Agenda item
100 Whitechapel road and land rear at Fieldgate Street & Vine Court (PA/13/3049)
Proposal: Demolition of existing vehicle workshop and car showroom; erection of a residential development comprising a total of 223 dwellings (comprising 48 studios; 91 x 1 bed; 52 x 2 bed; 20 x 3 bed; 11 x 4 bed) in an 18 storey building facing Fieldgate Street; and 2 buildings ranging in height from 8-12 storey building facing Whitechapel Road and Vine Court, provision of ground floor retail and restaurant spaces (Class A1 and A3), 274.9 sqm extension to the prayer hall at the East London Mosque and provision of pedestrian link between Fieldgate Street and Whitechapel Road, extension to existing basement to provide 20 disabled car parking spaces, motorcycle spaces, 360 bicycle parking spaces and bin storage in basement, associated landscape and public realm works.
Recommendation: That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, Planning Permission is REFUSED for the reasons set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application at 100 Whitechapel road and land rear at Fieldgate Street & Vine Court for a mixed used development.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Mr Mohammed Zabadne spoke in support of the application as the applicant. (Note: With the agreement of the Chair, Mr Zabadne addressed the Committee for six minutes (having been given an additional three minutes in view of language and hearing difficulties). He described the benefits of the scheme including high quality housing and improvements to the Mosque. He highlighted the strength of the local support and that there had been very few objections. The Greater London Authority considered that the scheme was acceptable in principle and complied with the London Plan. The plans also complied with the Council’s planning policy for the area. The Council had approved similar developments in the area. The density and affordable housing offer was acceptable.
Mr Zabadne addressed each reason for refusal, drawing attention to the resubmitted information. He challenged the evidence supporting the suggested reasons and considered that the concerns could be dealt with by condition. In response to the Committee, he confirmed that Tower Hamlets Community Housing were supportive of the scheme given the level of new affordable.
Councillor Shahed Ali spoke in support of the scheme as a local ward Councillor. He considered that the plans would be in keeping with the area given it was mixed in nature. The current use was an eyesore. The scheme would improve the permeability of the site, provide local jobs, 29% affordable housing, much needed family housing and public realm improvements. The housing mix and amenity impacts were not unusual for a development in this area. Councillor Ali highlighted the plans for the Mosque to support inclusive community events.
In response to questions, Councillor Ali further explained the benefits of the scheme to the local area. The scheme would generate local employment, vastly regenerate the site and encourage business. He noted the issues around the child play space. However, he considered that the offer should be sufficient given the expected child yield and the amount of play space and facilities nearby. Not all approved schemes met the requirements in this regard.
Councillor Abdul Asad also spoke in support of the application as the local ward Councillor. He also highlighted the potential benefits of the scheme to the local area and that aspects accorded with the visions of the Council’s area Masterplan. The applicant had played an active role in transforming the local community and supporting community projects. They were committed to serving the local community. He also welcomed the plans for the Mosque highlighting their work in the community. These proposal would facilitate such work. Councillor Asad recommended the application for approval.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the application. Firstly he drew attention to the tabled update report which amongst other matters, reported the removal of the concerns about servicing following the submission of further information (Paragraph 3.6) as well as minor changes to the reason at Paragraph 3.3 and an additional reason relating to the contributions.
He explained the site location and surrounds, the outcome of the local consultation and gave a summary of the whole proposal. Officers had no objections to the development of the site in principle and the proposed Mosque extension.
He reminded Members of the reasons for refusal around: the housing mix, design, standard of residential accommodation, the amenity impact, amenity space, the waste plans, fire safety, the impact on noise and air quality. He also explained the concerns about the viability assessment given the lack of information to confirm the outputs. As a result, the viability of the proposed affordable housing could not be properly tested.
Officers were recommending that the planning permission be refused.
Questions.
Members asked questions about the following issues:
· The letters in support and the issues raised; whether any of the neighbours most affected by the proposal had raised objections.
· The impact of the proposal on the neighbouring buildings.
· The Police concerns about the proposed link road in terms of crime.
· The views of the Fire Authority in relation to access.
· The concerns about the height, bulk, design, the quality of the residential accommodation, the child play space and amenity space. Further clarification was sought on these concerns.
· Whether the affordable housing offer could be made a requirement of the application.
· The discussions with the applicant to overcome the concerns.
· Current land use.
Officers Response.
In response, Officers highlighted the concerns about the residential units given the number of single aspect units, the light failings, the privacy issues and the separation distances. This would create a sense of enclosure and affect quality of life both for future occupants and the neighbours. It was felt that collectively the amenity impacts were a major issue.
Whilst there were a number of representations in support, the letters of objection were very detailed. No representations had been received from the neighbouring Tower House that would be most affected. Nevertheless, the impact on this development was still a material consideration.
Officers supported the plans to improve the permeability of the site in principle. If approved, further consideration would need to be given to addressing the concerns about anti-social behaviour as detailed in the report and update. Consideration had been given to the amended plans from the applicant regarding fire access. However, the Fire Authority considered that the proposals did not comply with building regulations in this regard as stated in the update.
There were concerns about the height, scale and the design of the development in relation to the setting of the area and the nearby Conservation Area. Officers explained the nature of these concerns. The advice from the Council’s Design and Conservation Area Officer was that the development would fail to enhance the setting of these areas.
It was also considered that the child play space was deficient in terms of quality and quantity.
There had been a number of meetings with the applicant to consider the issues. The application had been amended in view of this. Tower Hamlets Community Housing were supportive of the scheme having regard to the level of affordable housing. There were issues with both the quality of the affordable and private units. The requirements around the level of affordable housing would normally be dealt with thought the s106 Agreement. However, there was insufficient information to assess whether the maximum amount of which had been secured.
Comments
Members then made a number of comments about the suitability of the design in relation to the surrounding area. The view was expressed that this very much depended on the view point and it could be seen as appropriate from certain angles. Members also expressed support for the redevelopment of the site as it was considered to be an ‘eyesore’. It was also considered that the height of the development would be in keeping with the area given the number of similar high - rise developments in the area.
Members also stressed the need for developments of this type in the Borough given the housing demand and that the activities from the Mosque could decrease anti-social behaviour. The concerns of the Police could be addressed by condition. Furthermore, the option of roof top play space was a common feature of many approved schemes
On a vote of 4 in favour of the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission and 5 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission at 100 Whitechapel road and land rear at Fieldgate Street & Vine Court (PA/13/3049) be NOT ACCEPTED for the demolition of existing vehicle workshop and car showroom; erection of a residential development comprising a total of 223 dwellings (comprising 48 studios; 91 x 1 bed; 52 x 2 bed; 20 x 3 bed; 11 x 4 bed) in an 18 storey building facing Fieldgate Street; and 2 buildings ranging in height from 8-12 storey building facing Whitechapel Road and Vine Court, provision of ground floor retail and restaurant spaces (Class A1 and A3), 274.9 sqm extension to the prayer hall at the East London Mosque and provision of pedestrian link between Fieldgate Street and Whitechapel Road, extension to existing basement to provide 20 disabled car parking spaces, motorcycle spaces, 360 bicycle parking spaces and bin storage in basement, associated landscape and public realm works.
The Committee were minded to approve the application due to the following reasons:
· That the proposal would provide additional affordable and private housing in the Borough and would meet the requirements in policy regarding inclusive access.
· That the concerns around the child play space could be mitigated by improving the quality of the amenity space provided elsewhere in the scheme recognising the site constraints.
· That the impact on daylight and sunlight was marginal recognising the site constraints and the Borough’s density levels.
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 Councillors that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Marc Francis, Rajib Ahmed, Khales Uddin – Ahmed, Judith Gardiner, Zara Davis, Dr Emma Jones, Kabir Ahmed, Md Maium Miah.
Supporting documents: