Agenda item
219-221 Bow Road and 27-31 Payne Road, Bow, E3 2SJ (PA/14/03660)
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of four blocks of four, five and six storeys to provide 89 dwellings together with ancillary parking and landscaping.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement and the conditions in the Committee report
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item recommended for permission for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of four blocks to provide 89 dwellings together with ancillary parking and landscaping.
Tania Hall (Fairfield Conservation Area Residents Association) spoke in objection. Whilst not opposed to the provision of housing on the site, she considered that, due to its height and scale, that the proposal would harm the setting of the surrounding area that was predominately low rise in nature. She explained that due to its position near the park boundary, the scheme would ‘loom large’ over the Grove Hall Park and Memorial Gardens, resulting in a loss of privacy and overlooking of the park. She also expressed concern about the width of the servicing bay on highway safety grounds.
In response to questions, she considered that, despite the amendments, the plans were much too intrusive, providing an unsympathetic setting for the designated heritage assets. She also clarified her concerns about overlooking to the memorial park and the loss of trees in that park. In response to further questions, she expressed concern about the impact on the highway arising in particularly from the servicing bay given the existing levels of congestion in that area, the impact from the cycle superhighway upgrade, the car free agreement and the increased demand for buses.
Ewout Vandeweghe (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the application, highlighting the Applicant’s successful track record with delivering similar schemes including the adjacent development also owed by the applicant. He outlined the benefits of delivering these two schemes together. He also explained that the Council’s Officers were supportive of the scheme, that the scheme would deliver high quality housing including a policy compliant amount of affordable housing and accessible units. The plans had been amended to address the concerns and these measures were explained. He also explained the highway safety measures.
In response to questions from Members, he clarified the measures to address the objectors concerns, (which included reducing the height of the scheme, setting the taller element back from the park, the restoration of building lines to preserve and enhance the setting of the listed buildings and surrounding area). He further clarified the housing mix and the energy efficiency measures as set out in the s106 agreement.
Jane Jin (Deputy Team Leader, Development and Renewal) presented the scheme and the update explaining the site location, the outcome of the consultation summarising the representations received as detailed in the Committee report.
The Committee were advised of the key features of the scheme including the proposed demolition of the existing buildings and reasons why this could be supported; the new residential development including 35% affordable housing (increased following consultation) and wheelchair accessible units in line with policy. The standard of accommodation fully complied with policy both in terms of the internal and external amenity space.
In terms of amenity, whilst there would be some loss of light to neighbouring properties, there were mitigating circumstances to account for this and the failings were mainly minor in nature. In addition, whilst a number of the separation distances fell below policy, there were measures to prevent overlooking.
As explained by the speaker, the scheme had been amended since submission in light of concerns to reduce the build near the Grove Hall Park and Memorial Gardens and to reduce the height to preserve the setting of the area. Images of the area, showing the impact of the scheme were shown. Overall, it was considered that the plans and would preserve and enhance the setting of the Conservation Area and designated heritage assets.
She also explained the servicing plans and proposed joint arrangements with the neighbouring scheme (at Nos 213 -217 Bow Road) in respect of this matter (as set out in the additional condition in the update report). Also explained were the car free agreement, the s106 agreement including an obligation requiring funding for replacement trees if necessary.
In summary, given the merits of the scheme, the planning application should be granted planning permission.
In response to questions, Officers explained in further detail the proposals to link the common services areas with the neighbouring development, subject to a separate application (ref PA/15/00594). Should this application be granted, then a condition would be imposed to ensure that this scheme could not go ahead without such arrangements in place. The merits of this joint approach in terms of highway safety were noted. Regardless of these plans, the application still needed to be considered on its planning merits.
Officers also answered questions about the sunlight/daylight impact in respect of the small number of properties expected to suffer a material loss of light, due to reliance on the application site for light. They also clarified the separation distances, the design measures to prevent overlooking, the changes to the height and design of the scheme following consultation with the LBTH Conservation Officer.
In terms of transport, the site had a good public transport accessibility level (PTAL). Whilst there were a discrepancy in the Council’s PTAL rating (5) and the Applicant’s rating (6a) (as this was based on TfL records), this made no real difference in terms of the assessment given that both ratings still fell within with the PTAL range advocated in the London Plan for sites of this size. (The Plan advocated a PTAL range of 4-6 for developments with up to 700 habitable rooms per hectare). Although it was noted that the scheme at 748 per hectare was a little over the recommended density for this PTAL band, it was felt this could be supported in view of the lack of adverse impacts.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 2 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission at 219-221 Bow Road and 27-31 Payne Road, Bow, E3 2SJ be GRANTED for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of four blocks of four, five and six storeys to provide 89 dwellings together with ancillary parking and landscaping (reference PA/14/03660) subject to:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the obligations set out in the committee report.
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within delegated authority.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the committee report and the additional condition set out in the update report regarding joint servicing arrangements with Nos 213-217 Bow Road.
5. That, if within 3 months of the date of this committee the legal agreement referred to above has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Councillor Rajib Ahmed did not vote of this item having nor been present for the full consideration of the item.
Supporting documents: