Agenda item
136-140 Wapping High Street, London, E1W 3PA (PA/12/00051 & PA/12/00052)
Decision:
Councillor Shiria Khatun did not vote on this application as she had arrived at the meeting after commencement of consideration of the matter.
Update Report Tabled.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/12/00051) be GRANTED at 136-140 Wapping High Street, London, E1W 3PA subject to:
The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report:
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 within 3-months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
5. That conservation area consent (PA/12/00052) be GRANTED at 136-140 Wapping High Street, London, E1W 3PA subject to the conditions set out in the report.
Note: Councillor Marc Francis left the meeting following the consideration of this item.
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Councillor Shiria Khatun did not vote on this application as she had arrived at the meeting after commencement of consideration of the matter.
Jerry Bell, (Applications Team Leader) introduced the application regarding 136-140 Wapping High Street, London, E1W 3PA.
Shona Conacher spoke in objection to the scheme. She stated that she was speaking on behalf of the residents of Gun Wharf. Whilst supportive of development of the site in principle, she was opposed to this particular scheme. Specifically, the height and size of the scheme. She considered that the current building parameters should be retained to protect amenity. She referred to the previous application and the Council’s concerns and recommendations around the size and bulk of the proposal as set out in a letter. The letter had suggested that the previous development needed to be reduced in height by a floor. However the developers had ignored these in preparing the application scheme. English Heritage had stated that this represented a key opportunity to enhance the area. However this failed to do this. There were day light and sunlight issues and the daylight report contained inaccuracies and had been described by a QC as full of errors. The scheme would degrade privacy due to its prominence, cause a loss of light and overlooking to habitable rooms.
Tony Roome spoke in objection. He referred to the Council’s recommendations regarding the previous scheme. Despite this, the development still retained features that were inappropriate for the location. The irregular roof line was out of keeping with the area given Gun Wharf was a listed building. The Officers report stated that it would lead to overdevelopment if expanded by 3 stories. How would this be addressed?
He also expressed concern at the impact on Wapping High Street from the car free agreement. There would also be a significant increase in deliveries. However the application failed to take the full impact of this into account only focusing on the commercial units. Especially, the obstruction to the bus stop and the traffic flow. The affordable housing element was inadequate. The tool kit showed that 50% was possible. In reply to Members, Mr Roome considered that his key concern was the additional 3 floors. This would place significant pressure on the area given the impact from deliveries and the car free agreement.
Councillor Emma Jones spoke in objection. She expressed concern at the impact on infrastructure and the adequacy of the contributions to accommodate this. She disputed that the design issues had been addressed in accordance with English Heritages recommendations. Furthermore, TFL had expressed concerns around the adequacy of the crane design which she explained. Residents of the area already had to rely on water pumps for showers as recognised by the water company. The development would exacerbate this. How would this be addressed? In reply to questions about recent changes to public transport nodes, she stated that the scheme would hamper the traffic flow given the narrow width of the road along the site and the proximity of the bus stop.
Paula Carney (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the application. She stated that it replaced a disused building with a high quality scheme. The applicant had worked hard with Officers and residents to mitigate the impact on the neighbours. After speaking to them, they had made changes to the size and design. The separation distances complied with policy. The impact from servicing from the residential units had been taken into account. The scheme was considered acceptable by Officers. The developers were looking for an occupier for the commercial unit. In response to Members, she confirmed that the problem with the previous scheme was that it was too large and modern for the area. The focus of the conservation area was on the traditional warehouses and the vertical and horizontal aspects. The developers had accepted this and as a result had altered the plans including the use of more traditional materials and changes to the roof line, balconies and vertical and horizontal aspects so that it was more in keeping with the area. She also confirmed that the materials still included copper.
Richard Murrell (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report assisted by a power point presentation. He addressed the main planning issues. The change to residential use complied with policy given the oversupply of office space in the area. The affordable housing offer exceeded policy. He detailed the changes to the design and bulk of the building including the introduction of the cut backs to the roof tops to overcome the previous issues. Officers had carefully considered the amenity impact including the impact on Gun Wharf. On balance it was considered that the impact was acceptable in terms loss of light overlooking and privacy. The separation distances exceeded the policy requirements. LBTH Highways had no major objections given the lack of major impact on traffic flow and buses and the servicing requirements for the residential element would be low.
The Committee then raised a number of questions and comments regarding the following issues:
· The ability of future occupiers of the scheme to bring their existing parking permits with them under the Council’s Permit Transfer Scheme. The impact of this on parking.
· The use of copper in the design and the compatibility of it with the traditional buildings. It was feared that this might compromise the character of this important area and be out of keeping.
· The impact of the set backs to the roof storeys on the area.
· The Council’s response to the initial application. Whether Officers were now satisfied with the scheme in light of the previous officer comments about the necessary reduction in height.
· Whether the objectors from the previous scheme had made any further representations to this application.
· The acceptability of the PTAL rating and the density range that exceeded guidance.
· Further information about the contents of English Heritage’s letter.
Officers responded to each point raised as set out below:
· Officers were satisfied with the design especially the set backs to the roof storey which would lessen visibility. The current application had to be considered on its merits.
· Officers were satisfied that the massing was acceptable and would sit comfortably in the location given the bulk was pulled back from the street frontages.
· The design with the cut backs would sit well with the surrounding buildings of similar height and design and would complement rather than detract from the area.
· The copper cladding finish would be of high quality in keeping with the historic character of the area. It was required that the details of the materials would be submitted for approval to ensure they were appropriate.
- The scheme was car free subject to the Council’s Permit Transfer Scheme and the blue badge parking scheme. However, the former only applied to the residents of family sized social housing units. As such only a very small number of occupants would be entitiled to permits.
- In considering density, it was necessary to take into account the overall impact of the scheme. Officers considered that the density range proposed was acceptable.
- Further information on the response from English Heritage was given and the letter from English Heritage was circulated at the request of a member.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/12/00051) be GRANTED at 136-140 Wapping High Street, London, E1W 3PA subject to:
The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report:
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 within 3-months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
5. That conservation area consent (PA/12/00052) be GRANTED at 136-140 Wapping High Street, London, E1W 3PA subject to the conditions set out in the report.
Note: Councillor Marc Francis left the meeting following the consideration of this item.
Supporting documents: