Agenda item
Land at corner of Broomfield Street and Upper North Street known as "Phoenix Works", London, E14 6BX (PA/15/00641)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 8th October, 2015 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.2)
- View the background to item 6.2
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings that range in height from 3 to 14 storeys containing 153 units including 28 undercroft and surface car parking spaces and a central landscaped courtyard.
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:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and erection of buildings ranging in height containing for a mixed use development.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Catherine O'Mahony (Aqua Vista Development) Andy Ager (Silver Wharf Development) spoke in opposition to the scheme. Whilst supporting the development of the site to address anti social behaviour (asb) they objected to the scheme on the following grounds:
· Height and density of the scheme in relation to the surrounding area.
· That the scheme conflicted with the Council’s polices that stated that developments in this area should be low rise and low density unless there were good reasons why they shouldn’t be. This had not been demonstrated.
· Loss of light to neighbouring properties. Many of the neighbouring properties were single aspect properties and would lose a lot of light.
· Loss of privacy due to the position of the windows and balconies that faced neighbouring properties.
· Increased sense of enclosure.
· Lack of consultation by the developers, specifically with the units located behind the site. A site visit should be arranged to see how it was possible to exclude these households from the consultation and the assessment.
· Loss of views to Canary Wharf and Bartlett Park.
· A low rise scheme would address the concerns, protect the setting of area and comply with planning policy.
In response to Members questions, the speakers clarified their concerns about the height of the scheme, the impact from this on the surrounding area and the lack consultation by the developer. They expressed support for a low to medium density scheme at this site with taller developments nearer Chrisp Street as originally promised.
Krystian Groom (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the application. He spoke about the extensive nature of the consultation with residents and Officers. This included individual letters to surrounding residents, door step canvassing, stakeholder and consultation events and engagement with schools and the health services. As a result, the applicant had reduced the height, massing and increased the affordable housing within the scheme. As stated in the report, the scheme makes best use of a brown field site without leading to overdevelopment. This benefits of the scheme were explained.
In response to questions, he explained that consultation was carried out at both pre and post submission stage as detailed in the Statement of Community Involvement document. There was genuine support for the scheme. At this point, Officers reminded Members that the Localism Act 2011 required developers to engage and consult the community. It was up to the Committee to decide how much weight should be put on the developers consultation. However, it was suggested that more weight should be given to the Council’s consultation that could be more easily evidenced.
The speaker went on to report that the developer had worked closely with the health centre to facilitate it’s request for further funding to expand. He also answered questions about the improved access arrangements, the reductions in height, the design that would preserve the setting of the park and the exclusion from the plans of a direct link to the tow path given the concerns that it would create asb.
Robert Lancaster, (Deputy Team Leader, Development and Renewal) gave a detailed report presentation of the application, describing the existing site and surrounds, the layout and the appearance of the scheme. Consultation had been carried out and there were representations in support and objections. The reasons given were noted.
As explained above, the scheme had been amended to reduce the height, number of units and increase the affordable housing. Overall, it was considered that it was a well designed scheme that would complement the surrounding area and the setting of the Conservation Area.
He also explained the level of affordable housing, the rent levels, the level of amenity space open to all residents of the scheme. The quality of accommodation complied with policy. The scheme passed the BRE guide for daylight. Whilst some of the neighbours that faced onto site would experience a loss of light, they would still receive good levels of light. Furthermore, due to the separation distances and orientation of windows, there would be little impact on privacy.
He also explained the car parking and cycle parking plans, the Highways improvements, the Community Infrastructure Levy and S106 agreement.
Given the merits of the scheme, Officers were recommending that it be granted planning permission.
In response, Members asked questions about:
· The density of the scheme given the Public Transport rating of 2 and its position at the edge of the town centre in the Council’s Core Strategy suggesting that schemes in this area should be lower in density.
· Height in relation to surrounding buildings and the recently approved schemes in the area.
· Impact on sunlight and daylight to neighbouring properties in view of the failings listed in the Committee report.
· Impact on Bartlett Park and the contributions for this.
· Impact on local services.
· The housing mix
· Car parking from the scheme and the impact this would have on the highway.
· The measures to maintain the canal and tow path environment.
· Number of wheelchair assessable units and the location of these units.
In response, it was reported that there were conditions to mitigate the issues raised by the Canal and Rivers Trust. Most of their suggested conditions would be implemented save for the request that the applicant repair the water way wall. There was no evidence that the development would affect it. 10% of the residential units would be wheelchair accessible in compliance with policy and be spread round the development facilitated by the lifts in the blocks.
In terms of the housing mix, it was considered that the intermediate units, were genuinely affordable given the location, noting the lack of one bed units and emphasis on 2-3 bed units in this tenure.
Whilst the density clearly exceeded that envisaged in the London Plan, and the Core Strategy, the Greater London Authority and Officers were supportive of the plans given the lack of negative impacts and the benefits of the scheme. The density matrix in the London Plan was only guidance. The key test was whether the plans would cause any real harm to the area. As explained above, it was it was difficult to see that it would.
It was emphasised that the impact on sunlight and daylight to surrounding properties was acceptable. Despite the slight loss, the vast majority of the properties complied with the tests in policy and would continue to receive good levels of light. In many cases, the slight losses were due to the fact that the properties currently benefited from excellent light levels. The outcome of the testing was explaining including the impact on Craig Tower due to the position of the balconies above.
Whilst the plans would have some impact on the local GP Practice, the predicted GP to patient ratio, with the addition of the scheme, was still well within the maximum ratio recommended.
Officers also answered questions about the increase in the affordable housing and the management of Council owned parks. They also referred to other schemes coming forward that included contributions for Bartlett Park.
Officers also clarified the waste collection, cycling and car parking plans.
In conclusion, Members noted the issues around the scale of the scheme and impact on the area. In order to understand these issues more, Councillor Marc Francis proposed seconded by Councillor Shahed Ali that the application be deferred for a site visit.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the planning application be DEFERRED for a SITE VISIT to enable Members to better understand the impact of the scheme on the area.
Councillor Gulam Robbani was not present for the consideration of this item.
Supporting documents: