Agenda item
Skylines Village, Limeharbour, London (PA/11/3617)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Wednesday, 6th March, 2013 7.30 p.m. (Item 6.1)
- View the background to item 6.1
Decision:
Update report tabled.
Councillors Stephanie Eaton and Peter Golds left the meeting for the consideration of this item only.
On a vote of 4 in favour 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission (PA/11/3617) at Skylines Village, Limeharbour, London be REFUSED for proposed demolition of all existing buildings within Skylines Village and the erection of buildings with heights varying from 2 to 50 storeys for the reasons set out in the paragraph 7.4 and 7.6 of the committee report detailed below.
Reason 1
|
The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site, in excess of the density ranges outlined by Policy 3.4 of the London Plan (July 2011) and the associated Supplementary Planning Guidance “Housing” and results in a scale, form and height of development which fails to adequately deal with the transition in built character between the Canary Wharf tall buildings cluster and the lower density development that lies outside the Canary Wharf Activity Area, fails to provide adequate play space for all age groups and leads to a material loss of daylight to neighbouring residential occupiers, contrary to Policies 3.4, 3.6, 7.1, 7.4 and 7.7 of the London Plan (July 2011), saved Policy DEV1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998), Policies SP02 and SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010), Polices DM4, DM24 and DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012) with modifications and Policies DEV1, DEV2, HSG1 and DEV27 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) and as a result, it is not considered to provide a sustainable form of development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
Reason 2
The proposed redevelopment of the existing Skylines Village will lead to a net loss of B1 (Business) floorspace, contrary to Site Allocation 20 “Marsh Wall East” as identified in the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012) with modifications which states that development should re-provide and intensify existing employment floorspace, saved Policies EMP1 and EMP3 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998), Policy SP06 of the Core Strategy 2010, Policy Ee2 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007 and Policy DM15 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012) with modifications and as a result, it is not considered to provide a sustainable form of development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
Councillor Helal Uddin did not vote on this item as he was not present at the last Committee meeting where it was last considered.
Councillor Judith Gardiner left the meeting after the consideration of this item (8.20pm).
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Councillors Stephanie Eaton and Peter Golds left the meeting for the consideration of this item only.
Councillor Helal Uddin did not vote on this item as he was not present at the last Committee meeting where it was last considered.
Jerry Bell (Application Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding Skylines Village, Limeharbour, London.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager) made a presentation of the committee report and tabled update, as circulated to Members. The application was previously considered by the committee on 24th January 2013 where Members were minded to refuse the recommendation to grant for six reasons This report detailed the developments since then to address these issues. There are summarised below:
Child play /community space revisions. The applicant was proposing to provide 11-15 age play space on site whilst meeting the overall play space requirement. The community space still complied with policy. The applicant had been engaging in continuous discussions about the provision of a youth facility on site that could be used by older children. There was also a full contribution for open space and community facilities.
Impact on health services. The applicant and Officers had engaged with the health services on site. Two of which wished to remain on site. The applicant had devised plans for the relocation and retention of these services on site as set out in the report.
Daylight impacts. It was acknowledged that there would be a serious impact on daylight to surrounding properties. The extent of the losses were set out in the report as requested at the last meeting. However, officers found such impacts were typical for a major development of this scale. This was a balanced judgement but Officers found that the benefits outweighed the impacts.
Height and Density. It was noted that the density exceeded the London Plan maximum. However, it was necessary to take into account the local context and the overall merits of the scheme when assessing this issue (the Borough’s housing targets, the site designation, the full S106, and community space). In the balance, Officers continued to find the scheme acceptable taking into account the wider issues
Loss of employment floor space. It was likely that the proposed space (whilst under current levels) would provide greater flexibility for users and higher employment densities.
Another issues raised was the size of the retail units. The applicant was willing to accept a condition limiting the size of the retail units. It was expected that the majority of units would be occupied by smaller businesses according to the applicant.
The waste collection plans were clarified.
It was confirmed that the application may be called in by the Mayor of London should Members be minded to refuse the scheme.
On balance, Officers continued to find the application acceptable. However they had drafted two reasons for refusal should members be minded to refuse the scheme, based on the reasons given at the last meeting.
Members raised questions around the following issues:
- The drug and alcohol team on site. In particularly, the compatibility of such services with a residential development for both service users and residents.
- The lack of child play space. It was commented that the changes in this area were very minor. There was still an under provision of such space.
- The impact on the surrounding properties due to the height and scale of the scheme.
- Continuing concern about the bulk and density that remained unchanged.
In response, Officers confirmed the views of the drug and alcohol team on site (DAAT). The applicant had offered to help them relocate given their desire to do so should the new development go ahead. A letter from the service confirming this was in the update report. The other two youth groups were willing to stay on the new development and saw no issues in terms of compatibility. Officers were satisfied with the scheme in terms of density. There were special circumstances justifying a deviation from the maximum in the London Plan as with other developments accepted in the area.
On a vote of 4 in favour 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission (PA/11/3617) at Skylines Village, Limeharbour, London be REFUSED for proposed demolition of all existing buildings within Skylines Village and the erection of buildings with heights varying from 2 to 50 storeys for the reasons set out in the paragraph 7.4 and 7.6 of the committee report detailed below.
Reason 1
|
The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site, in excess of the density ranges outlined by Policy 3.4 of the London Plan (July 2011) and the associated Supplementary Planning Guidance “Housing” and results in a scale, form and height of development which fails to adequately deal with the transition in built character between the Canary Wharf tall buildings cluster and the lower density development that lies outside the Canary Wharf Activity Area, fails to provide adequate play space for all age groups and leads to a material loss of daylight to neighbouring residential occupiers, contrary to Policies 3.4, 3.6, 7.1, 7.4 and 7.7 of the London Plan (July 2011), saved Policy DEV1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998), Policies SP02 and SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010), Polices DM4, DM24 and DM25 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012) with modifications and Policies DEV1, DEV2, HSG1 and DEV27 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007) and as a result, it is not considered to provide a sustainable form of development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
Reason 2
The proposed redevelopment of the existing Skylines Village will lead to a net loss of B1 (Business) floorspace, contrary to Site Allocation 20 “Marsh Wall East” as identified in the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012) with modifications which states that development should re-provide and intensify existing employment floorspace, saved Policies EMP1 and EMP3 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998), Policy SP06 of the Core Strategy 2010, Policy Ee2 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007 and Policy DM15 of the Managing Development DPD (Submission Version May 2012) with modifications and as a result, it is not considered to provide a sustainable form of development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Bill Turner, Carlo Gibbs, Dr Emma Jones and Judith Gardiner)
Councillor Judith Gardiner left the meeting after the consideration of this item (8.20pm).
Supporting documents:
- Skylines deferral FIN, item 6.1 PDF 2 MB
- Skylines PA_11_03617 report - Jan13v5Final (3), 24/01/2013 Strategic Development Committee, item 6.1 PDF 4 MB
- update Report - Skylines FIN, item 6.1 PDF 89 KB