Agenda item
Land known as "Wood Wharf", Preston's Road, London, E14 9SF (PA/13/02966 AND PA/13/02967)
Proposal:
Outline Planning Application
Outline application (all matters reserved) for mixed-use redevelopment of the site known as “Wood Wharf”.
Listed Building Consent Application
Listed Building Consent sought for demolition of and alteration to listed dock walls including the course of the wall to the Blackwall Basin and the East Quay of the Export Dock and Middle Cut between the Export Dock and the South Dock.
Recommendations:
To GRANT planning permission subject to any direction/call-in by the London Mayor, prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee Report.
To GRANT Listed Building Consent subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application and the update report regarding the Wood Wharf site.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
The Committee heard from Richard Gosling from the 'Save Our Water' group. Residents welcomed the development of the site but had concerns about the impact of the plot F1 building, one of the tallest buildings, on the nearby residents and the plot B2 development.
Mr Gosling considered that the F1 building would have an oppressive appearance, be out of keeping with the area and would overlook residential properties. There had been no consultation with residents regarding the plans. The plot B2 building, between Cartier Circle and the Blackwall Basin, would harm views to the O2 building and impact on the dock heritage and was of poor design. The application should be reviewed in light of these concerns.
Councillor Andrew Wood spoke raising objections. He stressed the need for new schools, health facilities to be physically delivered in view of the growing population. This should be mandatory with no option of financial contribution in the event that such facilities could not be provided. He questioned whether the child yield predictions were realistic. There was a lack of units for middle income residents and information about the impact on the docks.
Jason Syrett spoke in support. He stressed the strategic importance of the scheme in providing a large number of high quality housing with infrastructure. He listed the key features of the scheme, based on plans drawn up with the Council and key agencies and public consultation.
Howard Dawber spoke in support. There had been few objections to the scheme. There would be 25% affordable housing on site including family sized units at the Council’s preferred levels. There would also be a new primary school with places for all children from the new development, amongst other new community facilities and open space. The capacity of the GP’s surgeries would be in excess of the scheme’s population. The F1 site should have little impact on the residential properties due to the generous separation distance and the slender design. The B2 building would provide an important landmark without any undue problems.
Robert Lancaster (Planning Officer) presented the report and update to Members. He reassured Members about the credibility of child yield predications using the Council’s adopted formulae. Other assessments were less accurate. The intermediate units were focused towards smaller units due to the challenges around the affordability of larger intermediate units in this high value area.
Mr Lancaster explained the site location and referred to the control documents for this outline planning permission. He also explained the site designation, the planning history, the extant scheme, the height of the proposed buildings, the effect on the dock heritage and the outcome of the consultation. He drew attention to the indicative scheme, submitted alongside this scheme to show how the scheme might be delivered in accordance with the control documents.
The scheme would provide 25% affordable housing by habitable room with a review mechanism that might result in a financial contribution equivalent to an uplift of 15% additional housing by habitable room. It was considered that the public benefits of the scheme outweighed the less than substantial harm to the setting of the heritage assets. The impact on amenity was acceptable. There were contributions towards transport and highway improvements works amongst other matters.
Officers were recommending the application for approval.
In response to Members questions about the affordable housing, it was considered that the scheme delivered the highest percentage of affordable housing that could be secured, taking into account the costs of developing the site, as shown by the viability assessment. The requirement for a review mechanism of the affordable housing would be written into the legal agreement.
With the permission of the Chair, the Committee heard from one of the supporting speakers again regarding the impact on the two buildings (highlighted by the speaker in objection). The details plans for these buildings would be developed in accordance with the control documents and submitted for approval as a reserved matter.
Alison Thomas (Strategy Sustainability and Regeneration LBTH), reemphasised the points about the low level of larger intermediate units in terms of their affordability for prospective occupants. Further consideration could be given to improving the affordability of such units.
It was intended that the health care facilities would have a 25 year lease as requested by the health care providers and it would be open for them to extend this should they wish to do so.
There were measures to ensure the continued provision of an Idea Store, either at the current location in Canary Wharf or the new location. In response to questions about the new primary school, Pat Watson (Head of Building Development, LBTH) outlined the options available in terms of school type. All options would be considered in accordance with the delivery timetable.
The Chair expressed a desire to see the physical delivery of the primary school, health facility and leisure facility as opposed to additional financial contributions. However, if not at all possible, the option of financial contribution should still be retained.
On a vote of 8 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission PA/13/02966 at Land known as "Wood Wharf", Preston's Road, London, E14 9SF be GRANTED for Outline application (all matters reserved) for mixed-use redevelopment of the site known as “Wood Wharf” Subject to:
2. Any direction/call-in by The London Mayor.
3. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the Committee report. The figures provide a guide to the likely quanta of obligations based on the Indicative Scheme. The transport, streetscene and heritage related - contributions were fixed.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal and the Service Head – Legal Services are delegated power to negotiate and complete the legal agreement indicated above acting within normal delegated authority.
5. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the Committee report and as amended in the Update Report.
6. Any other informative(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.
7. That, if within 6 months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
On a vote of 8 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That Listed Building Consent PA/13/02967 at Land known as "Wood Wharf", Preston's Road, London, E14 9SF be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.
The meeting adjourned at 7:35pm for 15 minutes.
Councillor Md Maium Miah left the meeting at 7:35pm.
Supporting documents: