Agenda item
Car Park at South East Junction of Preston's Road and Yabsley Street, Preston's Road, London, E14 (PA/12/02107)
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 5 against, with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at Car Park at South East Junction of Preston's Road and Yabsley Street, Preston's Road, London, E14 (PA/12/02107) be NOT ACCEPTED for full planning application for the erection of two buildings of 7 & 26 storeys comprising 190 residential units (78 x 1 bed; 58 x 2 bed; 50 x 3 bed; 2 x 4 bed; 2 x 5 beds), 134sq.m of gym space at upper ground level, 42 car parking spaces and 244 cycling spaces at basement level, communal open space and associated works, due to Members’ concerns over:
- The lack of child play space
- The density range in relation to the London Plan 2011
- The impact on infrastructure, particularly transport and the adequacy of the s106 to address this.
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.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Zara Davis, Carlo Gibbs, Emma Jones, Stephanie Eaton and Shahed Ali)
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager) introduced the application regarding the Car Park at South East Junction of Preston's Road and Yabsley Street, Preston's Road, London.
There were no registered speakers.
Mandip Dhillon (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and the update report. She explained the site location, the current use, the surrounds and the planning history. Permission was granted in 2012 for residential use of the site. Therefore the principal of residential use had been established. However that scheme was found to be undeliverable. This scheme on the other hand was fully viable.
17 letters of objection had been received to the proposal. The issues raised in objection were outlined.
Ms Dhillon explained the housing mix. Housing services were satisfied with the affordable rents in relation the accepted levels. It included an overall 35% affordable housing (made up of affordable rent and shared ownership). Furthermore 10% of all units would be wheelchair accessible. Other features included a gym available to all residents.
CABE did raise issues with the design. However it was considered that the revised proposal was in keeping with the area. Their points had now been addressed. The s106 had been assessed by the Council’s Planning Contributions Overview Panel. It was considered that education should be prioritised.
On balance it was considered that the scheme was acceptable and Officers recommended that it should be approved.
In response Members asked questioned about:
- The child play space. The levels particularly for older children failed to meet the minimum in policy. It was unrealistic to expect children to visit the gym as a replacement for play space.
- Pressure on transport given the high density of the scheme. The service was already at full capacity. The contributions were insufficient.
- The shortfall in open space. There was a severe lack of open space in the area but there was nothing in the s106 to compensate for this
- The s106 assessment.
- The design in relation to the Coldharbour Conservation Area.
- CABE’s views on the revised scheme.
- Air quality and the Port of London Authority comments.
- The extant scheme. Details of the affordable housing mix and the s106 contributions.
- Reasons why the POD rent levels fell in the middle of the Isle of Dogs/Canary Wharf rent levels.
Officers addressed each point as summarised below.
- Officers did not consider that the proposal had any signs of overdevelopment taking into account all the key issues.
- The site had a good PTLA rating of 5.
- The proposal would be car free. There were a number of basement spaces. This could accommodate occupants eligible to transfer permits (under the Council’s transfer scheme).
- The under 4 play space complied with policy.
- Whilst there was a shortfall in play space overall, the scheme would provide a gym for use and private amenity space. This may be used by older children. Therefore on balance, the proposal was considered adequate in terms of play space.
- It was considered that the level of open space was acceptable given the existing provision around the site and the plans for additional play space from a separate scheme nearby.
- The applicants had met with CABE to discuss this new scheme. It was considered that their comments had been adequately addressed by the amendments. So they were not re consulted.
- There were conditions to minimise noise and vibration as set out in the report
- The extant scheme would have benefited from government subsidy in terms of the affordable housing.
- Officers explained the transport contributions.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 5 against, with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at Car Park at South East Junction of Preston's Road and Yabsley Street, Preston's Road, London, E14 (PA/12/02107) be NOT ACCEPTED for full planning application for the erection of two buildings of 7 & 26 storeys comprising 190 residential units (78 x 1 bed; 58 x 2 bed; 50 x 3 bed; 2 x 4 bed; 2 x 5 beds), 134sq.m of gym space at upper ground level, 42 car parking spaces and 244 cycling spaces at basement level, communal open space and associated works, due to Members’ concerns over:
- The lack of child play space
- The density range in relation to the London Plan 2011
- The impact on infrastructure, particularly transport and the adequacy of the s106 to address this.
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.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Zara Davis, Carlo Gibbs, Emma Jones, Stephanie Eaton and Shahed Ali)
Supporting documents: