Agenda item
Hercules Wharf, Castle Wharf and Union Wharf, Orchard Place, London E14 (PA/14/03594, PA/14/03595)
- Meeting of Moved from 31 March 2016, Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 10th March, 2016 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.4)
- View the background to item 6.4
Proposal:
Full Planning Application – PA/14/03594
Demolition of existing buildings at Hercules Wharf, Union Wharf and Castle Wharf and erection of 16 blocks (A-M) ranging in height from three-storeys up to 30 storeys (100m) (plus basement) providing 804 residential units; 1,912sq.m GIA of Retail / Employment Space (Class A1 – A4, B1, D1); Management Offices (Class B1) and 223sq.m GIA of Education Space (Class D1); car parking spaces; bicycle parking spaces; hard and soft landscaping works including to Orchard Dry Dock and the repair and replacement of the river wall.
The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment
Listed Building Consent application - PA/14/03595
Works to listed structures including repairs to 19th century river wall in eastern section of Union Wharf; restoration of the caisson and brick piers, and alteration of the surface of the in filled Orchard Dry Dock in connection with the use of the dry docks as part of public landscaping. Works to curtilage structures including landscaping works around bollards; oil tank repaired and remodelled and section of 19th century wall on to Orchard Place to be demolished with bricks salvaged where possible to be reused in detailed landscape design.
Recommendations:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor and the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement
That the Committee resolve to GRANT listed building consent subject to conditions
Minutes:
Update report tabled
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for thedemolition of existing buildings at Hercules Wharf, Union Wharf and Castle Wharf and erection of 16 blocks providing 804 residential units; Retail / Employment Space , Management Offices, Education Space with associated works
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Eric Reynolds (Trinity Buoy Wharf) addressed the Committee. He stated that he welcomed the development of the site and had taken part in the consultation but had not seen the Committee report until recently. He also welcomed the contributions to enhance public access to the TBW pier but noted that no agreement between the developer and Thames Clipper had been made. Moreover, the Committee report underestimated the extent that the site would be affected by the impacts from the industrial units at TBW and also how the scheme would affect the development potential of that site. Accordingly, he requested that the recently revised plans for the eastern element of the scheme, be reconsidered in view of these issues. In response to questions, he expressed concern that the consultation exercise carried out by the developer was misleading in terms of the plans of the eastern element, and that the scheme would blight the development potential of the units within TBW– i.e. the potential for additional workshops. The information on building heights in the report was inconsistent.
Applicant’s representative spoke in support of the application drawing attention to the benefits of the scheme. Consultation had carried out by the developer and there had been no changes to the plans for the boundary for two years. An Environmental Assessment had been submitted and reviewed taking into account the uses and potential uses of the neighbouring sites and there would be robust measures to mitigate the impact of these site and protect their development potential. Some of the features designed to ensure this were highlighted. The application included measures to link the Thames Clipper service to the site.
In response to Members, he clarified that, in response to the Greater London Authority’s Stage 1 comments, the scheme had been amended and it was felt that their concerns had largely been addressed. He also answered questions about the contribution for the Clipper Service, to provide an additional link to the surrounding area, (in addition to the proposed bridge link). He also responded to questions about the interaction with the Port of London Authority and the extensive nature of the measures to mitigate the impact of the reactivation of the Orchard Wharf Site. As a result of which, the PLA only objected on minor points. He also discussed with the Committee the costs of getting the development land up to standard following it’s long industrial use that has had a bearing on the amount of affordable housing that could be afforded as set out in the viability report.
He also answered questions about the plans for the historic dry dock and for commemorating it’s history, the measures for ensuring that the service charges for the affordable units were affordable for the occupants and the measures to mitigate the impact from the Trinity Buoy Wharf site.
Jermaine Thomas (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a comprehensive presentation on the application explaining the site location and surrounds, characterised by a mix of mainly light industrial and storage warehouses bounded by river. He also explained the proximity of the site to the neighbouring Orchard Wharf and the Trinity Buoy Wharf site
The Committee were advised of the recent applicant for Orchard Wharf for a concrete batching plant and associated works refused and dismissed at appeal.
Turning to the proposal, the Committee noted the proposed layout of the scheme including the nature of the development blocks, the design, massing and height, the plans to reactivate the dry dock and the elements of the application requiring listed building consent. They also noted a summary of the consultation results.
The scheme had been carefully designed to preserve the development potential of the Orchard Wharf site and ensure that the reactivation of that site would have no harmful impacts on this development. The measures included: positioning residential units away from the Orchard Wharf site. Whilst the Port of London Authority had raised concerns about conflict between the two sites the Council’s Environmental Health Team considered that the impact in terms of noise would be acceptable. The assessment had been independently reviewed (at the request of the PLA) who also found that the impact would be acceptable subject to the conditions. In relation to the other issues, the scheme showed no signs of overdevelopment, given amongst other matters, the generous breathing space around the development and the scheme would also provide a landmark building for the wider area.
The housing mix included 3-4 bed social rent units (as detailed in the update report). All of the units complied with standards with good quality entrances providing a welcoming environment. The communal space offer exceeded requirements while the child play space met the minimum standards in policy. The site was within walking distance of two Docklands Light Railway Stations and there was to be a new bus stop and, save for the provision of a number of car parking spaces, it would be car free.
Officers were recommending that the planning permission and the listed building consent should be granted permission.
In response to questions about the weight that should be given to the outstanding Orchard Wharf issues, the Committee were advised that, although the appeal by the PLA was dismissed, the principle of the development of the site was accepted. So there was reason to believe that it would come back into use. Therefore, it was important to consider how the two land uses would sit ‘side by side’. It was expected that the hearing would take place in May 2016. It was clarified that it was not the appeal decision itself that was being challenged but the compulsory purchase order.
Regardless of the High Court decision, the development had been designed to mitigate the impact of the site based on the worst case scenario. In addition, Counsel advice had been sought and they were of the view that the wording of condition was sufficient to mitigate the concerns.
In response to question about the affordable housing and the service charges, it was reported that the Council’s Housing Officers would work closely with the developer to ensure that the service charges were affordable. However the setting of the charges would ultimately be determined by factors outside their control. For the benefit of the Committee, the Housing Officer informed Member of the rent levels for the 3-4 bed social housing in the scheme. It was also reported that the scheme had been amended to remove the affordable housing from Block A and that the affordable units would have access to the green space. The proposals contemplated a viability review mechanism for the affordable housing to be secured as part of the S106 agreement. The operation of how it would work in principle was explained.
In relation to the positioning of the older children’s play area and the management issues, it was planned that the play space for older children be located in one place on a podium, given the benefits of this layout (in terms of safety and security amongst other issues). The evidence suggested that young children and teenagers thrived in such environments. It was confirmed that the younger children’s play space would be distributed fairly evenly throughout the site and be easily assessable to all the residential dwellings. The play space would be subject to a management plan.
In response to further questions, Officers confirmed the make up and the location of the commercial uses, the restrictions on their potential uses (including conditions controlling the hours of operation). The Committee also discussed the acceptability of the height of the buildings and the walking routes from East India. It was noted that any improvements of this nature would need to be delivered via the CIL.
In summing up, the Chair questioned the timing of this application given the outstanding issues relating to the Orchard Wharf site. He felt that in view of this it may be premature to make a decision on this application before the High Court had made a decision.
Furthermore, whilst welcoming the inclusion of social housing in the scheme (as set out in the update report) Members sought clarity on the percentage of affordable housing that could be provided if for example all of the affordable units were delivered at affordable rents. Members also requested further information on the operation of the affordable housing review mechanism in the S106 Agreement and Greater London Authority’s latest position on the scheme.
Councillor Marc Francis proposed and Councillor Andrew Cregan seconded a proposal that the planning permission and the listed building consent be deferred (for the reasons set out below) and on a unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:
That the planning application and listed building consent be DEFERRED at Hercules Wharf, Castle Wharf and Union Wharf, Orchard Place, London E14 for information on the following issues:
· The operation of the viability review mechanism.
· The viability of the application with different mixes of affordable housing
The Committee also asked that the Greater London Authority be contacted to confirm whether their concerns about the application had been addressed.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee covering the above issues
Supporting documents: