Agenda item
Eric & Treby Estates, Treby Street, Mile End, London
Decision:
RESOLVED that planning permission for the regeneration of the existing estate comprising the refurbishment of existing buildings, the demolition of 27 bedsits, two x one bed flats at 1-14 Brokesley Street, 106-128 Hamlets Way and 1-7 Burdett Road and the erection of buildings between 2 and 7 storeys to provide 181 new residential units (comprising 19xstudio, 61x1bed, 52x2bed, 40x3bed and 9x5bed), a new community centre of 310 sq m, a new housing management office of 365 sq m and 85 sqm commercial space and Conservation Area Consent, be REFUSED subject to any direction from the Mayor for the following reasons:-
The proposed development results in the net loss of publicly accessible open space to the detriment of the enjoyment of existing and future residents and the amenity of the area contrary to the objectives of London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004) policies 3A.6, 3D.13 and 4B.1, saved policy OS7 of the adopted Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 and policies OSN2, DEV2, DEV 3, DEV4 and HSG7 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007): Core Strategy and Development Control, which seek to improve amenity and liveability for residents;
The proposed development results in the loss of available parking spaces (especially disabled parking) across the estate contrary to the objectives of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004) 2008 policy 3C.23, which detail the Mayors car parking strategy and sets maximum car parking standards;
The scheme provides an unacceptably low proportion of affordable housing, particularly in the social rent tenure, contrary to the objectives of London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004) 2008 policies 3A.9 and 3A.10, which states that Boroughs should seek the maximum reasonable mount of affordable housing;
The design of the proposed buildings is unacceptable and would result in a proposal that is out of character with the surrounding occupiers and the scheme is therefore contrary to the objectives of policies DEV1 and Dev2 of the Councils Unitary Development Plan 1998 and policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the Councils Interim Planning Guidance (2007) Core Strategy and Development Control, which seek to ensure development does not have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity; and
In the absence of an approved planning permission for the redevelopment of the site, the demolition of 1–14 Brokesley Street would leave an undeveloped site which would represent a blight on the character and appearance of the Tower Hamlets Cemetery Conservation Area contrary to the objectives of saved policy DEV28 of the adopted Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 and policy CON2 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007) Core Strategy and Development Control.
Minutes:
Mr Jerry Bell, Interim Strategic Applications Manager, introduced the report to Members and referred them to the further updated report tabled at the meeting. The application had been considered previously at the Strategic Development Committees held on 15th April, 13th May and 25th June 2009. Members had been minded to refuse the application due to loss of open space and therefore the report now detailed reasons for such a refusal of planning permission which would be subject to any direction from the Mayor of London.
Written representations had been received from local residents who considered that the reasons for refusal should also contain those made at the 13th May 2009 meeting of loss of car parking, especially disabled parking, the low number and percentage of social housing and design and amenity issues, and not just that of the 25th June 2009 meeting. However officers considered that it was best to refuse on one solid ground that had policy backing rather than dilute the case by adding the other three reasons as any reasons had to be vigorously defended by the Council in order to avoid any costs.
Councillors expressed the opinion that whilst the other three reasons may not be as robust to defend or fit exactly in line with policy, these should be added to the officers reason for refusal. There were serious concerns, particularly that only 35% of the total habitable rooms would be for social housing.
However Councillor Francis considered that due to officers concerns that the other three reasons to refuse were weak and could affect the Committee chance of success in defending their decision to refuse, that the Committee should just refuse on the ground of loss of open space.
Councillor Archer stated that he wanted to MOVE an amendment to officers recommendations and include loss of car parking, especially disabled parking, the low number and percentage of social housing and design and amenity issues as part of the Committees reasons to refuse planning permission.
The Chair informed Councillor Archer that he should adhere to the Committees procedures and indicate when he wished to address the meeting, which should be through him as Chair of Strategic Development Committee.
At this point, 7.45pm the meeting adjourned and reconvened at 7.48pm.
The Chair asked if the amendment was seconded, which Councillor Eaton confirmed that she would second the amendment. Therefore on a vote of three for and two against, the amendment to officers recommendations was AGREED.
RESOLVED that planning permission for the regeneration of the existing estate comprising the refurbishment of existing buildings, the demolition of 27 bedsits, two x one bed flats at 1-14 Brokesley Street, 106-128 Hamlets Way and 1-7 Burdett Road and the erection of buildings between 2 and 7 storeys to provide 181 new residential units (comprising 19xstudio, 61x1bed, 52x2bed, 40x3bed and 9x5bed), a new community centre of 310 sq m, a new housing management office of 365 sq m and 85 sqm commercial space and Conservation Area Consent, be REFUSED subject to any direction from the Mayor for the following reasons:-
The proposed development results in the net loss of publicly accessible open space to the detriment of the enjoyment of existing and future residents and the amenity of the area contrary to the objectives of London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004) policies 3A.6, 3D.13 and 4B.1, saved policy OS7 of the adopted Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 and policies OSN2, DEV2, DEV 3, DEV4 and HSG7 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007): Core Strategy and Development Control, which seek to improve amenity and liveability for residents;
The proposed development results in the loss of available parking spaces (especially disabled parking) across the estate contrary to the objectives of the London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004) 2008 policy 3C.23, which detail the Mayors car parking strategy and sets maximum car parking standards;
The scheme provides an unacceptably low proportion of affordable housing, particularly in the social rent tenure, contrary to the objectives of London Plan (Consolidated with Alterations since 2004) 2008 policies 3A.9 and 3A.10, which states that Boroughs should seek the maximum reasonable mount of affordable housing;
The design of the proposed buildings is unacceptable and would result in a proposal that is out of character with the surrounding occupiers and the scheme is therefore contrary to the objectives of policies DEV1 and Dev2 of the Councils Unitary Development Plan 1998 and policies DEV1 and DEV2 of the Councils Interim Planning Guidance (2007) Core Strategy and Development Control, which seek to ensure development does not have an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity; and
In the absence of an approved planning permission for the redevelopment of the site, the demolition of 1–14 Brokesley Street would leave an undeveloped site which would represent a blight on the character and appearance of the Tower Hamlets Cemetery Conservation Area contrary to the objectives of saved policy DEV28 of the adopted Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 and policy CON2 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007) Core Strategy and Development Control.
Supporting documents:
-
Item 6.1 Eric and Treby Deferred Item Report to September SDC (2) (3), item 6.1
PDF 50 KB
-
Item 6.1 Appendix 1, item 6.1
PDF 673 KB
-
Item 6.1 Appendix 2, item 6.1
PDF 13 KB
-
Item 6.1 Appendix 3, item 6.1
PDF 58 KB
-
Item 6.1 Appendix 4, item 6.1
PDF 64 KB
-
Item 6.1 Appendix 5, item 6.1
PDF 39 KB
-
Item 6.1 Appendix 6, item 6.1
PDF 44 KB