Agenda item
Land at Virginia Quay off Newport Avenue, Newport Avenue, London, E14 (PA/11/01426)
Decision:
Update Report Tabled.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That the officers’ views in objecting tothe revised proposals for land at Virginia Quay, off Newport Avenue, London, E14, (PA/11/01426) be agreed for the reasons set out in the circulated report.
(2) That, if LTGDC are minded to approve the application, officers seek to secure an affordable rent level of £242 for the 4 bed affordable rent unit, as well as the conditions as set out in the circulated report.
Minutes:
Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, introduced the circulated report and Tabled update regarding the application for planning permission for land at Virginia Quay off Newport Avenue, London, E14.
Mr Smith confirmed that the application had been heard by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) on 9th February 2012 with the Corporation’s Officers recommending the application for approval. Members of the Board had resolved to defer the application so that officers could consider possible reasons for refusal and a further report on this basis be prepared. Mr Smith advised that following the meeting on 9th February 2012 the applicants had revised the application and provided further information in support. The amendments and information had been considered by Officers and Mr Smith recommended that the Committee resolve to ratify Officers’ view that the reasons for objection formerly put forward should be amended to read as follows:
“1. The proposal constitutes over-development of the site by virtue of impacts associated with excessive density, these being loss of daylight and sunlight as well as increased overshadowing for existing residents and poor levels of public transport accessibility. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 3.4 and 3.5 of the London Plan (2011), SP10 of the Core Strategy Development Plan (2010), saved policy DEV2 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy DEV1 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007).
2. The proposal provides an unacceptable amount of affordable housing. As such, the proposal does not accord with policies 3.8 and 3.12 of the London Plan (2011), saved policy HSG7 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (1998), policies HSG2 and HSG3 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007) and policy SP0 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010) which seek to ensure that new developments offer a range of housing choices.”
Additional consultation had resulted in further objections from the public as detailed in the update report.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Mr Cliff Prior, speaking in objection to the application, stated that some 800 objections had been received from 80% of households in the area of the proposed development. It was unclear to local residents and Councillors as to why the scheme was again put forward for consideration. LTGDC had arranged another meeting to consider the matter in Easter week, without awaiting the Borough’s further comments, and would not release details of legal advice sought by them. The application now contained further information regarding car parking but it was not helpful that concierge staff did not live on the estate. There would be severe problems as a disabled space was needed and all six proposed spaces were actually owned by another block. The PTAL score of 2 meant that the site was hard to access by public transport. The proposal was felt to be a piecemeal, infill development that would take away a prime and very important site from the Borough.
In response to queries from a Member, Mr Prior added that the applicants had put forward a parking pressure survey that was full of errors, especially relating to statements from concierges who had stated that there would be no problems although they were not actually residents on the estate.
Councillor Peter Golds, speaking in objection to the application, indicated that he was representing the overall number of residents of the estate and Jim Fitzpatrick, MP, who had supported the objection at all stages. Councillor Golds expressed the view that the application constituted garden-grabbing and would not add to the Borough or provide enough family housing. He felt that this was speculative land-grabbing aimed only at the developer being able to make money. There was currently an unobstructed view from East India DLR to the O2but, if the application was granted, this would only be a view of a 12 storey block. It would not bee possible to divert the DLR and buses could not give proper access to the site, resulting in people having to negotiate dangerous roadways. He concluded that the Committee should again raise objections to the proposals.
The Chair stated that there were no speakers registered in support of the application.
Mr Jerry Bell, Applications Manager, made a detailed presentation of the proposals and commented that the application was not for determination by the Committee but had been submitted so that Members could give a view on the revised scheme. The revisions applied only to the internal layout of the building and the mix of the residential units and reasons for not supporting the application should be amended in the light of the latest report (as set out above in these minutes).
The Chair remarked that discussion when the application had been first considered demonstrated Members’ strength of feeling.
Members then put questions relating to:
- Possible affordable rents.
- Inadequacy of daylight/sunlight levels.
- Possible additional public transport contributions for the improvement of buses.
Officers’ responses included information that:
- The rent level for four bed units should be at or below the Pod research recommended level of £242 per week.
- There had been no physical changes to the building that would improve the daylight/sunlight position.
- It was not felt that there was any possibility of obtaining further contributions for bus improvements given the relatively limited amount of units proposed.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That the officers’ views in objecting tothe revised proposals for land at Virginia Quay, off Newport Avenue, London, E14, (PA/11/01426) be agreed for the reasons set out in the circulated report.
(2) That, if LTGDC are minded to approve the application, officers seek to secure an affordable rent level of £242 for the 4 bed affordable rent unit, as well as the conditions as set out in the circulated report.
Supporting documents: