Agenda item
Quay House, 2 Admirals Way, London E14 (PA/14/00990)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 25th September, 2014 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.1)
- View the background to item 6.1
Proposal:
Demolition of the existing building and redevelopment to provide a residential led, mixed use scheme to include a tower of 68 storeys (233 metres AOD) comprising 496 residential units, 315.3 sq.m. (GEA) of flexible commercial uses including retail/financial and professional services/café/restaurant uses (Use Classes A1 to A3), a residents’ gymnasium and associated residential amenity space, car and cycle parking and landscaping.
Recommendation:
That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, planning permission is REFUSEDfor the reasons set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application and the update and the Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
John Halnam, Philip Binns (Greenwich Conservation Group) and Councillor Andrew Wood spoke in objection to the scheme. The objectors made the following the points:
· Highlighted the importance of the site as a gateway site to surroundings area. The Council now had a unique opportunity to look at the whole of the Admirals Way site and improve the townscape. But this scheme would not achieve this.
· The impact of the proposal on the setting of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site. Should the proposal be resubmitted, additional material should be submitted to supplement the applicant’s Heritage and Townscape Visual Assessment Analysis.
· Height of the building in relation to the size of the site. If built, it would be the tallest residential building in the country, but on a very small piece of land.
· Overdevelopment of the area in view of the number of recently approved schemes and applications pending nearby. The cumulative impact of these developments needs to be properly explored.
· The density in excess of the Greater London Authority (GLA) guidance.
· The lack of child play space and nearby play space.
· The lack of car parking spaces.
In response to questions, the speakers commented on the expected increase in population from the many new and proposed developments in the area, including developments at Marsh Wall and South Quay. They also commented on the need to maintain views of the General Wolfe Statue and that insufficient consideration had been given to this.
Julian Carter and George Kyriacou spoke in support of the scheme. They pointed to the benefits of the scheme as summarised below:
· The redevelopment of a vacant site. The existing building was no longer fit for purpose.
· The level and quality of the housing, including affordable family housing with separate kitchens.
· That English Heritage and the Greater London Authority had raised no objections.
· The quality of the commercial units which would create new jobs and animate the area.
· The quality of the amenity and child play space, the merits of the public realm improvements.
· The Section 106 Agreement and the generation of ‘new homes bonus’ money for the Borough.
· The developer’s experience in delivering high profile developments.
· The positive impact on the Dockside and quality of the southern elevation.
· That the plans would facilitate the comprehensive redevelopment of the area.
In response to questions about the play space, the speakers considered that the plans catered for each age group, including a range of different types of space. Details of the s106 were in the committee report, pursued as per the normal process. The cumulative impact of other developments and plans in the area had been assessed and overall, the impact of this development would be acceptable. The affordable housing would be genuinely affordable at social target rents and at the Council’s agreed rent levels. Comprehensive redevelopment of the area by working with other landowners would be difficult because of the number of stakeholders.
Robert Lancaster (Planning Officer) presented the report explaining the key aspects of the scheme. He explained in detail the reasons for refusal as set out in the Committee report. These were that the scheme would be a clear overdevelopment of the site exhibited by the poor quality public realm in relation to the height of the building; the impact on the South Dock southern quayside; the impact of the frontage on the southern façade; the quality of the child play space and the issues around the legal agreement and delivery of affordable housing. The benefits of the proposal did not outweigh the harm caused by the proposal. Therefore the scheme would fail to be sensitive to the context of its surroundings or bridge the difference in scale between CanaryWharf and surrounding residential areas.
In response to questions, Officers explained the differences between this scheme and other consented schemes in terms of amenity space, the level of noise disturbance from the DLR amongst other matters. There were many key differences. However, this scheme should be considered on the planning merits. Officers also explained that ther had been pre-application discussions with the developers over a period of time to set out these concerns and had maintained a consistent approach
With the permission of the Chair, the applicant’s representative explained the nature of the private gardens that may be used as balconies. Officers expressed concern about such plans in terms of the noise impact from the DLR. .
In relation to the heritage impact, in relation to the effect on views from the General Woolfe Statue in Greenwich, it was noted that English Heritage had not made objections. Therefore, it would be very difficult to sustain a reason for refusal on this basis.
Attention was also drawn to the GLA letter in the update report.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission PA/14/00990 at Quay House, 2 Admirals Way, London E14 for the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment to provide a residential led, mixed use scheme to include a tower of 68 storeys (233 metres AOD) comprising 496 residential units, 315.3 sq.m. (GEA) of flexible commercial uses including retail/financial and professional services/café/restaurant uses (Use Classes A1 to A3), a residents’ gymnasium and associated residential amenity space, car and cycle parking and landscaping be DEFERRED to enable a site visit to be held so that Members can better acquaint themselves with the site and surrounds.
(Members present: Councillors Sirajul Islam, Danny Hassell, Amina Ali, John Pierce, Helal Uddin, Suluk Ahmed, Julia Dockerill, Harun Miah, Gulam Kibria Choudhury)
Supporting documents: