Agenda item
50 Marsh Wall, 63-69 And 68-70 Manilla Street London, E14 9TP (PA/15/02671)
Proposal:
Application for demolition of all buildings on site at 50 Marsh Wall, 63-69 and 68-70 Manilla Street to enable redevelopment to provide three buildings of 65 (217.5m AOD), 20 (79.63m AOD) and 34 (124.15m AOD) storeys above ground comprising 634 residential units (Class C3), 231 hotel rooms (Class C1), provision of ancillary amenity space, a new health centre (Class D1), a new school (Class D1), ground floor retail uses (Class A3), provision of a new landscaped piazza, public open space and vehicular access, car parking, cycle storage and plant. Retention of 74 Manilla Street as North Pole public house (Class A4).
Recommendation:
That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, planning permission is REFUSED for the reasons set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the demolition of all buildings on site at 50 Marsh Wall, 63-69 and 68-70 Manilla Street to enable redevelopment to provide a mixed used development.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Dave Chesterton spoke in objection to the application expressing concern about the height of the scheme, contrary the aspiration in policy to lower heights moving away from Canary Wharf. He also expressed concern about the quality of the affordable units and the child play space given the expected child yield from the scheme and the dual use arrangements with the school in terms of the play ground. This may restrict access at certain times to the play space. The scheme also would result in a loss of daylight and sunlight to the surrounding properties and due to these issues, bore signs of overdevelopment and would be a ‘bad neighbour’
John Connolly (Applicant’s agent) and Councillor Andrew Wood, ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application. The scheme would deliver a much needed new medical centre, a school, affordable units, local jobs, a new public square, whilst retaining the North Pole public house. The applicants had listened carefully to the views of local people and the plans were very much informed by what they wanted and what was needed in the community. It was a tribute to the good consultation that no objections were received.
In response to questions, it was noted that the developer had engaged with the Barkentine Clinic (that was oversubscribed) and visited their residents forum about the plans to expand their services. They had also liaised with the NHS Clinical Commissioning Group who felt that, due to the layout and the configuration of the proposed health space, it would be unsuitable for their services. The applicant had also worked hard with the LBTH Education staff and all the issues regarding the use of play space had now by and large been resolved. A local college had also expressed an interest in the new school site.
They also answered questions about the heritage assessment, the local consultation including consultation with the residents of Bellamy Close and the measures to preserve the occupants amenity. The height and density of the scheme was very much influenced by the need to generate enough profit for the social infrastructure.
Jermaine Thomas (Planning Services, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report, describing the site location and surrounds. A similar scheme was previously submitted to the Committee but withdrawn two days before the meeting. The application was then amended following consultation with Officers and the revised proposal was before Members. He explained the key features of the scheme including the housing mix and the social infrastructure and the outcome of the consultation. In terms of the assessment, the proposed land use was considered acceptable. Officers also considered that the housing mix was broadly acceptable in the context of policy. The child play space exceeded the policy requirements, however was reliant on the space within the school but this was acceptable.
Nevertheless, whilst mindful of the benefits of the scheme, Officers considered that it demonstrated negative impacts in terms of the quality of the public realm and the community space, excessive height and density, the impact on the surrounding area and the development potential of neighbouring sites and waste management issues. As a result, the application demonstrated signs of overdevelopment so Officers were recommending that it was refused for the reasons set out in the Committee report and the update report.
In response to the Committee, it was explained that the Council’s Education Department recognised the need for additional school places in the Borough and had a programme of new school buildings. It was also explained that there were a number of new schemes coming forward that would provide additional school places. In relation to the height, the South Quay Master Plan recommended that this particular area should comprise more mid – rise buildings. Should the Committee be minded to approve the application, a condition could be agreed with the school and imposed for dealing with dual use of the play area.
Officers also answered questions about the impact on neighbouring amenity, that, whilst not ideal, they did not believe was severe enough to form a reason for refusal. They also clarified the arrangements for providing the new school (the shell and core) with LBTH Children’s Services. In relation to the new school, it was confirmed that the costs of which, if approved, would be offset against the CIL payment.
As stated in the update report, there were proposals in place to expand the clinical capacity in the Borough in the short term and the NHS were engaging with the Council about the new Local Plan to ensure suitable sites for such services were safeguarded in the South Quay area in view of the number of new development coming forward .
In summary, the Chair felt that there was a lot of merit in this scheme. But there was too much being crowded on this site. He also noted the efforts to understand the infrastructure needs, but felt that these should have been prioritised according to what could reasonable be delivered on site. He considered that possible other scheme could contribute to the provisions of the additional social infrastructure in the area.
On a vote of 6 in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That subject to any direction by the London Mayor planning permission be REFUSED at 50 Marsh Wall, 63-69 And 68-70 Manilla Street London, E14 9TP (PA/15/02671) for demolition of all buildings on site at 50 Marsh Wall, 63-69 and 68-70 Manilla Street to enable redevelopment to provide three buildings of 65 (217.5m AOD), 20 (79.63m AOD) and 34 (124.15m AOD) storeys above ground comprising 634 residential units (Class C3), 231 hotel rooms (Class C1), provision of ancillary amenity space, a new health centre (Class D1), a new school (Class D1), ground floor retail uses (Class A3), provision of a new landscaped piazza, public open space and vehicular access, car parking, cycle storage and plant. Retention of 74 Manilla Street as North Pole public house (Class A4) for the following reasons as set out in the Committee report and the update report:
2. The proposed development exhibits clear and demonstrable signs of overdevelopment which include but not limited to:
· a limited and compromised public realm which would not provide a high-quality setting commensurate with buildings of such significant height and density;
· its impact to the setting of the Maritime Greenwich World Heritage Site and the Grand Axis
· an insensitive relationship of the western building with the surrounding properties of Byng Street and Bellamy Close which as a result would provide little visual relief, be overbearing and fail to provide a human scale of development at street level;
· a failure to interface with the surrounding land uses, which as a result would prejudice future development of neighbouring sites and fail to contribute positively to making places better for people;
· a failure to provide sufficient private amenity space, sense of ownership within the cores, an appropriate welcoming quantum of communal amenity space, and a significant number of sunlight and daylight failures would not provide high quality residential accommodation;
· a failure to implement the waste management hierarchy of reduce, reuse and recycle;
As a result the proposed development would not be sensitive to the context of its surroundings or successfully bridge the difference in scale between Canary Wharf and surrounding residential area.
The above demonstrable negative local impacts cannot be addressed through the appropriate use of planning conditions or obligations and as a consequence substantially outweigh the desirability of establishing a new school.
Accordingly, the proposal would fail to provide a sustainable form of development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and is contrary to the Development Plan, in particular policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.16, 3.18, 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.7, 7.8, 7.10 and 7.11 of the London Plan (2015), policies SP02, SP03, SP05, SP07, SP08, SP09, SP10 and SP12 of the Tower Hamlets’ Core Strategy (2010) and policies DM4, DM10, DM14, DM18, DM20, DM22, DM23, DM24, DM25 and DM26 and Site Allocation 17 of the Tower Hamlets’ Managing Development Document that taken as a whole, have an overarching objective of achieving place-making of the highest quality, ensuring that tall buildings are of outstanding design quality and optimise rather than maximise the housing output of the development site.
3. In the absence of a legal agreement to secure Affordable Housing and financial and non-financial contributions including for Employment, Skills, Training and Enterprise, Sustainable Transport, Highways and Energy, the development fails to maximise the delivery of affordable housing and fails to mitigate its impact on local services, amenities and infrastructure. This would be contrary to the requirements of Policies SP02 and SP13 of the LBTH Core Strategy, Policy DM3 of the LBTH Managing Development Document and Policies 3.11, 3.12 and 8.2 of the London Plan and the Draft Planning Obligations SPD 2015.
4 Schedule 4 (Part 1 (3 and 4) and Part 2 (3)) of the EIA Regulations states, that the ES must describe and assess the proposed developments likely significant effects on the environment, which should cover cumulative effects. Schedule 4 (Part 1 (5) and Part 2 (2)) of the EIA Regulations also require a description of the measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and where possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment.
The ES does not include a cumulative wind assessment incorporating the Cuba Street planning application (PA/15/2528) - no information has been provided on the likely significant effects, nor what mitigation measures are envisaged. The ES therefore does not meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations.
Without this additional information the ES is not considered to be complete and therefore the only option available to the Council is to refuse the application.
This is in accordance with Regulation 3(4) of the EIA Regulations which states that a local authority cannot grant permission for a project covered by the EIA Regulations unless it takes ‘environmental information’ into consideration. Environmental information is defined in Regulation 2(1) and includes the ES. This is defined as a statement including information required by Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations.
Supporting documents: