Agenda item
Island Gardens Estate, site bound by Manchester Road, Glengarnock Avenue and Stebondale Street (PA/10/2578)
Decision:
Update Report Tabled
Councillor Helal Uddin left the meeting for the consideration of this item (7.1) and for item 7.2.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/10/2578) be GRANTED for the Demolition of Capstan House, 19 and 21 Glengarnock Avenue (26 x existing residential units) and ground floor vehicular garages and the development of a residential -led mixed-use scheme comprising 86 new residential units (including 4 x studios, 18 x 1 bed, 42 x 2 bed, 20 x 3 bed, 2 x 4 bed) in 3 new blocks between 4 and 6 storeys in height plus 68 sq.m. of retail space (A1, A2, A3 and B1) and 67 sq.m. of non-residential floorspace for community, education and cultural uses (D1) together with demolition and alterations of existing building structures, new and improved landscaped public open space and public realm, cycle parking, and associated utilities/services subject to.
2. That prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report.
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report.
5. That, if by the 30th March 2012 the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled
Councillor Helal Uddin left the meeting for the consideration of this item (7.1) and for item 7.2.
At the request of the Chair, Jerry Bell, Strategic Applications Manager
introduced the report concerning Island Gardens Estate, site bound by Manchester Road, Glengarnock Avenue and Stebondale Street.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Ms Margret Higgins addressed the Committee in objection. She would be directly affected by the scheme. She accepted the need for development on the site but the scheme was far too large. Due to its proximity to Galleon House, the residents would experience a loss of window light. Residents of the ground floor were house bound therefore this was very unfair. To overcome this, the height of the scheme should be reduced. It would also place an intolerable strain on parking. Parking spaces should be incorporated in the application. In addition, the emergency assess plans were inadequate It would be impossible for emergency vehicles to access to Galleon House. It was the same design as the nearby building where people perished.
In response to Members, Ms Higgins confirmed that she was speaking on behalf of local residents. The new building would overhang the trees on the pavement given it close proximity to the pavement. The trees would need to be cut back or could be damaged in construction. Ms Higgins noted the extensive steps taken to engage with residents. A key concerns arising from the consultation was the closeness to the existing properties. Whilst this was put to the Applicant, nothing had changed.
Councillor Tim Archer also spoke in objection. Whilst the residents of the estate welcomed its regeneration and the decent homes plus funding, they had serious concerns. A key concern was the daylight impact on neighbouring houses. Many of which already lacked natural light. A further was the impact on parking. Most of the spaces to be lost were in use so this would have a significant impact. The surrounding streets were already fully congested with parked cars (as shown by the photograph on page 42 of the agenda). Therefore the area couldn’t accommodate any more on street parking. There would also be a net loss of social housing. In reply to Members, he stressed the need for additional parking places to be provided. Options such as underground parking should be explored.
Mr Steve Inkpen addressed the Committee as the applicants representative. He outlined the merits of the proposal based on lengthy consultation. The aim of the plans was to meet the decent homes plus standards with improvements to the surrounding area and work to address anti social behaviour. The scheme would improve security and discourage people congregating there. He outlined the plans to replace the bed sits not fit for purpose with high quality housing. This would include affordable houses with a large percentage of family homes and social rented units. He outlined the extensive consultation exercise. As a result, the scheme had been revised to reduce the size of the main bloc. He also explained the decision to set back the property to mitigate impact. He referred to the plans to replace trees and the availability of parking spaces on the estate. Whilst the alternative bays would not be as close as present bays, there were drop off bays near the scheme. He referred to the expense of underground parking that could make the scheme unviable. The studies showed that the loss of daylight would be minimum affecting very few non habitual rooms. Steps had been taken to enable the community groups based at Capston House to use the accommodation in the short term. It was hoped to identify accommodation for them on a permanent basis.
Mandip Dhillon (Planning Officer) made a detailed presentation of the application as contained in the circulated report and update. She explained the links with the parallel redevelopment application (agenda item 7.2). She explained the site and the surrounds and details of the proposals. She explained the consultation arrangements and outcome. She addressed the key issues raised in consultation and the planning matters.
Overall, it was considered that the scheme was acceptable and complied with policy.
Ms Dhillon also confirmed the affordable housing offer. Given the proposed mix and overall benefits of the scheme, the offer was considered acceptable. Details of the parking impact and landscaping works were also explained. There would be no significant impact on the trees by the pavement as explained in the Arboriculture Officer comments. Ms Dhillon also explained the outcome of the sunlight/day light report.
In response to questions about car parking, Officers explained that the plans were policy compliant and the scope of the Car Free Agreement.
The future occupants would also benefit from the Council’s Permit Transfer Scheme, where applicable.
In relation to the contributions, both TFL and the Council’s Highway experts had considered the scheme. They did not consider that a highways contribution was necessary in this case and that there would be any significant impacts on buses. There was sufficient off street parking on the estate to accommodate parking from the scheme as shown in the Transport Assessment and in the opinion from Highways. The Islands Garden DLR station was approximately 60 metres away from the site and the area was well serviced by buses. Whilst there would be some loss of light, of the windows assessed very few fell under minimum requirements. Overall, given the overall benefits of the scheme, it was considered that this small shortfall was acceptable. Furthermore, it did not give rise to overdevelopment. Officers also stressed the adequacy of the emergency access route.
It was intended that the Employment and Enterprise contributions would be put towards improving employment and business opportunities in the Borough.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/10/2578) be GRANTED for the Demolition of Capstan House, 19 and 21 Glengarnock Avenue (26 x existing residential units) and ground floor vehicular garages and the development of a residential -led mixed-use scheme comprising 86 new residential units (including 4 x studios, 18 x 1 bed, 42 x 2 bed, 20 x 3 bed, 2 x 4 bed) in 3 new blocks between 4 and 6 storeys in height plus 68 sq.m. of retail space (A1, A2, A3 and B1) and 67 sq.m. of non-residential floorspace for community, education and cultural uses (D1) together with demolition and alterations of existing building structures, new and improved landscaped public open space and public realm, cycle parking, and associated utilities/services subject to.
2. That prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report.
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report.
5. That, if by the 30th March 2012 the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Supporting documents: