Agenda item
Former News International Site, 1 Virginia Street, London, E98 1XY (PA/13/01276 and PA/13/01277)
Planning Application:
Proposal: A hybrid application (part outline/part detailed)
comprising:
(1) Outline submission for demolition of all buildings and structures on the site with the exception of the Pennington Street Warehouse and Times House and
comprehensive mixed use development comprising a maximum of 221,924 sqm (GEA) (excluding basement) of floorspace.
(2) Detailed submission for 82,596 sq m GEA of floorspace (excluding basement) in five buildings – the Pennington Street Warehouse, Times House and Building Plots A, B and C comprising residential (C3),office and flexible workspaces (B1), community and leisure uses (D1/D2), retail and food and drink uses (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) together with car and cycle parking, associated landscaping and new public realm”.
Listed Building Consent Application:
Works to the Grade II Listed Pennington Street Warehouse both internally and externally
Recommendation: GRANT planning permission and Listed Building Consent subject to any direction by the London Mayor, a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager) introduced the report regarding planning permission at Former News International Site, 1 Virginia Street, London, E98 1XY for a hybrid application (part outline/part detailed) comprising demolition of all buildings and structures on the site with the exception of the Pennington Street Warehouse and Times House and
comprehensive mixed use development.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
John Schuster spoke in objection on behalf of the nearby Quay 430 development and Telford’s Yard. He objected to a number of issues around:
- Loss of light. The submitted assessment of the impact on neighbouring properties was flawed as it was missing parts of the Quay 430 development. The assessment also underestimated the sunlight/daylight failings within the development itself.
- Design of the development. There were many issues with the design of the units. The standards fell below the accepted design standards.
- The noise impact on the neighbours. The Council’s own Officers considered that the noise impact was too much. This should be mitigated.
- The impact from the construction works given the proximity to neighbouring properties. No noise assessment of this had been carried out. A more suitable lorry route for such activity should be found.
- Parking and congestion. The proposed ration between cars and units breached policy. Therefore, the development would worsen parking stress and congestion in the vicinity.
- The location and design of the proposed school. As a result, the roof top play space would be exposed to noise and pollution.
Jon Aldenton, speaking in objection on behalf of the Turk’s Head Charity, also expressed concerns about the proposed school given the issues with pollution and the quality of the environment. He drew attention to another school with similar problems and the adverse affects on the pupils.
He expressed concern about the underground car parking. The car park would generate 260 movements a day if used.
He also expressed concerns about the design (the mixture of tower blocks with large amount of open space), the excessive amount of ponds, the safety of these features and the shape of the buildings. The flattened blocks would create a ‘blade runner’ element. He also considered that the density range was out of keeping with the area.
He considered that the scheme conflicted with Council policy and should be refused on the grounds of poor quality design, overbearing height, insufficient s106, unusable public space and harmful impact on the Tower of London.
Ross Faragher spoke in support in spoke. He advised that it was planned to start work, if granted, by March 2014.The scheme would allow Wapping and the wider area to connect and provide significant public realm improvements and public open space. He drew attention to the level of affordable housing. A significant amount of which would be delivered at an early stage. He also highlighted the proposed health care facilities, the new school and the plans to bring the listed Pennington Street Warehouse building back into use. The applicant was in advanced negotiations with technology businesses with a view to them occupying some of the units.
He drew attention to the s106 agreement. He also highlighted the extensive nature of the local consultation that had informed the key features of the scheme as described above and had also resulted in a number of changes. This included the reduction in height, moving part of the building away from the Quay 430 development, increasing the affordable housing offer and s106 contributions for highway improvements. He also highlighted the employment and enterprise package in addition to the s106 package. The applicant was working with Skills Match to secure local employment opportunities for residents and had employed a local resident to work as the workforce coordinator within the community for the scheme.
In response to Members, Mr Faragher confirmed the reduction in parking spaces – down from 1200 spaces to about 1000. Experience showed that the residents of similar developments didn’t tend to use their cars everyday. So the impact on parking and congestion should be far less than anticipated by the objector. He noted the concerns around the potential for conflict between traffic from the development and the school. However, he considered that, given the distance between both and the school’s operating times, both elements of the scheme should safely coexist without any safety impact.
The scheme had been reduced in height to address the concerns of English Heritage and the Pennington Street Warehouse had been redesigned to address the concerns form the Greater London Authority. English Heritage considered that the scheme should be considered on balance.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager), Richard Murrell and Adam Williams (Planning Officers) gave a detailed presentation on the scheme.
Richard Murrell firstly explained the application site and the extent of the pre application consultation including 45 events. He also confirmed the changes to the scheme regarding the affordable housing offer, the height and design. English Heritage and the GLA welcomed the improvements. English Heritage considered that, whilst the scheme would cause some harm, it should be considered in the balance. Mr Murrell highlighted the outcome of the local consultation including the objections from nearby Telford’s Yard and the Smokehouse Studios regarding the construction impact.
Mr Murrell explained the policy support for the development. The plans would improve the permeability of the area and should attract visitors to the site given the quality of the public spaces.
Members also heard about the plans for the various plots, the height of the proposal, the design, the quality of the public squares, the servicing arrangements, the changes to the Times House building to provide affordable housing at an early stage, the works the Pennington Street Warehouse, the employment space and the plans to use local labour and to provide local apprenticeships.
Members were also advised of the outline plans for the secondary school. A lot of testing had been carried out to ensure that the site was suitable for such use and would comply with the relevant regulations. The scheme had been designed to separate the access routes of the school from vehicle movements from the main development. There would also be highway safety improvements to ensure this.
The housing offer compiled with policy with 30% affordable housing. Officers considered that this offer was acceptable given the plans to delivery a new schools as well given the viability of the scheme.
Mr Murrell showed the Committee a wide range of views of the proposal from the surrounds including the impact on the setting of the Tower Bridge and the World Heritage Site. Members were advised of the views of English Heritage who considered that the proposal could cause harm to the setting of the Tower Bridge and that this needed to weighed against the public benefits.
Adam Williams gave a detailed presentation on the amenity impact of the scheme on the surrounding properties and also the proposed school. On balance, Officers considered that, despite the minor losses, the properties would generally continue to receive adequate levels of light. He also explained the views of Transport for London (TfL) and Highways regarding congestion in the vicinity. The applicant considered that the car parking plans were necessary for viable reasons, which Officers considered to be acceptable given the benefits of the scheme. He also explained the plans to minimise the construction impact and to achieve acceptable levels of noise insulation within the development to be secured by condition.
Finally, Officers explained the s106 agreement drawing particular attention to a letter from TfL (submitted on the day of the Committee) further requesting that contributions be allocated to improvements to Shadwell DLR station. The letter highlighted that London Plan Policy prioritises transport mitigation over other mitigation. However, Officers were recommending that this funding should be directed to health care facilities given the needs in this area. Officers explained the reasons for their recommendation as assessed by the Council’s Planning Contributions Overview Panel and TfLs reasons for their request.
Overall, Officers recognised the issues with the scheme. However, considered that, on balance, the merits of the scheme outweighed the impacts. Therefore, the scheme should be granted permission.
Following the presentations, some Members expressed concern over the length of the presentation and Officers explained that this was a complex case that required a detailed presentation.
The Committee asked questions about: the impact on the heritage assets, the scale and height of the proposal; the impact from the construction activity on residents (given the potential for the disturbance to last many years).
Members also asked about the s106 contributions, particularly the plans to mitigate the transport impact. There was some discussion about the need to relocate the contributions to meet the TfL request for transport given the scale of the development.
Questions were also asked about the new school given the site constraints and the proximity to a busy highway, the impact on parking and the possibility of conditioning the car parking spaces to prevent the letting of unused spaces.
Officers responded to the questions. It was considered that the scheme would enhance the setting of the area due to the quality of the public realm improvements. For example, it would add value to the Tobacco Dock/Pennington Street Warehouse area and could bring in more visitors and trade to the area. However, it would inevitable cause some harm to the longer views such as to the Tower Bridge – a detailed assessment of this being given in the report.
Officers noted the issues around the proposed school given that the site could only provide 40% of the external area. Whilst there were no similar schools in the Borough, the model was based on an established school in Chelsea. With careful management, it could successfully operate as showed by the testing. No specific air quality testing of the school plot itself had been carried out. However, the Environmental assessment assessed the air quality of the proposed school site.
Members might review the s106 proposals in view the comments around the DLR contributions. The sum for off site community facilities could possibly be used for community facilities within the development itself. It was possible to condition the car parking spaces to prevent the letting of spaces to non residents of the development.
Planning permission (PA/13/01276)
On a vote of 4 in favour and 3 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission (PA/13/01276) at Former News International Site, 1 Virginia Street, London, E98 1XY be GARNTED for a hybrid application (part outline/part detailed) comprising:
(1) Outline submission for demolition of all buildings and structures on the site with the exception of the Pennington Street Warehouse and Times House and comprehensive mixed use development comprising a maximum of 221,924 sqm (GEA) (excluding basement) of floorspace.
(2) Detailed submission for 82,596 sq m GEA of floorspace (excluding basement) in five buildings – the Pennington Street Warehouse, Times House and Building Plots A, B and C comprising residential (C3),office and flexible workspaces (B1), community and leisure uses (D1/D2), retail and food and drink uses (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) together with car and cycle parking, associated landscaping and new public realm Subject to
2. Any direction by The London Mayor
3. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the committee report.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within normal delegated authority.
5. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to impose the conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report and the Update report (or add or remove conditions acting within normal delegated authority) in relation to the planning permission.
Listed Building Consent Application (PA/13/01277)
On a vote of 4 in favour and 3 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That Listed Building Consent Application (PA/13/01277) at Former News International Site, 1 Virginia Street, London, E98 1XY be GRANTED for works to the Grade II Listed Pennington Street Warehouse both internally and externally subject to
2. Any direction by The London Mayor
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to impose the conditions and informatives (or add or remove conditions acting within normal delegated authority) in relation to the planning permission on the matters set in the report and the update report.
Supporting documents: