Agenda item
Suttons Wharf North, Palmers Road, London (PA/13/02108)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 21st November, 2013 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.1)
- View the background to item 6.1
Proposal: Application under s.73 of the Town and Country Planning Act for a variation of Condition 22 of the Planning Permission PA/11/3348 dated 30/03/12 to seek minor material amendments to the *approved Suttons Wharf North development comprising the conversion of ground, first and second floor levels to create ten additional residential units and associated minor alternations to Block B.
Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the variation to the legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager) introduced the report regarding Suttons Wharf North, Palmers Road, London seeking minor material amendments to the *approved Suttons Wharf North development comprising the conversion of ground, first and second floor levels to create ten additional residential units and associated minor alternations.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Mr Kha'lique spoke in objection to the proposal from the Suttons Wharf Residents Group. He referred to the previous changes to the scheme to convert from commercial to residential units. He objected to the impact of these changes in terms of increased litter and other environmental challenges in the area. This additional conversion to housing would only worsen these problems. The proposals would change the nature of the area by converting potentially high end commercial units (that was welcomed in the area) to purely housing. The occupants, when moving in to the development, bought their properties on the basis that the units would be commercial units not residential. In response to questions, Mr Kha'lique stated that the approved commercial units would improve natural surveillance by generating a flow of people (even though the units would be closed at night). It was anticipated that the units would attract a high quality businesses given the quality of surrounding units in Palmers Road. He had sent to the Planning Officers photographs of the litter problems and Councillor Amy Whitelock Gibbs, a ward Councillor, was aware of the issues and had submitted a representation against the scheme.
Dr Abigail Woollard spoke against the proposal. She stressed the importance of the commercial units to the residents of the development to provide essential services (such as a chemist and a nursery). There were approximately 1200 residents in the development and there was a lack of commercial facilities to support them. She considered that the previous conversion to residential units proceeded on the basis that these commercial units would be retained. So this was the last chance for the residents to save some commercial use within the development. In response to Members, Dr Woollard stressed the benefits for residents of having services in the development. The nearest commercial units were some distance away, requiring a large detour to visit the nearest shops for essential, sometimes late at night. There was also the potential to provide much needed nursery and health care facilities within the commercial units that would be lost.
Ben Kelway spoke in support of the scheme on behalf of the applicant. He stressed that the application was for minor amendments to the scheme. He commented on the overall benefits of the Suttons Wharf North scheme including 206 affordable houses and a significant contribution to the Borough’s housing stock. The changes related to a small number of units in block B, granted consent in 2007 in very different market circumstances. The applicant’s assessment found that that there was currently no demand for commercial units at the site in view of the lack of footfall and the high level of commercial units in the area. It was highly likely that the units would be left vacant. He addressed the other issues raised in objection. The plans should improve surveillance and help prevent crime by activating the units that would otherwise be left empty. The issues around litter and bins were a management issues. He considered that the level of bins were proportionate to the number of occupants.
In response to Members about the marketing research, Mr Kelway reported that the applicant’s assessment primarily looked at the demand for commercial uses as opposed to retail uses. The results showed that there was a lack of demand for such uses in the area given the overprovision of commercial units in the area. The study had been robustly tested by Council Officers. Mr Kelway acknowledged there had been no attempts to market the subject units directly for commercial use and limited exploratory work regarding the demand for nursery places.
Members further questioned the reasons for the application now and the robustness of the original viability assessment given the perceived lack of real change in the local economy. Mr Kelway responded that the original assessment was carried out in 2004. He underlined the changes in planning policy since then and the very different market conditions, that the applicant considered justified the proposal.
Jane Jin (Planning Officer) presented the committee report and the update report. She explained the location, the nature of the consented scheme and the previous amendments. She explained the tenure mix of the various blocks (that were all affordable housing) and had been completed. She explained the tenure mix of the proposed residential units including family sized units. A total of 33 representations had been submitted to the consultation and the objections raised were explained.
The scheme showed no signs of overdevelopment (despite exceeding the density guidance in the London Plan) which was a key test. The site was well serviced by commercial units given the close proximity to Town Centres. Therefore, the loss of the commercial units and the conversion for residential complied with policy. There would be a car free agreement and less vehicle servicing. It was considered that the refuse/recycling proposals were adequate in view of the additional pressure. The existing problems with rubbish were more of a management issue not due to lack of capacity. Officers had recently visited the site and had found that the problems with litter had improved (as shown by the photographic evidence). The management would be taking further steps to address any litter issues. In summary, Officers were recommending that the scheme should be granted planning permission.
In response to questions, Officers clarified the amount of commercial space that would remain in the development if granted. In response to questions about the residential units on the ground floor, it was explained that all of the units would have private space and defensible space and there would be adequate levels of community space.
On a vote of 3 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 4 against and 2 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/13/02108) at Suttons Wharf North, Palmers Road, London be NOT ACCEPTED for the application under s.73 of the Town and Country Planning Act for a variation of Condition 22 of the Planning Permission PA/11/3348 dated 30/03/12 at Suttons Wharf North, Palmers Road, London to seek minor material amendments to the *approved Suttons Wharf North development comprising the conversion of ground, first and second floor levels to create ten additional residential units and associated minor alternations to Block B
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
· Overdevelopment of the site.
- Loss of the commercial units given the need for such uses for existing residents (for example to provide much needed childcare facilities).
- Lack of marketing evidence/exploration work to inform the lack of demand for the commercial space.
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 Councillors that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Rajib Ahmed, Carli Harper –Penman, Denise Jones, Zara Davis, Kabir Ahmed, Md Maium Miah, Joshua Peck and Peter Golds.
Supporting documents: