 3, part 5, part 7 and part 11 storey building to provide a new education facility comprising teaching accommodation and associated facilities, student housing, cycle and car parking, refuse and recycling facilities be NOT AGREED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of concerns over:-
- The proposed density of the development;
- Inappropriate design and height of the proposed development in this location
- Overdevelopment of the site; and
- A lack of benefit for local residents
In accordance with the Development Procedure Rules the application was DEFERRED to enable the officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the committee, setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Minutes:
Mr Whalley introduced the application for consideration by the Committee.
Ms Brenda Daley and Mr Tom Ridge each addressed the committee on behalf of the Ocean Estate Tenants and Leaseholders Association (TLA) in objection to the application. Ms Daley raised concerns about the proposed development including overlooking and overshadowing of neighbouring blocks; noise nuisance from the roof gardens and communal spaces; the high concentration of students that would result in this locality; a lack of benefit from the development to the neighbouring Ocean Estate; the loss of potential affordable housing; inadequate consultation by the developer with the TLA; and concerns that the developer may seek to revisit the requirement for angled windows in view of the likely cost of soundproofing and other works.
Mr Ridge referred to the TLAs criticism of the Townscale Assessment. He considered that the proposed development was not well designed or attractive and would not enhance the setting of the conservation area. Rather by reason of its design, bulk and scale it would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area and in particular on the setting of the two listed ‘Peoples’ Palaces’.
Mr Charles Moran addressed the committee on behalf of the applicant. He considered that the proposals represented an important regeneration opportunity, providing a high quality education facility, investment, jobs and environmental improvements. Consultation with a wide range of bodies had continued over two years and had shaped the proposals which had wide support. Mr Moran stated that the facility would be staffed on a 24 hour basis and he indicated that the applicant would accept a condition restricting hours of use of the roof garden and communal space. The design of the building, which stepped down to 3 storeys at the eastern end, was intended to respect the character of the local area and its scale reflected the importance of the site and its position as part of High Street 2012.
Mr Irvine gave a brief presentation of the key planning considerations as set out in the officers’ report circulated with the agenda and the further update report tabled at the meeting.
Members of the Committee raised concerns and queries about aspects of the proposed development including a perceived lack of benefit to the local community; an unnecessary concentration of student accommodation and the impact of this on the limited local retail facilities; a potential increase in anti-social behaviour; what jobs and teaching facilities would be provided; the daylighting effect on neighbouring properties; the density of the proposed development; and its design and massing which some Members felt was out of character and inappropriate to the locality.
In response to Members’ comments, officers reported that:-
· Research had shown unmet demand for student accommodation on campus and this was a suitable location, close to education facilities and public transport
· The proposed development would provide a range of employment opportunities and other benefits for the local area including environmental improvements and subsidised facilities for local education and training projects.
· The proposed education facility would be operated by INTO University Partnerships, providing foundation courses for students before they entered undergraduate courses.
· Full daylighting, sunlighting and overshadowing tests had been conducted and the proposed development had been found to meet the agreed standards.
· Regarding the size of the proposed building, the GLA had advised that this was acceptable and it was felt that it would contribute positively to the vision and objectives for High Street 2012 as a way-finder on this stretch of Mile End Road. The building would be the tallest in the area but there was currently no uniform pattern or height of building in this location.
· A possible future increase in anti-social behaviour did not represent a material planning consideration in this case
· It was not appropriate to apply the same density calculations to student accommodation as to normal residential units
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 0 for and 7 against with 1 abstention, the Committee
RESOLVED:-
That the officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission for the demolition of existing structures at 438-490 Mile End Road, E1 and the erection of a part 3, part 5, part 7 and part 11 storey building to provide a new education facility comprising teaching accommodation and associated facilities, student housing, cycle and car parking, refuse and recycling facilities be NOT AGREED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of concerns over:-
- The proposed density of the development;
- Inappropriate design and height of the proposed development in this location
- Overdevelopment of the site; and
- A lack of benefit for local residents
In accordance with the Development Procedure Rules the application was DEFERRED to enable the officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the committee, setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Supporting documents: