Agenda item
Land at Royal Mint St Mansell St and Chamber St, Royal Mint Street, London (PA/11/00642)
Decision:
Councillor Denise Jones proposed an amendment, seconded by the Chair, which was agreed unanimously and is shown as resolution (2) below.
The substantive motion was then put to the vote and was declared carried unanimously. Accordingly it was RESOLVED –
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at land at Royal Mint Street, Mansell Street and Chamber Street, Royal Mint Street, London, for the redevelopment of the site for a mixed-use development comprising the erection of two buildings of between 3 and 15 storeys, providing 354 residential units (Use Class C3), a 236 room hotel together with 33 serviced apartments (Use Class C1), flexible retail/financial services/restaurant/café/ drinking establishment/health clinic/business space (1172 sqm) (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, D1 and B1), restaurant, bar, gallery, leisure (731 sqm) (Use Class A3/A4/D1/D2), community uses including sports and training facilities, neighbourhood police base and office space within the railway arches (1014 sqm) (Use Class D1/D2/B1), creation of a new pedestrian link, together with associated works including landscaping, providing of parking, servicing and plant area, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London and to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations and to the planning conditions and informatives as set out in the circulated report and amended by the update report Tabled at the meeting, but further
(2) That the financial contribution of £50,000 towards the Legible London wayfinding scheme, as set out in head (e) of the S106 agreement be utilised for signage in East London.
(3) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
(4) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose planning conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the circulated report, as amended by the update report Tabled at the meeting.
(5) That, if within three months of the date of this Committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to refuse planning permission.
(6) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal provide, as soon as possible, a report concerning mechanisms for development of the relationship between the membership of the Strategic Development Committee and the Planning Contributions Overview Panel, to examine options for further Member input on S106 financial contributions. The Corporate Director to attend the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee when the report is put forward.
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, introduced the application (PA/11/00642) regarding redevelopment of the site at Royal Mint Street, Mansell Street and Chamber Street, Royal Mint Street, London.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Mr Liam Griffin, speaking on behalf of Mr Frank Banner, who had registered to speak in objection to the application, commented that Mr Banner owned a car park on Royal Mint Street that was a useful facility for local businesses. He had worked hard to provide the car park and felt that he should be permitted to remain there. He felt that the proposed development was unnecessary.
Councillor Shahed Ali, speaking in objection to the application, stated that he had only that day received a letter advising objectors of the meeting. As a local Councillor he acknowledged the need for community facilities but the Council’s primary priority had to be the provision of housing. He queried the number of social housing units that the scheme would provide and expressed the view that the S106 agreement appeared to be very weak, in terms of monitoring the occupancy rates throughout the scheme. He cited the City Pride and Island Point schemes as instances where the Council and developers had worked well together but felt that it was premature to assume that the donor sites linked to the current proposal would receive planning permission. He further felt that Chamber Street was an unsuitable location for a large hotel and its servicing arrangements would create chaos, especially during rush hours. In addition, there was inadequate provision for coaches and the loss of six pay and display parking spaces was unacceptable.
Councillor Ali then responded to questions from Members relating to housing aspects of the application.
Ms Joyce Archbold, Development Manager for Society Links, based in John Fisher Street, spoke in support of the application, stating that she worked mainly with residents of Royal Mint Estate. This was an area of real need, with some 500 children of 5-16 years, 69% of whom were in receipt of free school meals. Many homes were overcrowded and children needed any opportunity to be able move into larger accommodation. The proposed scheme would offer jobs for local people and she was working with the developers to secure skills for residents in the hotel/hospitality field. People in the estates near the development were aware of the benefits it would bring and a large number of young people had made the effort to come along to the meeting to show their support.
Mr Zoinul Abidin, speaking in support of the application, indicated that he was a Community Worker with experience of running local groups. He had been in contact with the developers for 18 months to suggest what was needed for Royal Mint Street residents. To this end, they were providing space in four arches, together with £1m. funding, which was an investment for Tower Hamlets. He felt that the application should be supported as it would provide long term community benefits. In response to a query from the Chair, Mr Abidin added that the community provision was not technically included in the S106 agreement but the developers were including it as part of the deal. Mr Abidin added that he worked in close partnership with Society Links. In response to questions from Members, he expressed confidence that the developers would deliver the facilities they had promised.
At the request of the Chair, Ms Amy Thompson, Strategic Applications Planner, made a detailed presentation of the application, as contained in the circulated report and update, including plans and a slideshow. She referred to consultation measures, as outlined in the report, and provided a planning history of the relevant site. She stressed that the applicants could not start development work until the donor sites had been transferred to Tower Hamlets Community Housing (THCH) or another registered social landlord. Officers were satisfied that the combined donor schemes would deliver 445 habitable rooms in a policy compliant mix and split between affordable rented and intermediate accommodation.
Hotel servicing would be undertaken mainly from Chamber Street and was proposed to be handled off-street to minimise disruption to traffic flow. 24 private car parking spaces would be provided in the arches and the six pay and display parking spaces that would be lost as a result of the proposals would be replaced in Chamber Street.
Ms Megan Nugent, Legal Services Team Leader, explained the process whereby the developers had offered a unilateral undertaking, separate from the S106 agreement, to refurbish four arches for community use and set up a community trust with £1m. funding. Although this agreement was not made through the Council, the developers were legally bound to deliver what they had agreed to do.
Members then put questions relating to:
- Loss of sunlight with particular reference to 30 Prescott Street.
- The possibility of arrangements for the two donor sites failing to proceed with consequences for social housing provision.
- Possible assistance with relocation of the car park business in Royal Mint Street.
- Concerns relating to some registered social landlords moving away from lifelong tenancies.
- The possibility of obtaining more biodiversity measures in the development.
- Allocation of car parking spaces.
- Liaison with the Tower of London concerning the application.
- Possible ringfencing of S106 community funding to Wapping Ward.
- The large amount of funding directed towards a Crossrail contribution.
Officers’ responses included comments that:
- The scheme had been substantially modified to take account of sunlight issues and although there would be some effects on other properties, this did not outweigh the overall benefits that would accrue.
- The donor sites arrangements were considered secure and work was proceeding with THCH, who were signatories to the S106 agreement. Work on the development could not proceed until ownership of the donor sites had been transferred.
- THCH had indicated that they would continue to offer lifelong tenancies and this had been confirmed by their Management Board.
- The development when complete would provide much more employment than the existing car park – relocation of businesses in Newham as a result of the Olympic site had been possible because they had been compulsorily purchased. NOTE: Mr Peter Wilmot of Network Rail informed the Committee that they would have discussions with the car park owner on the matter of helping to maintain the business. The Chair expressed satisfaction that a commitment to help had been made.
- The biodiversity aspect had been reviewed by the in-house officer and detailed landscaping had been approved and a BREEAM energy use rating of excellent had been obtained for the scheme.
- The development would be car free apart from 26 parking spaces and it could be possible to see whether some of these could be allocated to family housing units.
- There had been considerable liaison with Historic Royal Palaces over two years and the design had been amended in line with their comments – their response to the scheme was now very positive.
- S106 funding for the provision of education, community and health facilities was intended to fulfil Borough-wide requirements, for the good of the greater community. Use of S106 funds was considered by the Planning Contributions Overview Panel and the membership thereof was under review.
- The Crossrail contribution was determined by a tried and tested formula and had proved non-negotiable during detailed discussions with TfL.
Councillor Denise Jones proposed an amendment, seconded by the Chair, which was agreed unanimously and is shown as resolution (2) below.
The substantive motion was then put to the vote and was declared carried unanimously. Accordingly it was RESOLVED –
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at land at Royal Mint Street, Mansell Street and Chamber Street, Royal Mint Street, London, for the redevelopment of the site for a mixed-use development comprising the erection of two buildings of between 3 and 15 storeys, providing 354 residential units (Use Class C3), a 236 room hotel together with 33 serviced apartments (Use Class C1), flexible retail/financial services/restaurant/café/ drinking establishment/health clinic/business space (1172 sqm) (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, D1 and B1), restaurant, bar, gallery, leisure (731 sqm) (Use Class A3/A4/D1/D2), community uses including sports and training facilities, neighbourhood police base and office space within the railway arches (1014 sqm) (Use Class D1/D2/B1), creation of a new pedestrian link, together with associated works including landscaping, providing of parking, servicing and plant area, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London and to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations and to the planning conditions and informatives as set out in the circulated report and amended by the update report Tabled at the meeting, but further
(2) That the financial contribution of £50,000 towards the Legible London wayfinding scheme, as set out in head (e) of the S106 agreement be utilised for signage in East London.
(3) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
(4) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose planning conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the circulated report, as amended by the update report Tabled at the meeting.
(5) That, if within three months of the date of this Committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to refuse planning permission.
(6) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal provide, as soon as possible, a report concerning mechanisms for development of the relationship between the membership of the Strategic Development Committee and the Planning Contributions Overview Panel, to examine options for further Member input on S106 financial contributions. The Corporate Director to attend the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee when the report is put forward.
Supporting documents: