Agenda item
PA/10/01458 - Redundant Railway Viaduct North of Pooley House, Westfield Way, London
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 4th August, 2011 5.30 p.m. (Item 9.1)
- View the background to item 9.1
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
On a vote of 1 for 3 against with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for Redundant Railway Viaduct North of Pooley House, Westfield Way, London (PA/10/01458)be NOT ACCEPTED
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of Members’ concerns over:
- Over concentration of student housing in the area. Need for a more balanced mix of housing in the area (i.e. family sized housing).
- Impact on the area in terms of the potential for late night disturbance.
- Accuracy of the transport assessment
- Adequacy of the emergency access/fire safety plans and disabled access.
- Impact on the ecology of area.
- Overdevelopment of the site in terms of bulk and scale of the development.
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:
Owen Whalley (Service Head, Planning and Building Control) introduced the application and the tabled update regarding Redundant Railway Viaduct North of Pooley House, Westfield Way, London.
The Chair then invited persons registered to speak to address the Committee.
Taz Khalitue addressed the Committee as an objector to the application. He stated that he was a local resident. He expressed concern at overcrowding in area given the number of existing student housing and nearby new developments. The site was derelict and could be converted into a green belt site. It was a nice natural environment with good light. Under the scheme, the pathway would be darker and there would be noise disturbance. Residents had signed a petition opposing the scheme which he could show the Committee if necessary. The site should be used as greenery.
In reply to questions from Members, he considered that the information sent out as part of the consultation was inadequate. It just stated that the scheme was going ahead with no information on the impact.
Steve Taylor addressed the Committee in support. He was speaking as a Town Planner for Network Rail. He referred to the London Plan which specified that there was a need for student housing in this area. Addressing this shortage would reduce pressure on other types of housing in the area. The site was derelict. In terms of the key considerations, i.e. daylight, noise levels etc, the plans complied with policy. Access to the site was restricted to the campus only. There was a lot of green space in the area already. The Petition referred to outdated plans.
In response to the presentation, the Committee put a number of questions to Mr Taylor around the following matters:
- The Transport Assessment. Questions were raised over its accuracy given the number of units. Clarification was also sought at expected pedestrian trips especially during the evening.
- Possibility that the most of the students could attend external colleges For example the London Metropolitan University/other colleagues in the Borough. If so it was likely that the number of journeys would increase.
- Consultation undertaken with ward Councillors.
- The absence of a preferred developer at this stage still to be appointed.
- The request to fund junction tables at nearby streets declined by the applicant.
Mr Taylor addressed the questions. It was anticipated that the majority of the students would be from Queen Mary University (QMU).So it was considered that the majority of trips to the campuses would be made by walking. Therefore the transport assessment, expecting low transport trips, was accurate. Moreover the site had a good public transport accessibility rating and could accommodate people wishing to travel. There would also be a car free agreement. By virtue of its location and the restricted access, the site was only really suitable for student housing. The request for junction works was disproportionate given the scheme would generate few car trips. The development would fit in well with the area judging by the response from local people. Residents from adjacent streets were supportive of the scheme. The Applicant was currently in the process of selecting a preferred developer. Whilst they hadn’t consulted Ward Councillors, they had consulted those affected in the area.
Devon Rollo (Strategic Applications Planning Officer) presented the application assisted by a point presentation of the application.
Mr Rollo described the site and surrounding area including the nearby railway viaduct. He explained the details of the scheme. He emphasised the suitability of the site for student accommodation due to, amongst other matters, its proximity to the university campus. It also had good transport links. The scheme complied with policy and was considered acceptable in terms of size, design, bulk, noise, daylight levels. The application included a Management Plan to carefully manage any noise disturbance. Obligations had been secured to mitigate the impact.
Members then put questions/comments to Officers around the following matters:
- Desirability of more student housing in the area.
- The suitability of the site for residential housing.
- Access via Longnor Road.
- The emergency access/fire safety plans given it was a confined site.
- Disabled access.
- The S106 calculation.
- Noise implications.
- The provision for cycles.
- Possibility that many of the occupiers could attend other universities in the Borough. If so this could substantially increase transport use.
- Possibility that the rooms may be used as holiday lets. For example during the Olympics Games significantly increasing transport journeys.
- The accuracy of the transport assessment given the above points.
Mr Rollo addressed each question. He emphasised the unsuitability of the site for general housing. This was due to a number of factors including its proximity to the university, noise from the railway viaduct, access and security restrictions. Any housing on this site would be fenced off at certain times. Other limitations were lack of outdoor living space, lack of access via Longnor Road. However it was felt that the development would remove pressure on residential housing.
It was confirmed that the main access route would be from Bradwell Street.
In relation to the S106 assessment, it was required that it be relevant to the development and reflect the needs of the area. There was a need for open space in this area. Hence the request for this in the obligations.
It was also intended that the vast majority of occupiers would attend QMU and would walk to the campus. Therefore there would be little additional traffic. As a result confidence was expressed in the travel assessment given this latter point, research into similar schemes and the car free plans. Highways Services had considered the assessment and were satisfied that it was accurate. Officers also described the emergency access route accepted as satisfactory.
In relation to the cycle stands, the provision was policy compliant. The rise in number was due to the planned use of two tier cycle stands.
On a vote of 1 for 3 against with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for Redundant Railway Viaduct North of Pooley House, Westfield Way, London (PA/10/01458)be NOT ACCEPTED
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of Members’ concerns over:
- Over concentration of student housing in the area. Need for a more balanced mix of housing in the area (i.e. family sized housing).
- Impact on the area in terms of the potential for late night disturbance.
- Accuracy of the transport assessment
- Adequacy of the emergency access/fire safety plans and disabled access.
- Impact on the ecology of area.
- Overdevelopment of the site in terms of bulk and scale of the development.
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:
-
Item 9.1_Pooley House PA-10-01458 - Report - Final (No Map), item 9.1
PDF 619 KB
-
Item 9.1a_Pooley House PlanDocument2, item 9.1
PDF 2 MB