Agenda item
100 Whitechapel Road and land rear at Fieldgate Street (PA/13/3049)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 29th January, 2015 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.1)
- View the background to item 6.1
Proposal:
Demolition of existing vehicle workshop and car showroom; erection of a residential development comprising a total of 185 dwellings (comprising 10 studios; 65 x 1 bed; 71 x 2 bed; 27 x 3 bed; 12 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, office and restaurant spaces (Class A1, A2 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:
To REFUSE the application for the reasons set out in the Committee Report.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Officers reported that the application had been moved from the deferred items part of the agenda (Part 5) to the Planning Applications for Decision section (Part 6) due to the substantial changes made to the application since last considered by the Committee in July 2014. The application would be considered in its entirety afresh. The application had been subject to consultation (as per the standard process) and the public and applicant had been notified of their right to speak at this meeting.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application and the update and the Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Mohamed Zabadne and Councillor Shahed Ali spoke in support of the scheme highlighting the following points:
· The strength of local support for the scheme including a petition with thousands of signatures.
· The merits of the scheme including: new affordable units with family sized housing, a new access route, wheelchair accessible housing and disabled parking spaces in accordance with requirements, local investment, many new jobs, the creation of an active frontage at ground floor given the new commercial units and the extension of the Mosque that could only be provided at that point due to the site constraints.
· That the Greater London Authority (GLA) were happy with the changes to the scheme to reduce the impacts which included: the creation of the access link, setting back the buildings to improve permeability, the introduction of commercial units at ground floor level, increasing the number of family sized accommodation, a reduction in single aspect units and improving the internal layout of the buildings.
· Only three reasons for refusal remained as set out in the Officers report. Turning to these, it was commented that the height and design of the scheme would be sympathetic to the area. The height had previously been reduced. The GLA were satisfied with the height. Comments about this were subjective. The density of this scheme was within the accepted parameters in policy unlike many other consented schemes.
· Other developments, notable the City Pride development approved by this Committee, were taller than this scheme, had a higher density, included off site affordable housing and had a greater impact on sunlight and daylight. So the scheme compared favourably with this and it was surprising that Officers were still recommending refusal.
· Welcomed the s106 agreement and the level of affordable housing which despite the changes, the developer had worked hard to maintain to their credit.
In response to Members questions about the GLA’s response, it was considered that the applicant had complied with their requests. The scheme had been substantially amended to mitigate the concerns. Councillor Shahed Ali reported that he had discussed the application with local residents and they welcomed the scheme. He had not received any objections personally about the scheme from the local community and in total, very few people had objected. None of the immediate neighbours had objected.
Officers clarified that they had no objection to the density of the scheme in principle rather the impact of the scheme on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, design and amenity as set out in the Committee report. Officers also explained the reasons why the Application had been submitted to the Committee on three occasions.
Shay Bugler (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report and the update. He explained the site location the good public transport rating for the site and the outcome of the local consultation. He also explained the key elements of the scheme and the changes relating to the design and heritage matters, the housing mix, the impact on residential amenity and the quality of the accommodation that appeared to address the GLA’s concerns
Nevertheless, whilst recognising the improvements, Officers felt that the changes failed to address the key concerns about the scheme (in terms of poor quality design and harm to the surrounding area, impact on neighbouring amenity and poor quality accommodation). Therefore, the Officers recommendation remained to refuse the application.
In response to the presentation, Members queried the concerns around the height, the impacts on Myrdle Street Conservation Area and the density of the scheme. Officers clarified that part of the proposed development to west of the site fronting Vive Courts falls within a Conservation Area.
Members also queried the concerns about the quality of accommodation and the impact on amenity given the site constraints and that the scheme would deliver new homes in the Borough. It was also noted that the GLA were supportive of the changes and there was widespread support for the scheme.
Given the supportive comments and perceived merits of the scheme, Members of the Committee were minded to look favourable on the scheme.
Officers responded to Members as summarised below:
· It was considered that the scheme was unacceptable due to a combination of factors - the height, given that the site was not within a tall building location identified in the local plan, together with the design, quality of accommodation, the materials and the impact on the Conservation Area that was mainly made up of high quality lower rise buildings. In assessing the acceptability of the height, it was necessary to bear in mind such wider factors.
· The scheme would deliver an inferior quality of accommodation given the sunlight daylight failings, poor outlook and loss of privacy given the substandard separation distances and high number of single aspect units. Some units would have to rely on artificial light. Examples of this were given.
· The scheme would harm surrounding amenity.
· The daylight and sunlight assessments (for this and previous committee reports) were carried out by the same independent consultant that concluded that there would be a substantial loss of sunlight and daylight to neighbouring properties.
· Part of the site fell in the Conservation Area.
· Given the site constraints and other issues, this application was very different from the City Pride development. Each application should be considered on its merits.
· Should Members be minded to approve the scheme, it would need to be referred back to the GLA for consideration.
· That the s106 and conditions suggested in the update report had been agreed with the applicant.
On a vote of 2 in favour and 6 against the Committee resolved not to accept the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission.
Given the supportive comments, Councillors Khales Uddin Ahmed then moved a motion seconded by Councillor Muhammad Ansar Mustaquim that the application be granted subject to the legal agreement and conditions set out in the update report.
On a vote of 6 in favour 0 against and 2 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
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 185 dwellings (comprising 10 studios; 65 x 1 bed; 71 x 2 bed; 27 x 3 bed; 12 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, office and restaurant spaces (Class A1, A2 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 the Section 106 Agreement and conditions set out in the update report.
Supporting documents:
-
Fieldgate Street (Jan SDC report)(final) 1, item 6.1
PDF 3 MB
-
Fieldgate Street- committee report (final rev 2) agenda, 21/07/2014 Strategic Development Committee, item 6.1
PDF 1 MB
-
Update Report, item 6.1
PDF 106 KB