Agenda item
307 Burdett Road, London E14 7DR
Decision:
RESOLVED that the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for the demolition of the existing building, with redevelopment of the site involving the erection of a part 6 and part 11 storey building and lower ground floor level adjacent to Limehouse Cut to provide 56 residential units, 658 square metres of commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1/A3 and A4) at ground floor level, cycle parking, amenity space and other associated works be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of serious concerns over:
Inappropriate scale, mass, design and density of the development;
The impact of the development in terms of daylight and sunlight on surrounding buildings;
Inappropriate contributions towards education facilities;
The impact of noise nuisance caused by the development on the surrounding area; and
Inappropriate child play and amenity space; and
That the development did not comply with the appropriate affordable housing requirements.
In accordance with the Development Procedural Rules the application was DEFERRED to enable 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 Jerry Bell informed Members that the application was for the demolition of the existing building, with redevelopment of the site involving the erection of a part 6 and part 11 storey building and lower ground floor level adjacent to Limehouse Cut to provide 56 residential units, 658 square metres of commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1/A3 and A4) at ground floor level, cycle parking, amenity space and other associated works. Officers were recommending that planning permission be granted subject to certain conditions.
The Chair asked those registered to speak in objection to the application to address the Committee.
Mr Tom Ridge stated that he was also speaking on behalf of residents of Charlesworth and Leybourne Houses. The site of the application was designed by the Office of Works when George Lansbury was in the 1929 to 1931 Labour Government and was the only building in Tower Hamlets directly associated with him and therefore considered a memorial to him.
He had previously requested in January 2007 and again in July 2008 that the buildings be locally listed and included in a conservation area. He had also requested that the buildings be part of the St. Anne’s Church conservation area but this had not happened.
In relation to the application, there was a petition signed by 185 local residents in objection to the proposed development. There were also numerous historical societies and the Tower Hamlets Co-operative Party who objected to the application. English Heritage had written to the council in April 2009 supporting the placing of the site in a conservation area as this was an important London landmark and would make a positive contribution to the character of the area. He was aware that the Council would soon be considering creating a new conservation area of which the site would be a major part of.
Residents were extremely concerned by the high density of the development which was far above the London Plan and that the character of the building would not be in line with existing buildings in the area. Existing buildings would be overlooked by windows and balconies, including the communal garden and children’s play area proposed for the top of the six storey block and sunlight/daylight in these existing buildings would be affected.
Residents were also concerned by the potential level of noise nuisance from the restaurant/bar and shops on the ground floor, as they would exacerbate the existing levels of noise, parking, traffic congestion and pollution already in Burdett Road. Also noise from mechanical plant to be used in the buildings would add to this.
The development would only provide 10% affordable housing which was only 2% above the minimum of 35% and therefore this lack of affordable housing did not justify the loss of such an historic local building. The building should be retained and locally protected and remain a memorial to George Lansbury and his campaign against poverty and unemployment.
The Chair asked the applicants or their representative to address the Committee.
Mr Mathew Mainwaring commented that he was the agent for the applicants. In relation to the design of the building the applicants had taken into consideration the character and height of other buildings in the local area. Indeed, the Strategic Development Committee had granted planning permission to a similar building on the other side of the canal.
There had been discussions with the Councils Conservation Officer regarding retaining the existing building but due to English Heritage not listing the building and the Council not locally listing the building, the applicants had decided to apply for a completely new development. Whilst the applicants were aware that the site could one day be in a conservation area, at present it was not, though it was hoped that the development would add to any conservation area consent.
In relation to overlooking and noise nuisance, the nearest existing building to the development was 20 to 24 meters away which complied with policy. The proposed restaurant/bar and shops were a modest part of the scheme to compliment the residential aspect, for which the Environment Agency and British Waterways had been consulted and neither had any concerns, particularly as the café would be fronting the canal and provide a facility for those who used the canal and its tow path.
Mr Bell reported that a total of 1328 neighbouring properties within the area had been consulted. Five petitions and six individual objections to the development had been received. The main issues for the objectors were to retain the existing building due to its historical interest, the possible conservation area that may be there, the loss of office floor space, design issues, overlooking of existing buildings and lack of sunlight/daylight.
Whilst the existing building did have local historical interest English Heritage had not considered it of national interest and had therefore refused giving the building listed status, the area was currently not part of a conservation area this could not be taken into consideration when Members made their decision, there was sufficient office space vacant in Tower Hamlets so the loss of this for residential use could not be justified, the design was similar to another application recently granted in the area and the nearest building overlooked was 20 meters away which was two more meters than required by the Councils policy. It was accepted that two windows, one per unit, did overlook neighbouring buildings but this was considered a minor failure. The opening hours of the restaurant/bar and shops and mechanical plant used would be controlled to mitigate noise nuisance, with the development being car free which should not contribute to any existing parking issues in the area. Given that the amenity space of the development was also good officers were recommending granting planning permission.
Councillors stated that the building was of significant historic importance and that they had concerns with the scale, mass, design and material of the development. The amount of affordable units was only 17 which amounted to 30% of the residential mix as the 37% quoted was based on habitable room numbers. There were also serious concerns with the possible noise nuisance, the overlooking of existing buildings, the loss of sunlight/daylight on surrounding buildings, the inappropriate child play space which officers had accepted was slightly under that required, the calculation of how only eight primary school places required a contribution which was considered inappropriate and the amount of amenity space. Therefore they were against the development.
At 8.37pm the meeting adjourned and reconvened at 7.41pm
The Chair advised that Councillors should be addressing the Committee through him as Chair by indicating their desire to speak rather than just speaking at any time. Members should not be stating their intention on how they would vote on an application until the appropriate time.
In response to questions from Councillors Mr Bell stated that as the building was not in a conservation area, the developers could demolish the building without consent from the Council. The contributions for eight primary school places was based on a calculation provided by Education and the contribution to the Primary Care Trust would all be capital even though they had requested a split between capital and revenue. The calculation of amenity space was not split between affordable and private housing.
Councillor Francis stated that whilst he also had concerns regarding the development, there was a great need for three and four bedroom affordable housing which this development could provide. Therefore the site should be developed for housing purposes rather than remain vacant as office space.
RESOLVED that the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for the demolition of the existing building, with redevelopment of the site involving the erection of a part 6 and part 11 storey building and lower ground floor level adjacent to Limehouse Cut to provide 56 residential units, 658 square metres of commercial floorspace (Use Classes A1/A3 and A4) at ground floor level, cycle parking, amenity space and other associated works be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of serious concerns over:
Inappropriate scale, mass, design and density of the development;
The impact of the development in terms of daylight and sunlight on surrounding buildings;
Inappropriate contributions towards education facilities;
The impact of noise nuisance caused by the development on the surrounding area; and
Inappropriate child play and amenity space; and
That the development did not comply with the appropriate affordable housing requirements.
In accordance with the Development Procedural Rules the application was DEFERRED to enable 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:
- Item 7.1 307 Burdett Road - Strategic Committee Report FINAL, item 7.1 PDF 179 KB
- Item 7.1 Map PA_09_00214, item 7.1 PDF 2 MB