Agenda item
Cutty Sark House, Undine Road, London, E14 9UW (PA/13/01306)
Proposal: Demolition and redevelopment of Cutty Sark House to provide 36 dwellings in two buildings of four and five storeys, together with landscaping, four disabled parking bays and associated works.
Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives
Minutes:
Update Report tabled
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding planning permission at Cutty Sark House, Undine Road, London for thedemolition and redevelopment of Cutty Sark House to provide 36 dwellings in two buildings of four and five storeys, together with landscaping, four disabled parking bays and associated works.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Detlev Munster spoke in objection as a resident of the adjacent development, the Clippers Quay Residential Estate (CQMC). He expressed concern at a number of oversights, leaving Council open to challenge. Firstly, he objected to the lack of a recent bat survey of the site as required by law. It was required that such a survey be carried out before consent could be given. He also objected to the lack of consideration given to the nearby gas unit. The health and safety implications of this should be made clear before the application was considered. He also expressed concern about the impact on CQMC land from the servicing on Undine Road.
He also objected to the loss of privacy to the surrounding properties due to overlooking, the loss of open space and the shortfall in affordable housing.
Jack Benson spoke in objection as a resident of the CQMC. He considered that the plans would impinge on the openness and spoil the unique character of the area. He also expressed concern about the noise impact on future occupants from the DLR and the proximity of the development to the street. He also objected to the lack of family units, the impact on parking from the car free agreement and the servicing and delivery plans. This would lead to trespass on CQMC land. He also objected to the limited separation distances; the lack of play space; the disregard to the loss of habitat and the poor relationship with the setting of the surrounding area. As a result, the proposal would lead to overdevelopment and turn the area into an ‘urban jungle’. He referred to a Parliamentary Undertaking, made in the early 1990s that, in his view, designated the site as an open space zone in compensation for the building of the Mudchute DLR station. The plans conflicted with this.
Councillor Peter Golds spoke in objection. He also emphasised the arguments around the impact of bats, the Parliamentary Undertaking and the impact on parking given the ability of future occupants to transfer existing permits. He also objected to the height of the proposal. The plans would tower over the Chapel House Conservation Area. Therefore, would harm the setting of the Conservation Area.
Roger Arkell spoke in support. The proposal would deliver new homes with a policy compliant level of affordable housing. There was an existing planning consent for the site and this proposal was very similar to this. He noted the concerns around servicing from Undine Road. However, it was considered that the servicing routes were acceptable. The applicant had the right to use the road for such purposes.
Mark Connell spoke in support. He considered that there was no evidence of bats on the site as shown by the ecological survey of the site undertaken in 2011. The issues around the Parliamentary Undertaking had been fully taken into account when the previous application was decided. The advice from all parties (the solicitors to the Counsel and the DLR) was that all obligations regarding this matter had been fulfilled. Therefore, it was not a material planning consideration. He also commented on the amenity space and the density range that complied with policy.
Nasser Farooq (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and update explaining the location and the proximity to the nearby Chapel House Conservation Area and the DLR station. He explained the 2011 planning consent for the site. Due to a reduction in the grant support, the scheme could no longer be delivered.
He explained the similarities with the consented scheme. The main change was the increase in dwellings, achieved by changing the layout of the scheme. He also explained the affordable housing and s106 offer. The scheme had been subject to independent testing that showed that the optimum amount of each had been secured taking into account viability.
Officers had considered the comments of Environmental Health regarding the noise impact to the balconies nearest the DLR. However, Officers considered that the noise impact was no different from many other similar developments and the consented 2011 scheme. Overall given the merits of the scheme, Officers were recommending that the application be granted.
In response to questions, Officers confirmed the views of the LBTH Biodiversity Officer regarding the bat survey. According to the Officer, there was no evidence of bat roosting on site. However should demolition occur after April 2014, it was recommended that precautionary testing be carried out. The issue around the Parliamentary Undertaking had been fully considered at the time of the previous application and it was considered that all obligations had been fulfilled as explained above by the speaker in support.
On a vote of 3 in favour and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission (PA/13/01306) at Cutty Sark House, Undine Road, London, E14 9UW be GRANTED for thedemolition and redevelopment of Cutty Sark House to provide 36 dwellings in two buildings of four and five storeys, together with landscaping, four disabled parking bays and associated works SUBJECT to:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the committee report.
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to recommend the conditions and informatives in relation to the matters set out in the committee report.
Supporting documents: