Agenda item
ASDA, 151 East Ferry Road, London, E14 3BT (PA/11/3670)
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of nil for and 3 against, with 3 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at ASDA, 151 East Ferry Road, London, E14 3BT (PA/11/3670) be NOT ACCEPTED for the following reasons:
1. Concerns over affordable housing provision, in particular in relation to social target tenure
2. Concerns over the impact of the development on the sustainability of educational provision on the Isle of Dogs.
3. Concerns about the building height in the proposed development, having regard to related comments in the response of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, as set out in the Committee report.
NOTE: The Committee further agreed that a parking management strategy should be secured as part of the S106 agreement, so as to be able to negotiate parking provision with the developers and to the deletion of the words “during the construction phase” from the financial provision relating to allocation of £352,081 for Employment Skills and Training in the S106 agreement.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee, setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal, along with the implications of the decision.
Minutes:
The Chair confirmed that Councillor Zara Davis was not participating in this item of business and her Deputy was Councillor Craig Aston.
Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, introduced the Committee report and tabled update regarding the hybrid planning application for the demolition of the existing supermarket and comprehensive redevelopment of the site for mixed-use purposes at ASDA, 151 East Ferry Road, London, E14 3BT (PA/11/3670).
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Ms Maggie Phillips, Chair of the St John’s Tenants’ & Residents’ Association, spoke in objection to the application. She stated that the big objection local people had to the proposed development was that it would not include a petrol filling station, meaning that there would be no such facility on the Isle of Dogs and this was very important to residents. In addition, only 30 social housing units would be provided from a development of 850. There were 24,000 applicants on the current housing waiting list and the lack of affordable housing, given the Government cap of housing benefit, meant that people were being driven out of the East End. This was a disgrace to the community and more homes were needed. A further 750 homes were being proposed for the Skylines development and this would create problems from pressure on local schools and health facilities. She felt that more should be done for local people, who would also feel boxed in by the development.
Councillor Peter Golds, speaking in objection to the application, stated that the project had been long in gestation but was short in achievability. He queried the nature of consultation, including a questionnaire that simply asked if people wanted a new Matalan on the site. The proposal comprised extensive over-development and the school places mentioned in the terms of the S106 agreement related to the Boroughwide position, not the Isle of Dogs. The applicant’s indicative outline unit and tenure mix showed 86 intermediate units, 30 social rented and 108 affordable rented units out of a total of 850. He asked how this would help Borough residents. Although the provision of a petrol filling station was not a planning requirement, it was important to local people and, additionally, there was no reference in the application to maintaining a chemist on the site. There would be massive over-development if the scheme went ahead, with lack of additional transport and only one extra bus stop.
In response to Members’ questions, Councillor Golds commented that all schools on the Isle of Dogs were bursting at the seams and could not take more pupils. People were already having to bus their children to schools in Whitechapel and this was unacceptable. He asked how additional education and health facilities would be made available for children living in the new development.
The Chair indicated that one of the registered speakers, Mr Danny French, was not in attendance and he intended to use his discretion to allow another person to address the meeting in substitution.
Ms B. Elliot, a local resident, stated that there was already over-development of the area and at times it was impossible to get on the DLR. ASDA was the only large supermarket on the Isle of Dogs, with the only petrol station and such facilities should be retained. The proposed buildings were huge, unsightly and would block trees from sight, especially the hideous, large tower. The Mudchute park and farm would also be affected by construction noise and filth. She queried what would be put in place of the existing quiet setting and what benefit this would be to the local community.
Ms Lorraine Hughes, speaking in favour of the application, stated that the proposal was to create a new District centre that would be a new heart for Crossharbour and would kickstart regeneration in the area. There had been several years of consultation and 31% of the 850 new homes would be social housing with a range of tenures and early delivery. There would be over 800 jobs in the new ASDA and retail units, of which 40% were intended for local residents. There would be new community facilities and substantial improvements to the public realm. The financial contribution of almost £6.7m would enable health, education and training provision and there would also be spend on DLR and bus improvements. The scale of the scheme would step down from the Canary Wharf perspective and was properly tailored for the locality.
Mr Craig Sellen, speaking in favour of the application, stated that he had been manager of ASDA for three and a half years. The supermarket had been at the heart of the Isle of Dogs community for over 30 years and wanted to remain so. The application was an outline of what the area could become and the existing store was now tired and needed rebuilding. He added that Britannia Pharmacy were planning to have an outlet on site. Some 6,000 City and Guilds apprenticeships had been made available last year to ASDA staff and most jobs in the new store would go to local people. The Manager of the Mudchute City Farm was offering a whole range of services and would be engaging with local children. The scheme was also supported by East End Homes, local groups and hundreds of local residents.
In response to Members’ questions, Mr Sellen confirmed that the legal process to achieve a Britannia Pharmacy outlet was already under way. He further confirmed that 40% of jobs in ASDA would go to local people.
Ms Marcelina Mochalska, speaking in support of the application, indicated that she represented Perimart Ltd., who had provided the Britannia Pharmacy outlet on the ASDA site for many years. She felt that the proposed redevelopment was overdue and the existing buildings were now out of character for the required facility. She supported the application but this should include a condition that a pharmacy should be provided in one of the retail units, for A1 and no other usage.
Ms Amy Thompson, Strategic Applications Planner, presented the detailed report and update, stating that the proposal was to expand and intensify the District Centre and provide community facilities. Matters of detail would be settled by further, later applications, which would be subject to public consultation. A new store would be provided before demolishing the old premises. The proposal did not include a new filling station and there were no policies to require this. The only possible option possible for this would be in the northern block of the site but the Highways Section advice was that this would not be accessible to service vehicles. The presence of a filling station would also tend to reduce housing values, and affordable housing had to be the Council’s priority.
The Chair then invited questions from Members, which included:
- Allocations of child playspace and public space.
- Arrangements for the Mudchute Park and Farm lease.
- Arrangements that could be made to ensure the continuation of a pharmacy on site.
- The nature of the DLR Crossharbour upgrade and additional capacity that was needed for the bus network.
- The possibility of increasing educational capacity on the Isle of Dogs.
- Arrangements for the provision of a community facility.
- Social housing provision in the proposed scheme.
- Adequacy of residential parking provision on the site.
Officers’ replies included information that:
· On-site provision of playspace for under-13s met policy requirements and discussions with the applicant and GLA had ensured that the scheme delivered all the allocation possible. Playspace for older children was within a reasonable walking distance and the S106 overall pot was higher than the viable assessment. There was one figure for an open space contribution that could also be used towards wider Borough provision.
· The lease for Mudchute Park and Farm would run in perpetuity and the cost of £35,000 per annum would be paid by ASDA.
· Ms Lorraine Hughes, for the applicant, informed the Committee that they were agreeable to a planning condition requiring provision to be made for a pharmacy on-site and Britannia Pharmacy would have first right of refusal.
· The DLR had originally requested £1.35m for Crossharbour station upgrades but, during negotiations, in establishing Tower Hamlets priorities, it had been felt that this could be reduced to increase provision for bus services to £510,000, which would be allocated by TfL to the Isle of Dogs bus network. The station works included a new canopy, step-free access and real-time bulletin boards
· There was wide awareness of the pressure on school places across the Borough and a report was to be submitted to cabinet on 15th September 2012 addressing the scale of need over the next 10 years and how to meet it. The £1.75m for primary education contribution in the S106 agreement was for school places across the Borough, to fund overall strategy. This would not necessarily enable the provision of additional places locally, however, Arnhem Wharf School had been expanded, St. Lukes would be increased from September and Woolmore School was intended to be redeveloped in the future.
· The community facility would be provided on the basis of a shell and core activities, at a peppercorn rent and zero service charge. If there were no identifiable use for such a facility, a sum in lieu thereof would be paid to the Council to contribute towards related Borough facilities.
· The 31% of social housing units had been achieved by close working with the developer and the Council’s representatives for housing and the regenerative solution for the District Centre. The scheme would be built in a phased manner to increase affordable housing provision and could be monitored as the development progressed. Much of the value of the scheme came from the residential housing provision but that would come at a later phase in the staging of the scheme. This aspect could be reviewed through further negotiations with the applicant if the financial climate improved. The principle was that the Council would not receive less than the current contribution but could get more if the market improved.
The Chair then indicated that the application would be put to the vote.
On a vote of nil for and 3 against, with 3 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at ASDA, 151 East Ferry Road, London, E14 3BT (PA/11/3670) be NOT ACCEPTED for the following reasons:
1. Concerns over affordable housing provision, in particular in relation to social target tenure
2. Concerns over the impact of the development on the sustainability of educational provision on the Isle of Dogs.
3. Concerns about the building height in the proposed development, having regard to related comments in the response of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, as set out in the Committee report.
NOTE: The Committee further agreed that a parking management strategy should be secured as part of the S106 agreement, so as to be able to negotiate parking provision with the developers and to the deletion of the words “during the construction phase” from the financial provision relating to allocation of £352,081 for Employment Skills and Training in the S106 agreement.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee, setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal, along with the implications of the decision.
Supporting documents: