Agenda item
Hertsmere House, 2 Hertsmere Road, London (PA/15/02675, PA/15/02748)
Proposal:
Planning Permission.
Demolition of remaining buildings and structures and erection of a 67 storey building (240.545m AOD) with two basement levels, comprising 861 residential units (Use Class C3), 942sqm (GIA) flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class A1-A3 and D2), ancillary circulation space and plant, as well as associated infrastructure, public realm and parking. Accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement.
Listed building consent
Temporary dismantling of Grade II "Former West Entrance gate to West India Docks with Curved Walling" and re-instalment in conjunction with redevelopment proposals.
Recommendations:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives
That the Committee resolve to GRANT listed building consent subject to conditions.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the demolition of remaining buildings and structures and erection of a 67 storey building comprising predominately a residential scheme.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Jocelyne Van Den Bossche and Ian Ritchie (local residents), and Councillor Andrew Wood spoke in objection to the application. They drew attention to the main differences between this application and the consented scheme. They then expressed concerns about the following issues in relation to the application:
· The impact on highway safety from unauthorised parking from the scheme. Should the application be approved, it would require the strict enforcement of the parking regulations to prevent this.
· Overshadowing from the development of the area.
· Undue pressure on local infrastructure given the number of other new developments in the area and the lack of a plan for the delivery of this.
· Height of the buildings in relation to the area.
· That the scheme would be a ‘standalone monster’ given the lack of tall building cluster in the area.
· Adverse impact on the nearby heritage assets.
· Suitability of the development for family sized accommodation, in particular, for older children given the distance to the nearest parks
· That the aviation light would be a health hazard
· Disturbance from the plant in terms of noise.
· Interference with TV reception.
In response to Members, the speakers clarified their concerns about parking pressure from the scheme, the pressure on local infrastructure, the design, height and massing of the scheme that was unsympathetic to the area. The speakers also clarified their concerns about the lack of any proper plans for allocating the contributions and overshadowing from the scheme.
Setareh Neshati and Julian Carter (Applicant’s agents) spoke in support of the application drawing attention to Historic England’s comments who felt the scheme was an improvement on the previous application and did not object to the current application. The development was of a similar scale to the previous scheme. However this new application (in contrast with the previous scheme) was predominately a residential scheme. They explained the qualities of the scheme generally (i.e. in terms of the affordable housing, public realm improvements, new jobs and financial contributions). There had been extensive public consultation including engagement with Registered Social Landlords regarding the affordable housing and the statutory bodies. The Greater London Authority considered that the proposal complied with the London Plan’s tall building policy. The scheme had been amended to reduce the impact on amenity. Overall, it was a high quality scheme that bore no symptoms of overdevelopment.
In responding to questions about the comments of the Conservation and Design Panel, the speakers explained that the existing permission was for a tall building at the site. So although it would be a stand alone building, the principle of a tall building at the site had already been established. Care had been taken to ensure the scheme reflected the surrounding area and the relevant experts considered that the scheme would have a good relationship with the existing Canary Wharf tall buildings cluster. The speakers also considered that there would be less traffic on site due to the reduction in parking spaces and that there would be an overall reduction in trips on the underground during peak hours compared to the now demolished office building. They also referred to the parking management plans. All of the issues had been carefully assessed in the transport assessment. Transport for London hadn’t raised any objections.
They also answered questions about the construction management plan and the number of new jobs that would be created. They also explained that the scheme would be tenure blind in terms of the quality of the private and affordable units, including good quality entrances and lobbies with access to the amenity space. Other matters discussed were the management of the child play space, especially the arrangements for the private hire of the space by residents (free of charge) and the affordability of the service charges.
Piotr Lanoszka, (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a comprehensive presentation on the application describing the site location, the surrounding area in relation to heritage assets, the extant office led scheme and the outcome of the consultation and the issues raised.
The proposed land use was acceptable given the site’s designation and the need for housing in the Borough. The housing mix comprised 30% affordable housing by habitable room (12% on site affordable properties at Borough Framework Rents with additional off-site provision at Dalgleish Street through a payment in lieu).
The Committee also noted the servicing and delivery arrangements, the landscaping improvements, the waste storage plans , the quantity and quality of the amenity space, the heritage assessment, the impact on neighbouring amenity (minor and broadly similar to the consented scheme) and the conditions to mitigate the impact on the micro climate.
Planning Contributions had been secured as well as a Community Infrastructure Levy contribution (CIL) and New Homes Bonus money.
There would also be a Play Space Management Strategy to amongst other things, ensure that play space was available free of charge to residents.
The Committee also noted details of the listed building application. Historic England and the Borough Conservation Officer had not raised objections to this application subject to the conditions.
In response to questions, it was reported that despite the differences some weight should be given to the consented scheme. The scheme satisfied the objectives in policy in that it would deliver the maximum level of affordable housing that the application could afford. Whilst the policy included guidance on off site affordable housing, it did not cover ‘hybrid’ affordable housing schemes where substantial on-site component was included. However, given the above, it was considered that the affordable housing offer was acceptable and complied with policy.
Steps had been taken to minimise the impact of the building for example through breaking up the massing. Given this and the similarities with the previous scheme, Officers considered that the scheme would comfortably sit within the landscape
Careful consideration had been given to the impact on infrastructure including the transport network. Colleagues within the Council had estimated the contribution and a full CIL payment had been secured.
A travel assessment had been submitted that took into account the impact of parking on the wider area including Garford Street. Responsibility for preventing unauthorised parking in nearby streets rested with the Parking Enforcement Team. Therefore any incidences of which may be controlled by that regime. It was anticipated that many of the occupants would travel by CrossRail when opened in December 2018 and, as explained by the speakers, it was likely that the scheme would generate fewer trips on the underground compared to the old office use.
Officers also answered questions about the density assessment in the report and the reasons why, in this case, the density of scheme was considered acceptable in view of the qualities of the scheme highlighted above.
Officers also responded to questions about the impact on the micro climate on the surrounding area including the beer gardens subject to robust testing. The testing showed that, with the mitigation, the impact would be minor with acceptable conditions achieved.
Reassurances were also provided about the daylight and sunlight assessment.
In summary, the Chair expressed concerns about the application. He felt that in some ways, it was worse than the scheme approved by the Mayor of London given the wider foot plate and it was a bulkier building. However, he also felt that the application would make a significant contribution to the community in Tower Hamlets and it would be a significant enhancement on what was approved by the Mayor of London. So with a heavy heart, he felt obliged to vote in favour of the application.
On a vote of 5 in favour and 3 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission be GRANTED at Hertsmere House, 2 Hertsmere Road, London for the demolition of remaining buildings and structures and erection of a 67 storey building (240.545m AOD) with two basement levels, comprising 861 residential units (Use Class C3), 942sqm (GIA) flexible commercial floorspace (Use Class A1-A3 and D2), ancillary circulation space and plant, as well as associated infrastructure, public realm and parking. Accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement. (PA/15/02675) subject to:
2. Any direction by the London Mayor.
3. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations in the Committee report and the update report
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within delegated authority. If within three months of the resolution the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
5. 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 update report
6. Any other condition(s) and/or informatives as considered necessary by the Corporate Director for Development & Renewal.
On a vote 5 in favour and 3 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
7. That Listed Building Consent be GRANTED at Hertsmere House, 2 Hertsmere Road, London for Temporary dismantling of Grade II "Former West Entrance gate to West India Docks with Curved Walling" and re-instalment in conjunction with redevelopment proposals (PA/15/02748) subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.
8. Any other condition(s) and/or informatives as considered necessary by the Corporate Director for Development & Renewal.
Supporting documents: