Agenda item
60 Commercial Road, London E1 1EP
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Tuesday, 10th November, 2009 7.00 p.m. (Item 7.2)
- View the background to item 7.2
Decision:
RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for the demolition of the existing building at Jobcentre Plus, 60 Commercial Road, London, E1 1LP, and erection of a 21 storey building plus basement to provide retail/commercial/community unit (Use Class A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1) at ground floor and student accommodation and ancillary uses together with associated servicing, landscaping and other incidental works, be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of serious concerns over:
- The height and bulk of the proposed development in the context of surrounding buildings.
- Daylight and sunlight issues.
- Inappropriate S106 contributions
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:
Following an introduction by Mr Owen Whalley, Service Head, Major Project Development, a detailed presentation was made by Ms Rachel McConnell, Interim Applications Manager, of the application for planning permission for demolition of the existing building at Jobcentre Plus, 60 Commercial Road, London, E1 1LP and erection of a 21 storey building plus basement to provide retail/commercial/community unit (Use Class A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1) at ground floor and student accommodation and ancillary uses together with associated servicing, landscaping and other incidental works.
The importance of accommodation for the education sector was recognised given that some 44,000 students attended five major higher education establishments in the Borough. Environmental impacts had been assessed and deemed satisfactory for and urban setting. S106 payments would also contribute to highways improvements and enhanced bus capacities.
Councillor Shahed Ali declared a personal interest in that he was a Ward Councillor and a former pupil of a school near the application site. He then put questions which were answered by Ms McConnell who indicated that:
- The application had to be considered in conjunction with item 7.3 on the current agenda and both would have to be granted planning permission before either could proceed.
- The terms GEA and GIA stood for ‘gross external area’ and ‘gross internal area’ respectively.
- There would be a net gain in floor space of some 2,225 sq.m.
- The gym facilities would be for student use only.
- Technical aspects had been reviewed by the Environmental Health Team who had confirmed these were acceptable.
In response to further questions from Members, Officers replied that:
- Public consultation had been grouped around both linked sites and there had been three responses to two rounds of consultation.
- The proposed building was of a very high quality and was sited within the Mayor’s City Fringe, which was a designated area for tall buildings, and also the Aldgate Master Plan area. It was situated adjacent to another tall building and would sit well in the proposed location.
- S106 figures had been arrived at following consultations with the Highways Section and TfL.
- Leisure and culture would not comprise reasonable grounds on which to seek mitigation for additional burdens on the local infrastructure. However the proposed package contained mitigation measures and provided additional facilities for students. Nor was provision of affordable housing an acceptable requirement for the type of accommodation proposed.
On a vote of three for and 1 abstention, it was -
RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for the demolition of the existing building at Jobcentre Plus, 60 Commercial Road, London, E1 1LP, and erection of a 21 storey building plus basement to provide retail/commercial/community unit (Use Class A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1) at ground floor and student accommodation and ancillary uses together with associated servicing, landscaping and other incidental works, be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of serious concerns over:
- The height and bulk of the proposed development in the context of surrounding buildings.
- Daylight and sunlight issues.
- Inappropriate S106 contributions
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: