Agenda item
Land adjacent to railway viaduct, Mantus Road, London (PA/12/01758)
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 2 in favour and 2 against the Officer recommendation with the Chair using his casting vote to vote against the recommendation, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission (PA/12/01758) at land adjacent to railway viaduct, Mantus Road, London for redevelopment to provide 93 residential units in buildings ranging from three to six storeys including amenity space, landscaping, disabled car parking and cycle parking be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee were minded to approve the scheme due to the following reasons:
- The provision of additional housing, especially social housing in view of the Council’s targets in this area.
- The availability of amenity space nearby the site that could supplement the lack of amenity space on site.
- The high quality public transport links servicing the site.
The Committee also requested that Officers discuss with the Applicant the nature of the materials to ensure they reflected the surrounding area.
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 approval and conditions on the application.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Khales Uddin Ahmed, Craig Aston and Shiria Khatun)
Councillor Anwar Khan joined the meeting during this item therefore did not vote.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader) introduced the report regarding Land adjacent to railway viaduct, Mantus Road, London for redevelopment to provide 93 residential units and associated works.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the meeting.
Peter Exton addressed the committee in support of the application (as the Officer’s recommendation was for refusal). He was speaking on behalf of the applicant Tower Hamlets Community Housing (THCH). He explained the aims of and the track record of THCH to provide genuinely affordable housing and a scheme that benefited the community. He reported on the extensive discussions between THCH and Officers at pre application stage. As a result, the site boundary (red line) had been expanded to take into account land that was a source of anti social behaviour. He considered that the density of the scheme within the red line, as assessed by the applicant, complied with policy and was acceptable. It was unfair to base the density calculation just on the foot print of the building as in the Officer report rather than the wider ‘red line’ boundary.
He noted the concerns about amenity space. He highlighted the merits of these plans including the landscaping works and the creation of a public space with seating. The scheme proposed a full s106 contribution with a good level of affordable housing. There would be an overprovision of family housing with private amenity space. He stressed the merits of the design in terms of addressing nuisance behaviour.
Benson Olaseni (Planning Officer)presented the detailed report and the update. He described in detail the site location and the proposals. He described the outcome of the consultation. He explained the material issues raised in these representations both in support and against.
He explained the main issues with the application around density and overdevelopment. The density exceeded the London Plan maximum - 1218 per habitual room when accurately assessed. (The lower figure of 461, stated in the application, included existing open space outside the site). The amenity space was of poor quality (communal and private) with gardens and balconies in close proximity to the railway line. The design and materials were out of keeping with the surrounding area. The scheme would affect amenity and there were concerns about the car parking. On balance, Officers considered that the scheme was unacceptable and should be refused.
In response, Members noted the site constraints. However welcomed the plans for additional housing especially affordable housing. It was considered that the level of such complied with policy and would help address the Borough’s housing needs. Members also noted the shortfalls in amenity space on site. However, suggested that this could be mitigated by the availability of existing leisure space nearby.
In response, Officers referred to the limitations of the site. It was considered that the site was too small and narrow for a development of this scale. Officers noted the merits of the scheme and the recent measures to improve it such as the homezone. However, considered that on balance the disadvantages outweighed this.
On a vote of 2 in favour and 2 against the Officer recommendation with the Chair using his casting vote to vote against the recommendation, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission (PA/12/01758) at land adjacent to railway viaduct, Mantus Road, London for redevelopment to provide 93 residential units in buildings ranging from three to six storeys including amenity space, landscaping, disabled car parking and cycle parking be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee were minded to approve the scheme due to the following reasons:
- The provision of additional housing, especially social housing in view of the Council’s targets in this area.
- The availability of amenity space nearby the site that could supplement the lack of amenity space on site.
- The high quality public transport links servicing the site.
The Committee also requested that Officers discuss with the Applicant the nature of the materials to ensure they reflected the surrounding area.
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 approval and conditions on the application.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Khales Uddin Ahmed, Craig Aston and Shiria Khatun)
Councillor Anwar Khan joined the meeting during this item therefore did not vote.
Supporting documents: