Agenda item
34-40 White Church Lane and 29-31 Commercial Road, London, E1 (PA/15/02527)
- Meeting of Moved from 31 March 2016, Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 10th March, 2016 7.00 p.m. (Item 6.3)
- View the background to item 6.3
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings at 34-40 White Church Lane and 29-31 Commercial Road and erection of a ground floor plus 18 upper storey building (75.5m AOD metre) with basement to provide 155sqm (NIA) of flexible use commercial space (B1/A1/A3 Use Class) at ground floor and 42 residential units (C3 Use Class) above with basement, new public realm, cycle parking and all associated works.
Recommendation:
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, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings at 34-40 White Church Lane and 29-31 Commercial Road and erection of a ground floor plus 18 upper storey building with basement to provide flexible use commercial space, 42 residential units with basement, new public realm, cycle parking and associated works. He reminded Members that a model of the development had been brought to the meeting by the developers for the Committee to view.
Gareth Gwynne (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the application, drawing attention to the site, situated near the Aldgate Place tall building cluster and the Whitechapel High Street Conservation Area. The Committee noted images of the changing skyline of the area.
The plans would create 42 residential units, with the affordable housing situated on the first three floors above ground floor and the private housing on the upper floors. The housing mix comprised 26 % affordable housing at Borough Framework rent levels inclusive of service charges. Consultation had been carried out and the issues raised were set out and addressed in the Committee report and outlined at the meeting.
In summary, it was considered that the land use complied with policy and that the siting of a tall building on this site complied with the Council’s Core Strategy. Whilst the plans would have a minor adverse impact on the local heritage assets, overall it was considered that the impact on the setting of the area would be broadly neutral and that it would improve the setting of St George’s brewery warehouse building. In terms of the density, whilst the density exceeded the London Plan guidance, the scheme provided good levels of amenity and showed no signs of overdevelopment. In terms of the play space, the plans meet the minimum policy requirements for under 12 play space given the expected child yield. Whilst Officers did have misgivings about the quantum and quality of child play space proposed given the cumulative pressures on the local parks from other developments, Officers did not consider that this would be a serious issue given the relatively low child yield for the scheme. The impact on neighbouring amenity would be acceptable and contributions had been secured as set out in the Committee report.
Officers were recommending that the application was granted pemission.
In response, Member questioned the merits of locating a tall tower in this location that served as a ‘buffer zone’ to the Conservation Area and comprised listed buildings and lower rise buildings (similar to those in Brick Lane). It was felt that the tower would be out of keeping with the area. As a result it would spoil the setting of the area, making the existing buildings appear ‘boxed in’ and would impinge on the valuable ‘buffer’ zone. Members also questioned the close relationship between the proposal and 27 Commercial Road.
In responding, Officers noted the pattern of the development in the area. The scheme had been designed to fit in with the area, tailing off at the east. It was a matter of judgement whether this level of transition would protect the setting of the area and the informal buffer zone, which was not recognised in policy. Officers were mindful of the close relationship with the two buildings and the close proximity between the development and 27 Commercial Road Given that there would be no north facing single aspect units in the development, Officers considered that this relationship would be acceptable.
Members also expressed concern about the design of the ground floor entrances. In particularly, the plans to locate the entrances for the affordable housing at the rear and that for the private units at the front of the development. Members were opposed to segregating the development in this way. They also asked about the improvements secured for the affordable entrances. In responding, it was explained that both entrances would be of a high quality design and that the arrangements would help ensure that the service charges were more affordable. The scheme had been amended to improve the design of the affordable housing entrance to give it a more open quality. The approach of separating the entrances in this way was a common feature of many developments given the issues highlighted above.
Questions were also asked about the child play space. It was questioned whether the expected child yield was realistic given the number of affordable family sized units in the development and whether steps had been taken to address the issues.
In responding, Officers were mindful of the concerns about the quality and the quantum of child play space. However given the issues mentioned in the presentation (regarding the policy compliant under 12 play space and the low child yield), officers considered that a refusal on this grounds would be unreasonable.
Members also asked questions about the shortfall in affordable housing and whether, given the density of the scheme, more could have been afforded. In response, Officers confirmed that the viability of the scheme had been independently tested. The conclusion reached was the scheme delivered the most it could afford. They also drew attention to the clarifications in the update report concerning the affordable housing and confirmed that the density of the scheme in relation to policy.
In response to questions about the adequacy of the servicing route, it was explained that the servicing would take place on the Assam Street, as per the existing arrangements and given that it was a fairly wide highway, Officers were satisfied with these arrangements. It was noted that the scheme would be car free (subject to the application of the Council’s parking permit transfer scheme for family housing) with contributions for on street disabled parking bays if needed.
In relation to the impact on infrastructure, it was noted that the proposed development would be liable for a Tower Hamlets and London Mayor’s CIL contribution and the details were set out in the report.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a unanimous vote, it was RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at 34-40 White Church Lane and 29-31 Commercial Road, London, E1 for the demolition of existing buildings at 34-40 White Church Lane and 29-31 Commercial Road and erection of a ground floor plus 18 upper storey building (75.5m AOD metre) with basement to provide 155sqm (NIA) of flexible use commercial space (B1/A1/A3 Use Class) at ground floor and 42 residential units (C3 Use Class) above with basement, new public realm, cycle parking and all associated works. (PA/15/02527)
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over:
· Insufficient provision of affordable housing.
· High residential density in excess of London Plan.
· Height of the building.
· The servicing arrangements.
· The child play space and communal amenity space.
· The design of the ground floor entrances.
· Impact on infrastructure from the scheme
· That the scheme would be out of keeping with the character of area and would change the character of the area.
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 setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Supporting documents: