Agenda item
Site 1 Land at 3 Millharbour and Site 2 Land at 6, 7 and 8 South Quay Square, South Quay Square, London (PA/14/03195)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Tuesday, 21st July, 2015 7.00 p.m. (Item 7.1)
- View the background to item 7.1
Proposal:
The demolition and redevelopment with four buildings: Building G1, a podium with two towers of 10 - 38 storeys and of 12 - 44 storeys; Building G2, a four floor podium with two towers of 34 and 38 storeys inclusive of podium; Building G3, a tower rising to 44 storeys; and Building G4, a four floor podium with a tower of 31 storeys inclusive of podium.
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:
Councillor Danny Hassell (Chair)
Update Report Tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item reminding Members that the application was initially considered at the 4th June 2015 meeting of the Committee where it was resolved that it should be deferred for a site visit (held on 13th July) and to address four issues as set out in the Committee report.
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader, Development and Renewal) presented the report, addressing the four areas in further detail. He reminded Members of the site location, the existing site use and the proximity to the major developments nearby. He also described the key features and the layout of the proposal showing visual images of the various plans. In terms of the child play space, it was confirmed that the level proposed exceeded policy requirements by 564sqm and was of good quality, including a destination playground. Most of which would be located at ground floor level. There were also generous levels of community space including new parks.
In terms of the affordable housing, it was confirmed that the proposed rent levels complied with the Greater London Authority (GLA) affordably criteria at the upper levels
It was also confirmed that the servicing route was of sufficient width to allow two vehicles to pass (as shown by the highway assessment). Furthermore, whilst not a planning matter, that there had been meetings between Lanterns and the developer over the re-provision of the Lanterns facilities in the development. Whilst they continued to meet, no agreement had yet been reached. The latest position on this matter was set out in the update report.
In summary in view of the merits of the scheme and the above advice, Officers remained of the view that the scheme should be granted planning permission.
In response, Members expressed concern at the affordability of the three bed intermediate units given their removal from the 2 Millharbour scheme due to lack of affordability. Members doubted that they were genuinely affordable and questioned the evidence showing that they were.
Concern was also expressed at the overall level of the affordable housing (taking into account the proposed contributions, the new school and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) relief). In view of these concerns, Members questioned the viability assessment and asked that it be explained in further detail, especially the factors taken into account and the scope for capturing further profit from the scheme should the market conditions improve. For example in the form of an overage clause.
Members also asked if a condition could be added to safeguard the D1 community use in the scheme, the discussions with Lanterns, the density of the scheme per hector given the Public Transport Accessibility Level rating (PTAL) and the level of mitigation for this.
Questions were also asked about the quality of the new school, the standards applied, the number of car parking spaces available for the family sized units. It was asked whether a condition could be added to secure a proportion of car parking spaces for these units.
In response to these questions, Officers referred to the proposed rent levels for the intermediate family units and the market value of these properties based on information provided on the nearby Indescon development. Members were reassured that the units were genuinely affordable taking into account this research (along with the increase in property prices since the 2 Millharbour decision and the recent changes in to the GLA criteria). Any attempts to push down the rent levels further could require a change in policy.
It would be possible to impose a condition requiring that any proposals to change the use of the D1 community facility be brought back to the Committee. However a criteria for this would need to be worked out to ensure that the condition was reasonable. Whilst the Council could secure that the D1 community space be used for such purposes, it could not as a Planning Authority, require that it be allocated to a specific end user.
The viability of the scheme had been robustly scrutinised by Officers and independent consultants. The factors taken into account here were explained (such as building costs, the land value based on current use of the site, profit margins, financial contributions, the new school and the level of affordable housing). The assessment showed that the optimum level of affordable housing, that could reasonable be requested, had been secured. In addition, there was an obligation in the legal agreement requiring that a viability appraisal be carried out, providing an opportunity to capture further contributions from the scheme should profit margins increase in the future. Whilst the scheme would be delivered in phases, no formal phasing plan had been submitted. An ‘overage clause’ could only be applied to phased schemes.
Consideration could be given to dedicating parking spaces for the family sized units under delegated authority. A car parking management plan would need to be submitted for this.
In response to further questions, Officers explained the costs of delivering the new school, the merits of the phased approach to delivering the facility, allowing the Council more control over the finish. The school would be built out in as if it was a Council school. They also explained the level of contributions, the CIL ask, that the levels of open space exceeded policy and would be open to the public and that the scheme mitigated against its own impacts. Therefore, the proposed density could be supported.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission and 5 against, the Committee did not accept the recommendation.
Accordingly, Councillor John Pierce seconded by Councillor Maium Miah proposed that the recommendation to grant permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 5 in favour of this recommendation and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at Site 1 Land at 3 Millharbour and Site 2 Land at 6, 7 and 8 South Quay Square, South Quay Square, London (PA/14/03195) for
· The demolition and redevelopment with four buildings: Building G1, a podium with two towers of 10 - 38 storeys and of 12 - 44 storeys; Building G2, a four floor podium with two towers of 34 and 38 storeys inclusive of podium; Building G3, a tower rising to 44 storeys; and Building G4, a four floor podium with a tower of 31 storeys inclusive of podium. (PA/14/03195)
Members were minded to refuse the scheme in view of concerns over:
· Insufficient provision of affordable housing and the affordability of the family sized intermediate units.
· Lack of supporting infrastructure to accommodate the density of the scheme in particularly the additional car parking and servicing from the development.
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.
Supporting documents:
-
3 Millharbour- Deferred Item Report (PB), item 7.1
PDF 97 KB
-
Millharbour east and west committee report, item 7.1
PDF 3 MB
-
SDC040615updatereport, item 7.1
PDF 4 MB