Agenda item
Land at 160-166 Chrisp Street (PA/15/00039)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 27th August, 2015 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.1)
- View the background to item 6.1
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings on the site and redevelopment to provide new buildings ranging from three to thirteen storeys comprising 272 residential units, including affordable housing, together with associated car parking, landscaping and infrastructure works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations and conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Shay Bugler (Development Management - Case Officer) presented a report that outlined the proposal for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and redevelopment to provide new buildings ranging from three to thirteen storeys comprising 272 residential units, including affordable housing, together with associated car parking, landscaping and infrastructure works.
The Committee heard that:
· The Local Planning Authority has considered the particular circumstances of this application against the development plan including the Council's approved planning policies contained in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets adopted Core Strategy 2010, Managing Development Document 2013, the London Plan 2011(as amended and consolidated March 2015) and national guidance (National Planning Policy Framework) (NPPF) and local guidance along with all other material considerations and has found that the loss of vacant existing industrial buildings onsite was considered by officers to be acceptable onsite given that the surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and the site is located outside a Local Industrial Location. The proposed residential development on this site is considered acceptable as it would contribute towards the borough’s housing delivery target. The new homes would be built to a high design standard, with good internal space and external private amenity space and child play space;
· The residential scheme would address local need by providing a high proportion of family housing comprising a mix of three and four bedroom homes. There are 55 social rent units proposed. The 4 houses proposed form a terrace (i.e. two are semi-detached and two are terrace dwellings);
· The report explained that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of layout, height, scale, bulk, design and appearance, and would deliver good quality affordable homes in a sustainable location;
· The proposal would not give rise to any unduly detrimental impacts to existing and future residents in terms of privacy, overlooking, outlook and sense of enclosure, or daylight and sunlight. Subject to appropriate conditions, noise nuisance and other amenity impacts would also be mitigated so as not to cause unduly detrimental impacts to future residents;
· Whilst the transport matters including parking, access and servicing area are acceptable, the transport contributions through planning charges have yet to be agreed;
· The application is recommended for approval subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement which would secure 35% affordable housing by habitable rooms and a contribution towards employment during the construction phase and end use phase skills and training, and a Community Infrastructure Levy payment.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Carole O’ Keefe local resident spoke in opposition to the application. She objected that the scheme did not properly consider the issue of mixed social housing; the implications for the existing residents of the noise and dust in the adjacent streets caused by the construction of the development and the loss of light for habitable rooms of neighbouring properties once completed.
Ben Thomas then spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant and stated that the development was designed so as to minimise the impact for the neighbours in terms of privacy and loss of daylight. The Committee heard that 30 residents had indicated that they supported the scheme. Also the scheme was designed so that bedrooms would not be overlooked by living rooms; there would also be a good quality communal area with 500 sq. metres of well-designed play space; a £50,000 contribution based on an agreed methodology would be made by the developer to the provision of local amenities; £525,973.00 had been secured from the Community Infrastructure Levy for improvements to the local Education/Health Infrastructure; the proposal had also been developed in accordance with the principals of “Secured by Design”; the private amenity space has been set in accordance with policy at 5 sq. metre for 1-2 person dwellings with an extra 1 sq. metre for each additional occupant. However, the combined policy requirement for communal and child play space should be 1321 sq. metres and the development has only 1204 sq. metres on site although the play space would be of a high quality. In addition, Langdon Park is easily accessible from the site being less than 5 minutes walking distance.
In response to further questioning the Committee heard that:
· Guidance relating to daylight and sunlight is contained in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) handbook ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’. Whilst the primary method of assessment is through calculating the vertical sky component (VSC). It was noted that this is a measure of daylight at the centre of a window and the BRE guidelines permit a reduction of up to 20% on the existing situation. BRE guidance also specifies the method for calculating sunlight levels. It states that if ‘direct daylight is reduced to less than 0.8 times its former value the effects will be noticeable to its occupants; and the “No Sky Line (NSL) is a measurement of the proportion of the room which receives direct sky light through the window i.e. it measures daylight distribution within a room.
· Of the windows that had been tested only two would actually experience any reduction in VSC of more than 20% from existing and these will experience a 30% reduction. Those two windows would experience only a minimal change in number of windows that would experience reductions in NSL and would be left with adequate levels of VSC in any event. The impacts would therefore be negligible.
· There are also a number of windows that would experience reductions in NSL of 30% or 40% from existing. However, these particular rooms, which are located below balconies, meet the VSC standard and all of the rooms would be left with sky visibility to more than 50% of the room area 1-11 Rifle Street.
· 49 of the 74 windows assessed do not meet the BRE standard with 33 experiencing reductions of up to 30% from existing and 8 experiencing reductions of more than 30%, with the worst affected window experiencing a reduction of 70% from existing. It is however relevant that the windows most affected are constrained by being recessed or set beneath balconies. It is also relevant that most of the affected windows also meet the NSL standard and, in many cases experience little, if any, effective reduction in NSL.
In summary in view of the merits of the scheme Officers remained of the view that the scheme should be granted planning permission subject to the recommendations set out in the report:
In response to further questions Members indicated that whilst in principal they supported the development of the site but they had concerns regarding the following:
(i) Height bulk mass;
(ii) Impact on amenity of neighbouring properties;
(iii) The lack of a study on the impact upon the social infrastructure;
(iv) The density; and
(v) Shortfall of play space.
With regards point (iii) the Committee felt that it should have received more details on the developments impact upon the neighbourhood’s social infrastructure (i.e. ability of the local schools and doctor’s surgery’s to absorb the additional numbers of people it was envisage would be living in these new properties). The Committee took the view that without this information a decision could not be taken.
Planning Permission (PA/15/00039)
On a vote of 1 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission 4 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly on vote of 4 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention it was RESOLVED that the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED in respect of Land at 160-166 Chrisp Street
Members were minded to refuse the scheme in view of concerns over the height; bulk and mass, suitability of the neighbourhood’s social infrastructures; impact on amenity of neighbouring properties, density and the lack of play space.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED so as 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: