Agenda item
Eric and Treby Estates, Mile End, Treby Street, London
Decision:
On a vote of four for and three against, it was –
RESOLVED:
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED for the regeneration of Eric and Treby Estate, comprising the refurbishment of existing buildings, the demolition of 14 bed-sit units at 1-14 Brokesley Street and the erection of buildings between 1 and 7 storeys to provide 179 residential units (comprising: 19 x studio, 61 x 1 bed, 52 x 2 bed, 38 x 3 bed and 9 x 5 bed), two new community buildings of 310 sq.m and 150 sq.m, a new housing management office of 365 sq.m and 251 sq.m of commercial space and the introduction of an estate wide landscape improvement scheme, subject to:-
(a) Any direction by the Mayor of London;
(b) The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations listed in paragraph 3.3B of the Officer’s report, as amended by paragraph 3.2 of the Officer’s update report so as to include the following non-financial planning obligation:
- The bus stop outside site 8 shall be relocated to an alternative location (to be agreed in consultation with Transport for London), or suitable alternative access arrangements agreed.
(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 authority to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed at paragraph 3.5 of the Officer’s report.
(4) That Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED for the demolition of 1-14 Brokesley Street, subject to the conditions listed at paragraph 3.6 of the Officer’s report.
(5) That, if by 30 April 2010 the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to refuse planning permission.
NOTE: At this point the Chair indicated that the order of business on the agenda would be varied in order to consider item 7.4, in view of the fact that speakers were registered and a large number of the public present. However, the agenda items are recorded in their original order for ease of reference.
Minutes:
Mr Owen Whalley, Head of Planning & Building Control, introduced the report regarding the application for planning permission for the regeneration of Eric and Treby Estate.
The Chair then invited representations from persons who had registered for speaking rights in accordance with the procedures for hearing objections, as set out in the Council’s Constitution.
Mr Mark Taylor, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application, expressing the view that:
- The consultation exercise undertaken by East End Homes had been very poor, with no reference made relating to sites 11, 2a or 2b and had comprised two one-day events that had been largely unknown by most residents.
- The consultation questionnaire that had been issued was biased and had not been sent out until after the statutory deadline for consultations.
- Despite East End Homes having statutory responsibility for ensuring the safety of residents in their homes, fire hazards still remained and the plans had not been signed off by the London Fire Authority.
- Refuse could not be properly collected from Ennerdale House and bins would have to be dragged for 25 m, which was in excess of the 10 m maximum stipulated by Health and Safety regulations.
- Crime prevention measures had not been adequately addressed in the design plans: escape routes for perpetrators of crime remained and there were areas where victims could be trapped. No Police or Safe Neighbourhood Team reports had been provided.
- Provision of public open spaces had not been given proper consideration and the proposed East End Homes office site would effectively remove the area used by children as a football kick-about area.
Ms Katherine Taylor, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application, stating that:
- She was in favour of social housing, especially for large families, but the application was not family friendly and would result in children from Mile End being bussed to schools all over the Borough. This would also have an impact on Council Tax charges.
- S106 monies should be utilised possibly for the provision of a primary school in Mile End.
- Children in Brokesley Street would have no play space and this created concerns for their safety.
- The demolition of properties in Brokesley Street had not been carried out by East End Homes in accordance with agreed procedures and there would be loss of light to existing properties when new build was completed.
Mr Steve Inkpen, speaking for the applicant, stated that there would be an overall increase in open space in the estates and the position regarding parking had been reviewed. He added that:
· There would be some £20m. of investment in the estates, including £12m improvement works and £7m in grants from the Homes and Communities Agency. The new build properties would replace bedsits with efficient homes, built to Lifestyle standards and including wheelchair access.
· More secure street frontage would be provided aimed at reducing anti-social behaviour, with a safer environment in general and more secure windows, etc.
· There would be six new play areas, including a kick-about space, and a new housing centre on which there would be further consultation about community use.
· The application met key objectives of LBTH strategies and would provide 5 bed homes, which were valuable in Bow, an area of overcrowding.
· There had been extensive consultation since 2003 and plans had been amended to meet residents’ concerns over such issues as height of buildings. Door to door consultation had meant that every home had been visited at least once and this had shown a majority of residents in favour of the proposals, including a new local housing office and community facility.
At this point, the Chair warned that, if disruption from the public gallery did not cease, he would have the gallery cleared or adjourn the meeting.
Councillor Ahmed Hussain, a Ward Councillor, stated that the proposed high density of housing would lead to future ghettoes and, if the application was granted, there would be problems over many years to come. Children would have to be bussed to schools and their education would be hindered. Playspace was urgently required. The results of East End Homes consultations were outweighed by the residents’ own survey which showed dissatisfaction with the proposals. This was the third occasion the application had been submitted and it was still not favoured by residents, who felt that there would be overcrowding. Other Councillors had concerns and the scheme should be rejected. He expressed the view that Labour Members were under the party whip to support the application.
The Chair stated that Councillor Hussain should improve his conduct, as such comments were unacceptable.
Councillor Rachael Saunders declared a personal interest in the item by reason of being an East End Homes Board member. She added that, as Chief Whip of the Labour Group she could state that the party whip was not an issue. She added that she stood with the residents and supported their voice on the future of the estates. At East End Homes Board meetings, she had been committed to obtaining proper resident consultation but this had not been done. The role of the Board was to make residents’ voices heard but this had not happened and the Committee should approve the application only if Members were sure that residents’ questions had been properly answered.
Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman declared a personal interest in the item by reason of being an East End Homes Board member. He indicated that he also wished to raise concerns on behalf of residents. Regeneration of the area in question was important, as was provision of play areas and improvements to security and the environment. However, it was essential to ensure that local residents who experienced that environment were part of the whole process of the scheme.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Jerry Bell, Strategic Applications Manager, gave a very detailed description of the differences between the current scheme and previous proposals, as contained in the circulated report, referring to increases in public open space; increase in number of affordable housing units; amendments to elevation treatments of buildings; amendments to commercial/residential units; provision of a new community use building; increase in number of parking spaces; reduction in overall number of units.
He commented further on sections of the report that gave details of extensive consultation that had been undertaken with local residents and appropriate agencies. Mr Bell also referred to concerns relating to:-
· Fire risk: the London Fire Authority was generally happy with the scheme.
· Waste collection was an issue to be resolved but there was a condition for a service management strategy which had to be approved before the scheme could be implemented.
· The Police had been consulted on crime prevention measures and were satisfied overall.
· The proposed playspace met Borough requirements (although short of the GLA standard) and was considered acceptable.
· Demolition of Brokesley Street properties had resulted in the site being left in a safe condition.
· There would be a S106 contribution of £320,892 for education uses in the locality.
Summarising the additional benefits of the scheme, as set out in the report, Mr Bell stated that the application was recommended for approval.
The Chair then invited questions from Members.
Councillor Stephanie Eaton raised questions which were answered by Mr Bell in connection with the difference between bedsits and studio flats; calculations used for defining public open space; S106 funding used as mitigation of educational impacts.
Councillor Shahed Ali, who had entered the meeting late, declared personal interests in agenda items 6.1, 7.3 and 7.5 as a Ward Councillor and item 7.2 as a member of an organisation adjacent to the site. He commented that no Member of the Committee had been whipped into a decision. They would come to a decision based on the information before them. Councillor Ali then asked questions, which were answered by Mr Bell, on the nature and enforcement of the service management strategy; the ability of the developer to meet any shortfall in funding for the scheme.
The Chair pointed out that Members should not make party political statements while the meeting was in progress.
Councillor Marc Francis asked if Councillor Hussain wished to put his allegation into writing, to be referred to the Standards Board. He then asked questions, which were answered by Mr Bell, relating to possible overlooking and daylight issues between Site 1 and Ennerdale House; the possible impact on daylight for the East London Tabernacle. Ms Alison Thomas, Private Sector & Affordable Housing Manager, answered a further question from Councillor Francis, confirming that 19 studio units were for market sale.
The Chair then called for a vote on the application, pointing out that Councillor Shahed Ali was not eligible to do so as he had arrived late.
On a vote of four for and three against, it was –
RESOLVED:
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED for the regeneration of Eric and Treby Estate, comprising the refurbishment of existing buildings, the demolition of 14 bed-sit units at 1-14 Brokesley Street and the erection of buildings between 1 and 7 storeys to provide 179 residential units (comprising: 19 x studio, 61 x 1 bed, 52 x 2 bed, 38 x 3 bed and 9 x 5 bed), two new community buildings of 310 sq.m and 150 sq.m, a new housing management office of 365 sq.m and 251 sq.m of commercial space and the introduction of an estate wide landscape improvement scheme, subject to:-
(a) Any direction by the Mayor of London;
(b) The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations listed in paragraph 3.3B of the Officer’s report, as amended by paragraph 3.2 of the Officer’s update report so as to include the following non-financial planning obligation:
- The bus stop outside site 8 shall be relocated to an alternative location (to be agreed in consultation with Transport for London), or suitable alternative access arrangements agreed.
(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 authority to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed at paragraph 3.5 of the Officer’s report.
(4) That Conservation Area Consent be GRANTED for the demolition of 1-14 Brokesley Street, subject to the conditions listed at paragraph 3.6 of the Officer’s report.
(5) That, if by 30 April 2010 the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to refuse planning permission.
NOTE: At this point the Chair indicated that the order of business on the agenda would be varied in order to consider item 7.4 next, in view of the fact that speakers were registered and a large number of the public were present. However, the agenda items are recorded in their original order for ease of reference.
At 8.07 p.m., the Chair indicated that the meeting would adjourn briefly. The meeting reconvened at 8.15 p.m.
Supporting documents:
- Item 7.1 PA_09_2065 and 2066 Eric and Treby Report, item 7.1 PDF 310 KB
- Item 7.1 Eric and Treby Site Plan, item 7.1 PDF 407 KB