Agenda item
Land bounded by 2-10 Bethnal Green Road, 1-5 Chance Street (Huntingdon Industrial Estate) and 30-32 Redchurch Street (PA/13/01638, PA/13/01644)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 21st November, 2013 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.2)
- View the background to item 6.2
Full Planning Permission PA/13/01638
Proposal: Demolition and redevelopment to provide a mixed use development comprising two basement floors and between 2 - 14 storeys. The proposal provides 78 residential units (Use Class C3), 456 sqm Class A1, 359 sqm Class A1/B1/D2 and 1,131 sqm A1/A3/A4/D2 at basement and ground floor; parking, plant and ancillary accommodation; a central courtyard and accessible amenity roof terraces.
Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by the London Mayor, a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Conservation Area Consent PA/13/01644
Proposal: Demolition of 1-5 Chance Street and 28 and 30-32 Redchurch Street in conjunction with the comprehensive redevelopment of the Huntingdon Estate site to provide a mixed use development.
Recommendation: GRANT Conservation Area Consent subject to conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager) introduced the report regarding Land bounded by 2-10 Bethnal Green Road, 1-5 Chance Street (Huntingdon Industrial Estate) and 30-32 Redchurch Street for the demolition and redevelopment to provide a mixed use development comprising two basement floors and between 2 - 14 storeys. The application also sought Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of 1-5 Chance Street and 28 and 30-32 Redchurch Street to facilitate the planning permission.
He also introduced the linked application (Agenda Item 6.3) regarding Land at Fleet Street Hill, London, for the redevelopment of the site to provide 34 residential dwellings of mixed tenure, the provision of 135 sqm of restaurant and 671 sqm of flexible commercial and community space, five car parking spaces plus other incidental works.
Note: It was agreed that the Committee would consider the presentations on the two schemes together (including the speakers cases, Members questions and debate) as the applications were closely linked. However, the Committee would vote on the items separately.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Objector’s Statements and Members Questioning
Robin Fellgett (Jago Action Group) spoke in opposition. He stated he was speaking on behalf of many residents. Whilst they supported the development of the Huntington Industrial Estate (HIE) site, the proposals was far too high and bulky and was out of keeping with the Conservation Area given the mid - rise nature of the surrounding buildings. Therefore it would harm the setting of area. The scheme breached many planning policies as noted in the Officers report.
He disputed the justification for the height to subsidise the number of affordable housing on the Fleet Street Hill site (FSH). The profit margins would be far in excess of what was needed to delivery the affordable housing as shown by the objectors own research. He considered that their proposal of a mid rise building (with a mixed tenure) would generate sufficient profit and should be considered. It would be possible to provide 80% of the floor space with a significant reduction in height, according to their research.
Any scheme should fit in with the Conservation Area, provide a mixed tenure with a reasonable profit. On this basis, he requested that the Committee refuse the HIE scheme but not the Fleet Street Hill Scheme subject to a greater mix in housing tenures.
In response to Members, he commented that the height of the HIE scheme would be 56 metres high. Therefore much higher than the surrounding buildings (including the Tea and Biscuit building and the nearby synagogue).
Rebecca Collings (Local resident and co-chair of OPEN Shoreditch) spoke in opposition to the schemes. She highlighted the experience of her organisation, as respected planning experts, with regards to commenting and changing major planning proposals. The consultation carried out by the application in February 2013 was misleading. The information consulted on suggested that the plans for the HIE site would be only a few stories higher than the Tea and Biscuit building. Given this, there had been no proper consultation on the actual proposal.
Brad Lochore spoke in opposition. He commented that he had lived near the HIE site for many years and that there had been a great amount of development in the area. He considered that the location was a prime example of a high quality housing estate in the Conservation Area that should be protected. Firstly, the height exceeded the highest building in the area, therefore would harm the setting. Furthermore, the height and design would build over and spoil the historic street pattern of Whitby Street. He supported the development of the site. However, this scheme breached many planning policy and English Heritage had concerns.
In response to Members, he considered that the proposed materials were acceptable for the Conservation Area and marked an improvement on the previous scheme.
Councillor Jon Pierce spoke in objection to the proposals, as the ward Councillor. He reported that fellow ward Councillor Mohammed Mukit also objected to the proposal. He emphasised the amount of opposition to scheme amongst the community. He considered that plans for the HIE site would damage the uniqueness of the area (especially the Redchurch Street and Brick Lane Conservation Area). It would therefore damage tourist trade and the local economy. English Heritage considered that proposal would harm the setting of the historic buildings. The proposals conflicted with the Council’s Core Strategy which sought to protect the mid-rise nature of the Shoreditch area.
He also objected to the concentration of off site affordable housing at the FSH site given the need for a mixed community. It might also lead to requests for a gated development given the security issues. He expressed concerns about the lack of jobs for local people. It was recognised that there was a real need for new homes in the area. However, this scheme was unacceptable.
Applicant’s statement and Members questioning
David Barnett spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stressed the scope of the consultation including engagement with ward Councillors. The proposals would provide 43% affordable housing across both sites (that was above the policy requirement), mainly on the FSH site that would provide high private quality amenity space and a courtyard. A large percentage of the affordable housing would be family units at the Council’s target rent levels. The proposals would create 155 jobs across both sites including commercial units for start up small and medium sized businesses via the s106 at capped rents levels for a period.
Mr Barnett confirmed the amendments to the previous HIE scheme to better fit in with the Conservation Area including the decrease in height and the introduction of mixed tenure units on both sites. Only 25% of the HIE building would be above the Tea and Biscuit building. The large majority of objection letters were pro - forma letters from out of Borough groups. The scheme would provide much needed housing, amongst other benefits and he requested that the schemes should be granted.
In response to Members about the consultation in February 2013, Mr Barnett stated that the Applicant had held a public exhibition (to which the local residents were invited) and distributed 1000s of leaflets. The meetings were well attended and the vast majority of the feedback was positive. During the consultation, the exact height of the HIE building was made clear. In response to Members about the level of public opposition (mainly to the height of the HIE scheme), Mr Barnett stated that the vast majority of the building would be seven stories or lower. In relation to the split in housing tenures, Mr Barnett stressed the need for this to maximize the affordable housing at the FSH site and the amenity space for the family sized housing that could not be provided at the HIE site due to the site constraints.
In relation to the proximity of the FSH site to railway lines, Mr Barnett stressed the merits of the location for family housing given the proximity to Allen Gardens. He also spoke about the opportunities to reactivate the derelict site, decrease nuisance and facilitate community cohesion (given the proposed courtyard, the bridge improvements and the mixing of commercial and residential units). This would bring real benefits for the local community.
Oliver Shepherd spoke in favour of the application on behalf of the applicant.
He commented further on the local job opportunities, the lengthy consultation process for the scheme including the appointment of specialist architects to address the previous concerns with the last scheme. He also confirmed the improvements on the last scheme in light of the consultation.
MhairiWeirto spoke in support as the Manager of the Spitalfields City Farm. Ms Weirto considered that the proposals had been significantly influenced by the consultation. She welcomed the plans for the FSH site and stated that it would help create a mixed community (with so many people living and working together) and should help address the asb problems in the area. In summary, she welcomed the revisions to the plans and the introduction of mixed housing tenures on both the sites.
Finally, Phil Hamilton spoke in support for the applicant. He commented on the affordable housing provision at the FSH site. He addressed the issues around the proximity of the FSH site to the railway. All of the units would be dual aspect and would have windows opening into the quite areas. The public space would be quite and peaceful and, due to the design, the courtyard would be shielded from the railway. He referred to similar developments near railways and there had been no complaints. He highlighted the merits of the FSH scheme.
In response to questions about the demand for further retail services at the FSH site, i.e. a coffee shop (in view of the proximity to similar services in Brick Lane) he expressed confidence that such units would be in demand and could be sustainable occupied given the competitive rent rates proposed under the s106. Once established, he felt confident that the business would stay.
Nasser Farooq (Planning Officer) made a detailed presentation on the scheme. Mr Farooq firstly explained the plans for the Huntington Industrial Estate. He explained the location and surrounds including the heritage assets. He explained the proposed layout of the scheme, the amenity space, the materials and the improvements on the previous scheme. He addressed the issues around the height showing a height profile of the wider area. Officers considered that the proposed height accorded with policy that supported tall buildings in the area.
Officers were mindful of the heritage value of the surrounding buildings and the comments of English Heritage. However, Officers were of the view that the significant public benefits of the scheme would out weigh the harm caused to the surrounds. Therefore, the scheme satisfied the relevant tests in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requiring this to be demonstrated. Careful consideration had been given to the need to demolish 30-32 Redchurch Street and ways of retaining this if possible. However, given the costs of the option, the quality of the replacement and the wider benefits of the scheme, this proposal could also be supported and met the tests in policy. The day light and sunlight impact on the neighbouring proprieties was acceptable, as validated by an independent review.
Mr Farooq also explained in detail the plans for the Fleet Street Hill site. Mr Farooq explained the location that was currently derelict with security issues. He explained the housing mix, the proposed courtyard, the commercial space and the general improvements with regards to natural surveillance. He stressed the measures to minimise any noise and vibration from the railway. Environmental Health had fully considered this issue and considered that the proposed conditions would deal with any issues. Mr Farooq also described the improvements to the bridge and the s106 package.
In response to questions, Officers clarified that the schemes would be car free, subject to the application of the Council’s parking permit transfer scheme.
Questions were also asked about:
· The work to identify a suitable mid - rise building (in relation to the HIE site).
- The justification for demolishing 30-32 Redchurch Street given the buildings were in the Conservation Area.
- Whether the proposed stepped down terraces at the HIE site were in keeping with the appearance of the Conservation Area.
- Clarification of the recent planning history for Whitby Street. (i.e. when it was stopped up).
- The perceived in balance in tenures across the two sites.
- The suitability of the FSH site for family housing given the risk of noise to the occupants from the nearby railway and the security issues from Allen Park.
- The risk that the FSH site could become gated in view of the concerns around the security of the immediate area.
- The servicing arrangements for the commercial units at FSH.
- Whether the commercial units at FSH could be successfully occupied, over the long term, especially after the concessionary rent cperiod. If not, there was a risk that any security issues would return.
In response, Officers addressed each point. Officers confirmed the servicing arrangements for the commercial units at FSH. The submitted tracking information showed that the vehicles could access and exit the site safely. There would be controls to manage deliveries.
Officers considered that the height of the HIE scheme was acceptable (although at the upper limits) on balance, in view of the benefits of the scheme. Whilst English Heritage had concerns about the heritage impact, it was of the view that the scheme needed to be considered in the balance.
It was reported that the separation in housing tenures was supported in policy where it could be demonstrated that it would deliver a better outcome as in this case (i.e. a higher proportion of affordable housing and amenity space). The viability testing looked at various different scenarios and found that a greater level of affordable housing at the HIE site would reduce viability given the site constraints. The FSH site could provide better quality family housing and amenity space given the nature of the site. The viability assessment had been assessed by independent specialists. Both sites were also in a close proximity.
Officers also clarified the planning history of Whitby Street. The Council’s Conservation Officer had not raised any concerns about this part of the scheme in terms of the impact on the historic street scheme.
A lot of work had gone into addressing the noise and vibration issues at the FSH site to ensure the necessary mitigation measures would be secured. The issues and the results of the testing had been thoroughly considered by independent experts and Environmental Health who were satisfied with the stringent conditions to manage any impact.
There were a number of roof top terraces in the HIE area. The FSH scheme would greatly improve the linkages with surrounding area in accordance with policy.
Planning permission (PA/13/01638)
On a vote of 2 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 6 against and 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/13/01638) at Land bounded by 2-10 Bethnal Green Road, 1-5 Chance Street (Huntingdon Industrial Estate) and 30-32 Redchurch Street be NOT ACCEPTED for the demolition and redevelopment to provide a mixed use development comprising two basement floors and between 2 - 14 storeys. The proposal provides 78 residential units (Use Class C3), 456 sqm Class A1, 359 sqm Class A1/B1/D2 and 1,131 sqm A1/A3/A4/D2 at basement and ground floor; parking, plant and ancillary accommodation; a central courtyard and accessible amenity roof terraces
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
· Impact on the surrounds and the heritage assets in view of the height, scale and massing, demolition of 30-32 Redchurch Street, the design (especially the use of Roman Brick, the design of the proposed balcony and the roof terrace arrangements) and the loss of the historic street pattern with regards to Whitby Street. The heritage assets include: the Owl and the Pussycat Public House and the neighbouring Redchurch Street, South Shoreditch, Brick Lane/Fournier Street and Boundary Gardens Conservation Area.
· The failure to provide a mixed and balanced community given the overprovision of private sale within the development and concentration of affordable housing on the linked Fleet Street Hill application. (PA/13/01637)
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
Conservation Area Consent PA/13/01644
On a vote of 2 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 6 against and 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant Conservation Area Consent (PA/13/01644) at Land bounded by 2-10 Bethnal Green Road, 1-5 Chance Street (Huntingdon Industrial Estate) and 30-32 Redchurch Street be NOT ACCEPTED for the demolition of 1-5 Chance Street and 28 and 30-32 Redchurch Street in conjunction with the comprehensive redevelopment of the Huntingdon Estate site to provide a mixed use development.
The Committee were minded to refuse the application as it would be premature to grant this consent in the absence of a suitable replacement building.
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: