Agenda item
15-17 Leman Street and 1A Buckle Street, London (PA/11/03693)
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission PA/11/03693 be GRANTED at 15-17 Leman Street and 1A Buckle Street, London subject to:
A. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report.
B. Any direction by The Mayor of London
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
3. 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.
4. That, if after 6 weeks following GLA’s Stage II response, the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Mr Jerry Bell (Applications Manager D&R) introduced the application regarding 15-17 Leman Street and 1 A Buckle Street (PA/11/3375).
The Chair reported that there were no registered speakers.
Mr Richard Murrell (Deputy Team Leader, Planning Services) presented the detailed report. Mr Murrell described the existing site and surrounds including the scale and height of the neighbouring buildings and recently approved consents. He explained the appeal scheme for a similar hotel development on site refused under delegated authority in 2010. He explained the main issues of concern identified by the Planning Inspectorate regarding the design of the lower building in relation to the public realm and the servicing plans. The current plan now addressed these issues. The ground floor layout had been redesigned by setting back the building from Buckle Street to improve permeability. It also included an undercroft area that could be used for coach pick up and drop offs. The plans would also activate the street frontage. In relation to servicing, the servicing area had been expanded from 8 metres to 12 metres. The shared servicing area could accommodate coaches as well as servicing vehicles. The servicing plans showed that there was sufficient room for vehicles to manoeuvre safely within the area.
Overall it was considered that the current plans contributed positively to the public realm and addressed the servicing issues.
The scheme included a full range of contributions. The contributions fully meet the requirements in the Planning Obligations SPD securing the maximum that could be sought. There was also an offer to enter into a social compact to provide local employment opportunities.
Overall the scheme fully complied with policy including the new National Planning Policy Framework regarding sustainability. It represented a significantly improvement on the Appeal scheme and should be granted.
Members noted the plans for the shared surface area for use by both pedestrian and servicing/delivery vehicles. They stress the need for adequate signage to be displayed to safeguard public safety in using this route and for signs generally to publicise the public access routes throughout the site. They sought assurances that there were mechanisms to fund and supply such notices in the plans.
In reply, Officers drew attention to the measures to secure this that would be bound by the S106 agreement. These included the use of retractable bollards in the shared surface area and supervision of the area. There were contributions for high quality signage to highlight the rights of way through the site and ensure there were safe.
Questions were also raised about overshadowing given the minor failings in the light report. Officers confirmed the nearest residential property was the City Reach development. The surrounding residential units had been tested for light levels. Whilst there were some minor failings, it was evident from the testing that the windows would receive adequate levels of light comparable to that typically received in similar developments.
In response to further questions, Mr Murrell also explained in greater detail the issues considered at the appeal and also those raised in local representation as set out in the report. The height of the new building was broadly the same as the appeal scheme considered to be acceptable by the Planning Inspectorate.
Members also discussed the number of hotels in the area and how often this was reviewed to prevent a saturation in such uses. Officers explained that they did carefully monitor land use. Officers were guided by current policy. Both local and regional policy supported this hotel scheme in this area.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission PA/11/03693 be GRANTED at 15-17 Leman Street and 1A Buckle Street, London subject to:
A. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report.
B. Any direction by The Mayor of London
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
3. 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.
4. That, if after 6 weeks following GLA’s Stage II response, the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Supporting documents: