Agenda item
Skylines Village, Limeharbour, London (PA/11/3617)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 24th January, 2013 7.30 p.m. (Item 7.1)
- View the background to item 7.1
Decision:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Stephanie Eaton left the meeting room for the duration of this item only.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 5 against and 2 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/11/3617) at Skylines Village, Limeharbour, London BE NOT ACCEPTED for proposed demolition of all existing buildings within Skylines Village and the erection of buildings with heights varying from 2 to 50 storeys.
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
- Height;
- Density in relation to the London Plan;
- Daylight and sunlight impact to the surrounding properties;
- Lack of child play space on site, particularly for the 11-15 age range;
- Impact on health services generally and, in particular, the existing drug services on site;
- Loss of existing employment uses on site.
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, Bill Turner, Shahed Ali, Zara Davis, Judith Gardiner, Carlo Gibbs, Dr Emma Jones)
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Stephanie Eaton left the meeting room for the duration of this item only.
Jerry Bell (Application Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding Skylines Village, Limeharbour, London.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Peter Golds, speaking in objection to the application, stated that he was representing the Blackwall and Cubitt Town Ward. He was also representing the views of the St John’s Tenants and Residents Association (St John’s TRA) and other such associations in the area that were opposed to the scheme. He objected to the height and scale of the scheme; the cumulative impact with the consented ASDA and the Angel House plans. He objected to the impact on local services, i.e. schools, health services and transport. They were already at full capacity. He objected to the poor success of the car free agreements in the area given the amount of vehicles on the streets. The application should be referred back to the applicant for further consideration.
In response to Members, Councillor Golds objected to the impact on the businesses on site. He highlighted the benefits of the site (in terms of proximity to Canary Wharf, DLR stations). However there was nothing in the application to support displaced businesses or compensate. He expressed concern at the displacement of the drugs service on site given the drug related problems in the area. The nearest GP surgeries were some distance away.
Jan Donovan, speaking in support of the application, stated that the scheme would deliver 764 units with 228 affordable houses with 154 social rents at Council levels. The applicant had met with residents, Councillor Golds, Officers TfL and the Police amongst other agencies to consider the issues and mitigate the impact. Ms Donovan listed the benefits of the scheme including: the high quality design, new community facilities, child play space, potential new health and education facilities; new employment space; a full s106 package that would contribute to infrastructure, The existing employment units were tired and out of date. The tenants were on a short lease and were fully aware of this.
In response to Members, Ms Donavan reported that the applicant had not spoken specifically to the drugs and alcohol services about the impact on the drugs services on site and crime levels should it be removed. She saw no conflict in locating such facilities with residential properties. There would be a community floor space for such facilities. There were proposals to provide a support package to help the businesses relocate. There would be opportunities for all existing tenants to come back with discounted rent levels for the first two years. The applicant had met with the Police and there were conditions to address their comments, (for example CCTV monitoring, gates to public space be locked at night). The scheme would help community cohesion with no segregation between private and affordable tenants. All units would look the same, were all close together and would share community space.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager) made a detailed presentation of the committee report and tabled update, as circulated to Members. The application was previously considered by the committee on 8th November 2012 where it was withdrawn to address Members questions. Since that time Officers had carried out further work with the relevant agencies to address the questions. (This included National Grid, Thames Water, Environmental Health, the Crime and Prevention Officers). Officers had also worked with the applicant to consider the Inspectors Report on the Managing Development Document.
The Marsh Wall area had been identified in policy as an area for housing growth and high density development. The scheme would provide a policy compliant level of affordable housing in favour of social target rents with a significant percentage of family housing. He explained the merits of the scheme including: the design; the community facilities, creation of new jobs and public open space; a full s106 and the good public transport rating. It was noted that the density exceeded policy. However, it was considered that, on balance, the merits of the scheme outweighed this. Mr Smith explained the outcome of the consultation including the GLA’s responses on social target rents (noted by the applicant).
It was considered that the height and massing was satisfactory given the pattern for new developments in the area and policy. It was considered that the impact on education was acceptable given the contributions for education and the allocations for schools in the Managing Development Document.
Officers were recommending that the scheme should be granted.
The Chair then invited questions from Members, which covered the following issues:
- The loss of daylight/sunlight to properties. Particularly, the number expected to suffer a ‘major loss’. (40% or more).
- Loss of existing businesses due to the rent levels (at full rate) and the completion time.
- The impact on the drugs services currently on site. It was questioned whether Officers had engaged with the providers and the Police to consider the disruptions to this service and how they would fit into the scheme on return.
- The shortfall in child play space.
- The density range given it exceeded policy.
- Impact on the DLR in terms of overcrowding.
- The noise impact from the DLR, particularly on the affordable housing . The insulation to mitigate this.
- The comments of the London Fire Authority about the lack of a detailed ground floor plan showing road access.
- The comments of National Grid and Thames Water about the ability of the services to cope with this development. Members sought further assurances on these matters.
- The size of the retail units. Support was expressed for a mix of small and medium sized units to reflect the local economy. Clarification was sought on the size of the units to ensure this.
- The discussion to involve St John’s TRA in the community space.
- Excessive height in relation to the surrounding area.
Officers’ responses included the following information
- The impact on sunlight and day light was considered acceptable taking into account the overall benefits of the scheme and the outlooks at present.
- It was possible to control the size of the retail units to prevent undue amalgamation and secure a balance of small and medium sized units. This was supported in policy.
- Environmental Health were satisfied with the scheme and that any noise impact could be dealt with by the conditions.
- It would be necessary to prepare a programme with the existing businesses for relocation and return. This would be written into the legal agreement.
- The density targets in the London Plan were London wide. It was important to take into account the local context when applying this matrix and the challenges with housing needs. It was considered that the quality of the scheme outweighed this issue.
- The child play space complied with policy and there were parks nearby for older children. There were also contributions for open space. The applicant was supportive of providing a youth facility on site and were exploring this option.
- TfL had requested a sum for additional lifts at South Quay DLR Station. Aside from this, they were satisfied with the scheme and the networks capacity to cope with the scheme.
- Officers had recently contacted Thames Water. It was emphasised that they did not wish for the scheme to be refused. They merely sought reassurances about capacity.
- There was a full section in the emergency plans on access routes and fire points. Officers were satisfied with these plans.
- It was possible that discussions could take place with St John’s TRA about relocation to the retail floor space.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 5 against and 2 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/11/3617) at Skylines Village, Limeharbour, London BE NOT ACCEPTED for proposed demolition of all existing buildings within Skylines Village and the erection of buildings with heights varying from 2 to 50 storeys.
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
- Height;
- Density in relation to the London Plan;
- Daylight and sunlight impact to the surrounding properties;
- Lack of child play space on site, particularly for the 11-15 age range;
- Impact on health services generally and, in particular, the existing drug services on site;
- Loss of existing employment uses on site.
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, Bill Turner, Shahed Ali, Zara Davis, Judith Gardiner, Carlo Gibbs, Dr Emma Jones)
Adjournment
At this point (10.15pm) the Chair proposed and it was
RESOLVED that the proceedings be adjourned for a five minutes break.
Supporting documents: