Agenda item
100 Whitechapel road and land rear at Fieldgate Street & Vine Court (PA/13/3049)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Monday, 21st July, 2014 5.30 p.m. (Item 8.1)
- View the background to item 8.1
Proposal:
Demolition of existing vehicle workshop and car showroom; erection of a residential development comprising a total of 221 dwellings (comprising 46 studios; 92 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), café (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.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application at 100 Whitechapel road and land to the rear at Fieldgate Street & Vine Court. The Committee previously considered the application at its April 2014 meeting where, contrary to the Officer recommendation to refuse permission, the Committee were minded to grant permission. Since that time, the Committee Membership had changed following Annual Council and it was now required to consider the application afresh.
A number of issues had been resolved since the previous Committee meeting. However Officers were still recommending a refusal due to the nature of the concerns as detailed in the Committee report.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Glenda Parkes spoke in support of the proposal highlighting the level of support for the scheme from residents, local business amongst other people and bodies. There were few representations in objection to the scheme. She highlighted the benefits of the scheme including: new jobs, the pedestrian link to improve permeability, new housing - a number with wheelchair access and the replacement of the unsightly vehicle workshop amongst other features. There had been no objections from the neighboring Tower House that would increase in value as a result of the proposal. Any development of the site would present challenges given the ‘landlocked’ nature of the site. The scheme generally complied with the sunlight and daylight requirements. The overall benefits of the scheme outweighed these impacts.
Councillor Shahed Ali spoke in support as a ward Councillor and a longstanding resident of the area. The area was of mixed character with commercial uses. He outlined the merits of the proposals in terms of the new link to improve permeability, the public realm improvements, the proposed new jobs and additional affordable housing. He considered that the housing mix was appropriate for the site with the level of smaller units. The community benefits far outweighed the concerns. The Mosque offered a range of facilities and services open to all. Everyone would therefore benefit from the expansion of the Mosque.
Councillor Abdal Asad also spoke in support of the scheme as a ward Councillor. He explained the benefits for the Tower House development. He welcomed the plans to improve permeability and the expansion of the Mosque. The previous Committee in April 2014 were minded to approve the scheme. He recommended that the Committee should also approve the scheme.
Shay Bugler (Planning Officer) gave a detailed presentation of the application highlighting the site location, the adjoining Conservation Areas, the relationship of the scheme with the nearby Tower House development, the height in relation to the surrounding buildings and the public transport rating for the site. He advised the Committee of the outcome of the public consultation on the scheme.
The principles of redevelopment of the site and the prposed mix of land uses are supported by Development plan policies. However, there were a number of major concerns. Since the April 2014 meeting, five of the previous reasons for refusal had been addressed. However, four major concerns remained that go to the heart of the design of the scheme. Mr Bugler listed these concerns regarding: unsatisfactory housing mix in relation to policy, the impact of the development on the setting of the Conservation Areas and townscape generally, poor quality of the accommodation in terms of single aspect flats, sense of enclosure, privacy and daylight and the impact on the amenity of the occupants and neighbours of adjoining properties. In some cases, the impact was very significant and harmful, particularly for properties on Whitechapel Road and Tower House development. The lack of objections from Tower House residents could be attributed to the transient population as most of the units were privately rented.
Officers were confident that the four reasons for refusal as set out in the report could be successfully defended on appeal.
In response, Members considered that the pedestrian link would provide an important link from Fieldgate Street to Whitechapel Road. It was also commented that the polices in the Whitechapel Masterplan SPD supported taller buildings in the area and there were other tall buildings in the surrounding area. Members also welcomed the provision of additional housing. Some therefore considered that the scheme should be considered favourable in this context.
In response, Officers considered that that the height of the scheme was out of keeping with the buildings in the nearby Conservation Area that were mainly lower rise buildings. The Whitechapel Masterplan SPD does not encourage tall buildings in this location and the nearest tall building location set out in the Core Strategy is centred mainly around the Aldgate area. The site did not fall in an area identified in the vision for high density building. The Whitechapel hospital development was a special case, where the need to accommodate much needed primary and secondary health care provision on a relatively small, urban site required a taller building.
In response to further questions, it was considered that the sunlight and daylight failings were very significant, even taking account of the urban context where some loss could be expected. The sunlight/daylight assessment had been independently validated.
The scheme, if granted, would be car fee subject to the operation of the Council’s parking permit transfer scheme. A condition could also be attached to address the issues around ground born noise subject to review and approval by LBTH Environmental Health.
In relation the Council’s housing waiting list, it was reported that there was a particular need in the Borough for family sized affordable units, based on the housing needs assessments. The policy reflected this. However the policy allowed for a higher percentage of smaller private units for viability purposes and to meet need.
Officers confirmed that they had no objection in principle to the development of the site, but that reasons for refusal could be substantiated. The report sets out in detail the proposed housing mix and the issues with this. Mr Buckenham drew attention to the affordable housing offer of 50 flats, of which 36 would be affordable rent, out of a total of 221 flats.
On a show of hands, with 2 voting in favour of the recommendation to refuse, the Committee resolved not to accept the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission and a motion was then put to grant permission for the application.
On a vote of 6 in favour to grant the application and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission (PA/13/3049) at 100 Whitechapel road and land rear at Fieldgate Street & Vine Court be GRANTED for the demolition of existing vehicle workshop and car showroom; erection of a residential development comprising a total of 221 dwellings (comprising 46 studios; 92 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), café (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 Subject to:
2. Any Direction by the London Mayor.
3. The prior completion of a legal agreement that the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate and complete.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission, as necessary.
Councillor Amy Whitelock Gibbs could not vote on this item having not been present at the start of the item.
In giving reasons for their decision, the Committee considered that the scheme would provide much needed family sized housing in Whitechapel that would help families on the housing waiting list. The provision of smaller units was also welcomed given the number of smaller families and single people also in need of accommodation in the area. These benefits outweighed the concerns over the quality of the accommodation (reason 4.5 of the proposed reasons for refusal) due to the fact that the site was a landlocked site.
Whilst having regard to the concerns about the scale, form, height, appearance and layout of the scheme on the setting of the area (reason 4.3 of the report), the Committee commented that that the site fell within the boundary of the Whitechapel Vision Masterplan SPD area. This supported taller buildings in the area.
It was also considered that the standards required in terms of amenity (daylight, sunlight, privacy etc. (reasons 4.5) could not reasonably be achieved due to the confined nature of the site. In view of these issues, there needed to be some flexibility in assessing the sunlight and daylight impacts and other amenity impacts.
Furthermore, it was considered that benefits of the scheme outweighed the impact on amenity. It was also noted there had been no objections from the neighbouring Tower House.
Supporting documents: