Agenda item
South Quay Plaza, 183-189 Marsh Wall, London (PA/14/00944)
Proposal:
Demolition of all existing buildings and structures on the site (except for the building known as South Quay Plaza 3) and erection of two residential-led mixed use buildings of up to 68 storeys and up to 36 storeys comprising up to 888 residential (Class C3) units in total, retail (Class A1-A4) space and crèche (Class D1) space together with basement, ancillary residential facilities, access, servicing, car parking, cycle storage, plant, open space and landscaping, plus alterations to the retained office building (South Quay Plaza 3) to provide retail (Class A1-A4) space at ground floor level, an altered ramp to basement level and a building of up to 6 storeys to the north of South Quay Plaza 3 to provide retail (Class A1-A4) space and office (Class B1) space.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to, any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
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.
Sarah Castro, local resident, Richard Horwood, Chair of the Pan Peninsula Leaseholders and Residents Association and Councillor Andrew Wood, ward Councillor spoke in objection to the scheme. The objectors expressed concern about the following matters in relation to the scheme:
- The impact on the DLR from the cumulative impact from this and other schemes in the area. The DLR line was already at a capacity as recognised by TFL and capacity cannot be increased.
- Impact on local schools from the increased population.
- Concerns about the suitability of a tall tower as homes for children and the lack of dedicated child play space (on and off site).
- Lack of consultation with residents. The applicant should engage with residents and come back with a better scheme.
- Concerns about the density of the scheme that was way in excess of the Greater London Authority (GLA) guidance and presented symptoms of overdevelopment.
- Concerns about the height of the scheme contrary to Council policy that stated that developments in this location should step down in height from the tall building cluster in Canary Wharf.
- Lack of social housing.
- That, in absence of the master plan, that this scheme and other similar schemes would have a detrimental impact on the area. Such applications should be deferred pending the adoption of the master plan to properly assess and manage the impact.
- A press release referring to a London Assembly motion calling on the Mayor of London to do more to protect London’s skyline.
On behalf of the Applicants, Harry Lewis and Julian Carter addressed the committee expressing the following points in support of the application:
- Current building did not make best use of the site.
- Highlighted the merits of the scheme given the more generous levels of open space (in comparison to the Quay House application).
- Highlighted the plans to provide the pedestrian bridge, to improve the permeability of the site, the proposed community facilities facilitated by the s106 agreement.
- That the scheme would deliver new housing and affordable housing. Many with separate kitchens - all on one site.
- Extent of the consultation compromising a number of public exhibitions that were well attended.
- The scope of the s106 to mitigate the impact on infrastructure.
- Removal of car parking spaces to reduce the impact from the site on traffic and the highway.
In response to Members, the speakers clarified the levels of on site play space that would be provided and how the developer would ensure that this was of high quality. There would also be home working spaces that could be used by older children. Whilst consideration had been to providing a new school on site, it was found that there was not enough capacity to provide a school in the development. The applicant would take steps to prevent anti social behaviour by for example working with the site management company. The viability of the scheme (to provide 25% affordable housing) had been robustly tested. Both English Heritage and the Greater London Authority had no concerns that the scheme would harm the setting of the surrounding heritage assets including the world heritage site at Greenwich. The developer felt that they had complied with the Council’s policies in respect of height.
Officers drew attention to the criteria in policy that this scheme should be assessed against in terms of the height amongst other matters. It was necessary to take in account the formal Stage One views of the GLA on the application as set out in the Committee report.
Nasser Farooq (Planning Officer) gave a comprehensive presentation on the application and the update explaining: the site and surrounds, the key differences between this and the previous scheme in terms of the density and the nature of the site amongst other issues.
He also explained the site designation, the policy support for the scheme, the ground floor plans, the height and design, the scope and outcome of the consultation, the housing proposal, the measures to minimise the impact on amenity, the amenity and open space, the security measures, the child play space and the child yield calculation (that took into account both the LBTH and GLA yields). Whilst there was a shortfall in child play space, it was considered that given the level of open space in the scheme and the contributions, this was acceptable. It was also noted that further play space could be accommodated within the building.
English Heritage and the GLA were of the view that the scheme should not adversely impact on nearby heritage assets. The issues raised by the GLA regarding energy efficiency had now been addressed as set out in the update.
Attention was also drawn to the transport assessment as set out in the committee report and the update report which mentioned that the methodology used by the objector excluded activity from the existing office use. The methodology used within the transport assessment was accepted by the Council’s Highway Officer and Transport for London (TfL). The Committee were advised of the expected coming and going from the scheme at peak times on the DLR. Whilst there would be some impact, contributions had been secured in line with policy for transport. Overall the impact was considered to be acceptable. Contribution had also been secured to help provide a second bridge across South Quay that was welcomed by Officers and strongly supported by the GLA and TfL.
Members asked a number of questions that were answered by Officers. It was confirmed that the percentage of affordable housing would be 25% as set out in the committee report. It had been estimated that the scheme would generate 227 children based on the GLA yield and 200 children based on LBTH yield.
It was considered that the density of the scheme was acceptable given the lack of adverse impact. Officers clarified the density per hectare with and without the office building as set out in the Committee report.
In response to further questions, Officers clarified the level of open space and the set back of the buildings.
In relation to the impact on schools, the Council’s Education department recognised the need for school places and had a programme of new school buildings. It was recognised that the Isle of Dogs was a priority area and there was particular pressure on school places in that area. Furthermore, Officers were actively encouraging developers to deliver new schools as part of major developments coming forward. In response, Members stressed the need for new school places to accommodate new developments and asked if there was a minimum distance in policy from school to home. Officers sought to confirm this whilst members of the audience confirmed that the guidance provided that primary schools should be within walking distance.
The cumulative impact of approved schemes was a material consideration and this had been taken into account. Less weight should be given to proposed schemes. It was necessary to consider the application on its planning merits in line with adopted policy.
It was considered that the scheme would successfully mediate between Canary Wharf and the existing/ proposed buildings to the south of Marsh Wall. Attention was drawn to the specific features to ensure this.
In response to further questions, officers clarified the proposals in respect of private amenity space communal areas and advised that the local employment would be secured through the s106 agreement.
Officers also responded to Members questions at to whether a decision could be delayed given the emerging South Quay masterplan, advising that it would not be appropriate here where there are development plans in place and there was no question of there being a policy vacuum. Officers confirmed that the SPD is currently aspirational and the weight to be given to it will increase as it moves through the process.
On a vote of 4 in favour, 2 against and 3 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission PA/14/00944 at South Quay Plaza, 183-189 Marsh Wall, London, be GRANTED for the demolition of all existing buildings and structures on the site (except for the building known as South Quay Plaza 3) and erection of two residential-led mixed use buildings of up to 68 storeys and up to 36 storeys comprising up to 888 residential (Class C3) units in total, retail (Class A1-A4) space and crèche (Class D1) space together with basement, ancillary residential facilities, access, servicing, car parking, cycle storage, plant, open space and landscaping, plus alterations to the retained office building (South Quay Plaza 3) to provide retail (Class A1-A4) space at ground floor level, an altered ramp to basement level and a building of up to 6 storeys to the north of South Quay Plaza 3 to provide retail (Class A1-A4) space and office (Class B1) space 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 if, within three months of the date of this committee meeting the legal agreement have not been completed, the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal has delegated authority to refuse planning permission.
6. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to recommend the conditions and informatives in relation to the matters set out in the Committee report.
Supporting documents: