Agenda item
60 Commercial Road, London E1 1LP (PA/10/1481)
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
On a vote of 2 for and 4 against, the Committee RESOLVED
That the planning permission at 60 Commercial Road, London E1 1LP for Demolition of existing building and erection of a 19 storey building plus basement to provide plant room; 200 sqm retail/commercial /community unit (class A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1) at ground floor and student accommodation on upper floors (comprising 383 units) and ancillary uses; associated servicing and landscaping be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of serious concerns over:
- Inadequate s106 contributions, particularly with regard to healthcare and community projects
- Daylight and sunlight impacts upon surrounding properties
- Noise disturbance
The committee also resolved that the A4 use should be removed from the scheme.
In accordance with 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:
Update Report Tabled.
Mr Owen Whalley (Service Head, Planning and Building Control, Development and Renewal) presented the report regarding 60 Commercial Road, London.
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 Jeff Field spoke in objection to the application regarding the impact on 52 – 58 Commercial Road. He considered that the application would adversely affect daylight levels to this property. He considered that the BRE assessment was wrong and that their building should have been classified as residential property. It fell within the residential dwelling category. The scheme consisting of 19 floors, was a lot higher than theirs and would have an overbearing impact on their property. Daylight and sunlight was very important to his clients amenity who expected high standards from their accommodation. The density of the scheme was three times in excess of what was required in London Plan Matrix. He urged the Committee to refuse this application.
Mr Jim Poole (Applicants Agent) spoke in favour of the application. He reported that the previous application which was refused was subject to appeal but this would be withdrawn if this application was granted. He considered that all of the previous concerns had now been addressed and that the issues raised in objection were speculative and unsubstantiated. The Applicant had increased the Section 106 contribution in accordance with the increase in floor space which the Council considered acceptable. The Applicant had received many letter of support. He considered that the Section 106 agreement would benefit the whole community. He also referred to plans to relocate the Job Centre to mitigate the issues around that ensuring there was no loss of employment floor space which were welcomed.
Mr Simon Ryan, (Deputy Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the report to Members, drawing attention to the further update report tabled at the meeting. A similar application had been considered previously at the Strategic Development Committee meetings in November and December 2009, where Members were minded to refuse the application due to concerns around the design, excessive height and bulk, unacceptable loss of daylight and sunlight and insufficient Section 106 contributions. He reported that, since that time, the Applicant had made a number of changes to the scheme including increasing the Section 106 agreement and public realm benefits to mitigate the development.
Mr Ryan also drew attention to the letters of representations received that were material to the application addressing each concern. The main issues for consideration were land use, design, transport and highways issues, environmental issues, amenity and the impact on neighbouring properties. In summary it was considered that the proposed usage was in line with policy therefore the Officer recommendation was to grant.
In response to the report, Members queried the Section 106 Agreement. Specifically the community contributions. They requested that a breakdown of these plans be provided including -
- the remit of the Aldgate Master Plan and surrounding area,
- clarification of the term open space in this context.
Concern was also expressed at the plans to provide an A4 drinking establishment given the issues with binge drinking and anti social behaviour in the area and the premises close proximity to residential properties
As a result, Councillor Shahid Ali MOVED a motion to remove the A4 use from the proposal which was seconded by Councillor Anwar Khan. This was unanimously AGREED.
Concern was also expressed at the adequacy of the health care contributions given the expected increased in demand on such services arising from the proposal.
Members also requested that the Applicant’s commitment to providing in house health services be confirmed.
Officers reported that, as part of the application, a student management plan had been secured and would need to be agreed with the Council prior to occupation.
Concern was also expressed at daylight and sunlight impacts upon surrounding properties.
In view of these concerns, on a vote of 2 for and 4 against, the Committee:
RESOLVED
That the planning permission at 60 Commercial Road, London E1 1LP for Demolition of existing building and erection of a 19 storey building plus basement to provide plant room; 200 sqm retail/commercial /community unit (class A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1) at ground floor and student accommodation on upper floors (comprising 383 units) and ancillary uses; associated servicing and landscaping be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of serious concerns over:
- Inadequate s106 contributions, particularly with regard to healthcare and community projects
- Daylight and sunlight impacts upon surrounding properties
- Noise disturbance
The committee also resolved that the A4 use should be removed from the scheme.
In accordance with 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: