Agenda item
Land at Virginia Quay off Newport Avenue, Newport Avenue, London, E14
Decision:
On a unanimous vote it was RESOLVED
(1) That the Development Committee formally object to the application made to the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) in relation to Land at Virginia Quay off Newport Avenue, Newport Avenue, London, E14 for the Erection of 12 storey residential building (measuring 42.6m AOD in height) including basement storage/plant area to provide 26 residential dwellings and associated works comprising access, landscaping, car parking and other works
(2) That such formal objection be made on the grounds of:
- Overdevelopment in the form of loss of day light/sunlight.
- Increased overshadowing.
- The proposed density of the scheme given the low Public Transport Accessibility Level rating.
- Concerns over the provision of affordable housing given the proposals fell short of policy requirements.
- That a number of the proposed units fell below the space standards required in policy.
- Inadequate details regarding: sunlight, overshadowing, landscaping, energy, water use, air quality, waste, noise and vibration.
- Inadequate consultation.
Minutes:
Special Reasons for Urgency Agreed.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager, Planning Services) introduced the report concerning Land at Virginia Quay off Newport Avenue, Newport Avenue, London, E14. Mr Smith reminded Members that the application fell within the planning functions of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) therefore it was not for decision by the Authority.
However the Council as a statutory consultee had been invited to make observations on the application. The Committee were therefore asked to considered and endorse Officers recommendations on the application to form the Council’s observations.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Cliff Prior spoke in objection to the proposal. He stated that 650 residents of the area had signed the petition against the scheme. The proposed was far too great for the site, twice in excess of policy requirements. The number of family sized homes and room sizes were inadequate and fell short of policy requirements. There would be inadequate amenity space. The scheme was out of character. The right to light report shows breaches the in the minimum levels. Mr Prior referred to other new developments in the area. In his opinion only two of which included affordable housing. Together with these developments, the proposal would create a sense of overdevelopment.
There were also no parking or deliveries spaces or room for reversing. The site had a poor Public Transport Level Assessment rating. (PTLA) Unauthorised parking was a problem in this area and often a source of hostility. Therefore, this proposal would put additional pressure on parking and could generate further conflict.
In reply to Members, Mr Prior commented on the consultation undertaken with residents. He was of the opinion that everyone who lived by the site objected to the scheme. According to the report, a number of the units exceeded the affordability threshold. Therefore were not affordable.
Dr. Mubeen Khan spoke in objection to the scheme. He also expressed concern over lack of parking, overshadowing, density, and loss of trees. He referred to a previous permission for the site which he considered provided greater amenity space and tree planting. He expressed concern that the original use and Section 106 Agreement could be changed. He questioned the policy and exceptional circumstances justifying this. There was also a lack of children’s facilities in the area and often fights over car parking spaces given the car free nature of area. Currently the green spaces were used by children. However it was now proposed that the some of the amenity space (roof terraces) only be used by the private units reducing community space.
Councillor Gloria Thienel spoke in opposition to the scheme welcoming the opportunity to voice her views at the Committee. She expressed objection at the design, overdevelopment of the area as the population had already reached its maximum potential. It would bloc views to Greenwich. The new development would also place additional pressure on existing infrastructure, (schools, heath services etc) already stretched to full capacity. There would be little improvements in such services to cope with this. The Councillor asked the Committee to oppose the application.
Tim Holtham spoke in support of the scheme. The developers had engaged extensively with the local community as well as LBTH and the Greater London Authority in preparing the plans since 2010. There was a need for affordable housing in the Lower Lea Valley area. A region identified in the London Plan as an area to provide more affordable housing. The areas population was also set to rise as recognised in Council policy. Therefore, the proposal would assist in meeting these demands. The plans also sought to mitigate impact on views and amenity. Parking would be kept to a minimum in line with policy. Mr Holtham also highlighted the plans for amenity space. Overall the scheme would provide much needed new homes, be environmentally friendly and sustainable, and make a positive contribution to the area.
In response to Members, Mr Holtham acknowledged that that there was a mixed response to the consultation. Whilst most of the surrounding residents were opposed to the scheme, those living further away were quite supportive. The Applicant was currently still in discussions with LTGDC about the affordability of the social housing. The feedback from residents had been taken into account in designing the scheme. As a result it had been designed to address the objections as far a possible. A key safeguard was the adequate distances between buildings and the fact that the roof terrace would be set back to prevent overlooking and loss of sunlight. The design was in keeping with the area. The architectural quality was very high.
Mr Jerry Bell (Strategic Applications Manager, Planning Services) presented the detailed report. He reminded Members that the request for observations was originally dealt with by Officers under delegated powers in line with the Constitution. However at the request of Members and residents, Officers had since reviewed this decision and had decided to take the request to Committee for open discussion.
Whilst Officers had already submitted a response, should the Committee agree differently, it would be withdrawn and replaced by the Committees.
Mr Bell explained in detail the scheme including the layout, the location and nature of the surrounds, current use of the site and the location of the community space. Mr Bell explained the benefits of the scheme including 35% affordable units in line with policy. Overall officers were of the view that the scheme in principle was acceptable but were recommending a number of additional conditions as set out in the report.
In response, the Committee raised a number of questions covering the following issues:
- The decision to deal with the matter under delegated powers.
- Adequacy of the affordable housing given the breaches in policy.
- Affordability of the rents for such units (particularly the 4 bed unit) given it exceeded the accepted threshold.
- Lack of family sized units.
- The density in view of the modest PTLA rating.
- Inadequate information.
- That some of properties fell short of the Space Standards in the London Plan.
- Clarification of the loss of light to surrounding properties.
Officers then responded to the questions from Members.
The request was initially dealt with under delegated authority as Officers considered that the scheme did not raise any Borough wide issues of significance. However on request, the Service Head had decided to exercise discretionary powers in taking the matter to Committee for open discussion.
In considering the density range, it was necessary to take into account the overall impact of the scheme when considering its acceptability. Whilst there would be some impact, it was not considered great enough to refuse the scheme.
?
In relation to the affordable rents, the figures in the report were correct. In conducting the research, the rent levels for 3 bed units came out higher than for 4. This anomaly was due to the fact that the 4 bed units were located in less affluent areas.
Officers also confirmed that a sun/daylight report had been submitted. They explained the results of the testing on the properties affected. Whilst there would be some reduction in light, the impact was considered acceptable in line with the required standards.
Overall the shortfalls of the scheme were not great enough to warrant a refusal. Given this and the need for affordable housing in the area, Officers were of the view that in principle the scheme was acceptable.
In summary, the Committee welcomed the opportunity to make observations on this application. It was also requested that a threshold be set for referring requests for observations to the Committee. It was Agreed that this be referred to the Constitutional Working Party for consideration.
On a unanimous vote it was RESOLVED
(1) That the Development Committee formally object to the application made by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) at Land at Virginia Quay off Newport Avenue, Newport Avenue, London, E14 for the Erection of 12 storey residential building (measuring 42.6m AOD in height) including basement storage/plant area to provide 26 residential dwellings and associated works comprising access, landscaping, car parking and other works
(2) That such formal objection be made on the grounds of:
- Overdevelopment in the form of loss of day light/sunlight.
- Increased overshadowing.
- The proposed density of the scheme given the low Public Transport Accessibility Level rating.
- Concerns over the provision of affordable housing given the proposals fell short of policy requirements.
- That a number of the proposed units fell below the space standards required in policy.
- Inadequate details regarding: sunlight, overshadowing, landscaping, energy, water use, air quality, waste, noise and vibration.
- Inadequate consultation.
Supporting documents:
-
Virginia Quay PA-11-1426 URGENT ITEM REPORT with legal comments, item 8.2
PDF 48 KB
-
PA-11-1426 Virginia Quay Final report agenda, item 8.2
PDF 1 MB