Agenda item
Land bounded by Elder Street, Folgate Street, Blossom Street, Norton Folgate, Shoreditch High Street and Commercial Street, E1 (PA/14/03548& PA/14/03618)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Tuesday, 21st July, 2015 7.00 p.m. (Item 8.1)
- View the background to item 8.1
Application for planning permission (PA/14/03548)
Redevelopment of the former Nicholls and Clarke urban block and adjoining former depot site, Loom Court, and land and buildings north of Fleur de Lis Passage and Fleur de Lis Street, including retention and refurbishment of buildings, for commercially led mixed-use purposes comprising buildings of between 4 and 13 storeys to provide B1 (Office), A1 (Retail), A3 (Restaurants and cafés), A4 (Public house) and 40 residential units; together with new public open spaces and landscaping, new pedestrian accesses, works to the public highway and public realm, the provision of off-street parking, and ancillary and enabling works, plant and equipment.
The application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement, Addendum and other environmental information. The Council shall not grant planning permission unless they have taken the environmental information into consideration.
Application for listed building consent (PA/14/03618)
Works to the public highway (Fleur de Lis Street) including repair and replacement, where necessary, of the carriageway and pavement, installation of cycle parking, hard landscaping and all necessary ancillary and enabling works, plant and equipment.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations and the conditions and informatives set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update Report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application and the update report
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Oliver Leigh-wood (Spitalfields Trust) and Alex Foreshaw spoke in objection to the scheme. They objected to the impact of the scheme on the Conservation Area given the proposed demolition of valued buildings, the height, scale and bulk of the replacement buildings out of keeping with the area and the uncertainty around reuse of materials. The impact of the scheme, especially the s1 plot would be far worse than the consented 2011 scheme, contrary to the Historic England report that underestimated the impact of the proposal and the damage to buildings. They also expressed concern at the affordability of the business units, displacement of businesses due to this and the lack of affordable residential properties.
The scheme had attracted over 500 objections many of which came from outside the Borough showing that the area was world known. There were only seven representations in support. Furthermore, the proposals only involved part of the site so it was likely that if approved the applicant would propose further development.
The current building could be easily converted and refurbished, given the standard of the buildings, with lower rentals due to the reduced costs of refurbishment with a lot less harm to buildings. The Trust had a successful track record with preserving historic buildings and the character of the areas and improving plans. However, the Applicant in this case had failed to consult.
In response to questions, it was noted that the national groups (such as Historic England) were generally supportive of the scheme whereas the local groups placed more emphasis on the importance of the buildings possibly due to greater local awareness and knowledge. Whilst they might lack original features, the buildings identified for demolition were generally in a good condition. In response to further questions, they expressed concern at the plans for the 1927 warehouse, recognised as a building of some merit in the Council’s Conservation Area policy. They also clarified their concerns about the scale of the development representing excessive development in a Conservation Area, low rise in nature.
Mike Wiseman and Ben Davies spoke in support of the scheme for the applicant. The plans would bring back into use a disused site, whilst recognising and preserving the historic buildings and the special character of the area. The measures to ensure this were explained including the delivery of high quality replacement buildings. The historic groups were supportive of the proposal such as CABE, Historic England and the LBTH Conservation experts.
Turning to other issues, the scheme would deliver much needed commercial space for start-up businesses and grow on units, lacking in the tech city area and would generate many new jobs.
In response to questions, the speakers explained in further detail their employment and training strategy with particular focus on creating opportunities for local residents.
They also answered questions about their business retention strategy with particular focus on the start - up business. There was a good chance that business would naturally want to stay in the development given the environment. They also answered questions about the scale of the development, the consequences of reducing the height of the scheme in terms of viability, the restoration strategy including the plans for the reuse of the materials. The warehouse facades would be retained and the listed buildings refurbished. As stated by the heritage experts, the buildings to be demolished were of little worth.
Beth Eite, (Deputy Team Leader, Development and Renewal) gave a detailed presentation on the application explaining the application site within the City Fringe Opportunity Area and the Tech - City Cluster. She also explained the extant 2011 scheme and the outcome of the consultation and the main issues raised.
She explained the plans for each plot (s1a,b,c s2 and s3 ) including the height and scale of the proposed buildings, the nature of the demolition work, the restoration and retention strategy and the design measures to protect valuable buildings and the provision of SME units. Overall, it was considered that whilst there would be some heritage impacts, that they were less than substantial, and the public benefits of the scheme (including the creation of many new jobs and the reactivation of the area) outweighed these. Therefore, Officers were satisfied with the scheme on heritage grounds.
Turning to housing, it was considered that the housing offer was acceptable, in terms of overall supply and quantum of affordable housing: given the heritage constraints, the quality of the units, the amount of family sized affordable units amongst other issues. The impact on amenity was also acceptable
Ms Eite also explained: the car parking plans, the servicing and refuse plans and the highway issues, the s106 contributions and the CIL contribution.
Overall given the benefits of the scheme, Officers were recommending that the planning permission and the listed building consent be granted permission.
In response Members asked questions about:
· The Historic England appraisal. It was questioned whether the scheme complied with the principles set out in this statement given the height and scale of some of the new buildings
· The need for better visuals of the proposals including views of inside the warehouse, the height, scale and massing of the proposal compared to the extant scheme.
· Concerns about the lack of affordable housing in the scheme. It was questioned whether more could have been done to increase the offer
· Nature of the objections
· Loss of light to neighbouring properties.
· Servicing and waste management plans.
· Impact on infrastructure and the dental surgery.
· Car parking for the scheme
In response, Officers referred to the extant 2011 scheme covering part of the application site. It was explained that this was a material planning consideration only where there were common characteristics between the two schemes. Therefore, it should be given some weight where relevant. Most of the objections related to the heritage impacts rather than personal amenity impacts. It was also explained that the Council had a statutory duty to consult neighbouring Boroughs however it was only necessary for the Council to assess the plans in accordance with their own Conservation Area policy not theirs. No comments had been received from neighbouring Boroughs. Right to light issues were not a planning consideration.
An Environmental Statement had been submitted and reviewed by an independent expert who was present to explain the findings. He reported that whilst there were a number of failings in relation to the BRE guidance, most were minor in nature and a minor contributor to the cumulative impact on light from surrounding properties.
The meeting also heard from the Director of Historic England. He explained that the plans were in line with their Conservation Area Appraisal and also national policy. Of the buildings to be demolished, the majority had either a neutral or negative impact on the setting of the Conservation Area. The proposal would only affect part of the Elder Street Conservation Area i.e – two thirds of part of the Conservation Area not two thirds of the whole Conservation Area.
The scheme should have little impact on community infrastructure given the nature of the scheme.
In response to further questions, Officers clarified the car parking proposals, within the maximum standard in policy, the servicing and waste management plans and the status of the local heritage group in terms of the consultation. They also answered questions about the transport assessment, the need for grow on business space in the area to facilitate small business growth and the loss of the private dental clinic given the availability of NHS dental surgeries in the vicinity of the site.
Planning Permission (PA/14/03548)
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission 4 against and 4 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission
Accordingly, Councillor John Pierce proposed and Councillor Danny Hassell seconded a motion that the recommendation to grant planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on vote of 4 in favour, 0 against and 4 abstentions, it was RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at Land bounded by Elder Street, Folgate Street, Blossom Street, Norton Folgate, Shoreditch High Street and Commercial Street, E1 for
· Redevelopment of the former Nicholls and Clarke urban block and adjoining former depot site, Loom Court, and land and buildings north of Fleur de Lis Passage and Fleur de Lis Street, including retention and refurbishment of buildings, for commercially led mixed-use purposes comprising buildings of between 4 and 13 storeys to provide B1 (Office), A1 (Retail), A3 (Restaurants and cafés), A4 (Public house) and 40 residential units; together with new public open spaces and landscaping, new pedestrian accesses, works to the public highway and public realm, the provision of off-street parking, and ancillary and enabling works, plant and equipment.
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over:
· Insufficient provision of housing within the scheme and the proportion of affordable housing is too low
· Impact of the scale and massing of the proposal on the setting of the Elder Street Conservation Area both in terms of the overall scheme and the S1 plot.
Listed Building Consent (PA/14/03618)
On a vote of 1 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant listed building consent 6 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant consent
Accordingly, on vote of 6 in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions, it was RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant listed building consent be NOT ACCEPTED at Land bounded by Elder Street, Folgate Street, Blossom Street, Norton Folgate, Shoreditch High Street and Commercial Street, E1 for
Works to the public highway (Fleur de Lis Street) including repair and replacement, where necessary, of the carriageway and pavement, installation of cycle parking, hard landscaping and all necessary ancillary and enabling works, plant and equipment.
The Committee were minded to refuse the listed building consent due to concerns over the impact of the scheme on the setting of the Elder Street Conservation Area.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Councillor Andrew Cregan did not vote on the listed building consent as he was not present during the vote on this part of the scheme.
Supporting documents: