Agenda item
Fakruddin Street and Pedley Street, London E1 (PA/12/02228)
Decision:
Update Report Tabled
On a vote of 5 in favour, 1 against and 2 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission Fakruddin Street and Pedley Street, London E1 (PA/12/02228) be GRANTED for the redevelopment of site (including land at Fakruddin Street) to provide a 63(100% affordable housing) units within three blocks measuring between two and seven storeys including associated shared and private amenity space, landscaping, disabled parking, cycle parking, child play area and community centre (273sqm) subject to:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the obligations set out in the report.
3. The conditions and informatives set out in the report
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
A Member requested that, in future, the update reports be e-mailed to Members prior to the meeting, to give Members time to read them. Officers Agreed to consider this. The meeting was adjourned for 10 minutes to allow Members to read the update.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager) introduced the application at Fakruddin Street and Pedley Street, London E1.
The application stemmed from the Royal Mint Scheme granted permission in 2011 by the Committee. This scheme fell below the threshold for schemes normally considered by this committee. However, the Service Head for Planning Services had considered it appropriate for the scheme to be dealt with by this Committee due to the links with the Royal Mint scheme.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Aulad Miah spoke in objection. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of the 700 people that signed the petition and the letters against. This was unfair as the proposal was for private luxury homes. The Pedley Street site was next to railway lines. Therefore was not suitable for residential development. The noise and vibration would be unacceptable as shown by the report on the Weavers House by Gateway Housing. The scheme breached the sunlight policy. Officers should visit the site as the report was based on a desk based study.
The Chair clarified that Officers were required to visit sites in researching applications. Members were familiar with the site.
Mr Miah stated that there was a lack of services to support the increased population i.e. GPs places. The developers had ignored the feedback from the consultation.
Members asked questions of Mr Miah for clarity. In reply, Mr Miah stressed that there was a lack of services to accommodate the scheme and open space. The Gateway report (on Weavers House) was undertaken when the East London Line extension was undertaken. It found that the noise impact on Weavers House from the line was unacceptable. This scheme was even closer to the line. Half of the land around the Pedley street site was designated as open space.
He was not against the development of the site in principle as there was a need for affordable housing. Yet the units were not affordable. There was a lack of family units and no amenity space. The height and number was excessive and should be reduced. The quality was poor with focus on numbers rather than quality to meet the Royal Mint permission obligations. The existing units in the area were of high quality so this would be out of keeping. These issues should be addressed.
Tim Limberick spoke in objection. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of a resident of Weavers House of 25 years. He objected to: the height of the proposal, overdevelopment, the impact on infrastructure, parking, segregation with the community due to the design, impact on sightlines, lack of family homes, oversupply of smaller units at the expense of the former and loss of light and privacy.
The scheme would obstruct the access route for larger vehicles including emergency vehicles to Weavers House. A large number of the residents affected were not English speaking. Yet the consultation was only done in English so this breached human rights.
Peter Exton spoke on behalf of the applicant in support. The scheme would provide 100% social housing on a not for profit basis. The applicant had carried out extensive consultation with residents. There was an interpreter available at meetings and the letters were sent out with options for alternative languages. The houses would be of high quality with private gardens and family units. It would help address the issues with asb at the site by creating an active frontage.
Mr Exton referred to the Gateway report mentioned by the previous speaker Aulad Miah. The property tested here was old and of low quality and not comparable to the proposal. The density of 411 habitual rooms per hectare fell comfortable within the policy density range.
Members asked questions of Mr Exton . In reply, he explained the rent levels for the affordable units. The units complied with policy in terms of quality and size. They was superior to the older schemes due to the stricter policy standards.
It was planned to redesign the community facility with Spitalfields Housing Association. They were committed to ensuring it was accessible for all community groups. The scheme would vary in height to protect privacy. The consultation letters (sent by the applicant) was sent to all residents in the area affected. They held open days at all times of the day.
Mr Exton noted the differences in density figure cited by himself (411 habitable rooms per hectare) and the Officers report. (734). The difference was purely due to the way each had been calculated. But in essence, both assessments complied with policy. Mr Exton noted the concerns about asb at the site. Part of the problem now was that the site was disused that made it attractive for asb. Therefore, the activation of the site should help address this. The scheme was secure by design.
Amy Thompson (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report. She explained the links to the Royal Mint site development. The purpose of this application was to fulfil the obligations in that application for off site affordable housing. 141 letters and 13 petitions had been received with 2 letters in support. She explained in detail the site location and surrounding area. She described the housing mix, the s106 contributions, the proposed layout and plans for the new and expanded community facilities.
Jerry Bell clarified the differences in density assessments (between Mr Exton and Officers). This was due to the differences in calculation. Both were the same and generally complied with policy.
Members asked questions of Officers. Their responses are summarised below.
- Officers explained the changes in designated open space at the site. In particular, the discrepancies in policy arising from the East London Line extension as set out in the Officers report.
- It was considered that the access plans were acceptable. There was provision for larger vehicles. It would not affect access to the Weavers House as suggested by the speaker in objection.
- The s106 was explained. The contributions had been considered by the Council’s Planning Contributions Overview Panel taking into account the SPD. It was decided that education should be prioritised. It was considered that the maximum level of contributions had been secured based on viability testing.
- The allotment space would be relocated on site. Details of which was explained.
- The child play space for the under 5’s complied with policy. Officers were also satisfied that there was adequate provision for older children off site.
- The separation distances were considered acceptable with no impact on privacy. The update report provided further information on this.
- The issues around noise and vibration had been fully investigated.
- The scheme had been designed to minimise this. Environmental Health had considered the application and had suggested further conditions that would be secured.
- Officers addressed the issues around the post completion testing. It was anticipated that a new building should pass these tests. However, should it fail, steps would be taken to address this.
- Officers referred to the emerging plans for the wider area. Together with this scheme, this wider regeneration should make the whole area safer and help address asb in the area.
On a vote of 5 in favour, 1 against and 2 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission Fakruddin Street and Pedley Street, London E1 (PA/12/02228) be GRANTED for the redevelopment of site (including land at Fakruddin Street) to provide a 63(100% affordable housing) units within three blocks measuring between two and seven storeys including associated shared and private amenity space, landscaping, disabled parking, cycle parking, child play area and community centre (273sqm) subject to:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the obligations set out in the report.
3. The conditions and informatives set out in the report
Supporting documents:
-
PA-12-02228 PEDLEY FINAL (sent to commitee clerks), item 7.1
PDF 587 KB
-
Committee report Map PA_12_02228, item 7.1
PDF 2 MB