Agenda item
Westferry Printworks, 235 Westferry Road, E14 8NX (Tower Hamlets Ref: PA/15/02216, GLA Ref. D&P/3663)
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings and structures and the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment including buildings ranging from 4 - 30 storeys in height (tallest 110 m. AOD) comprising: a secondary school (Class D1), 722 residential units (Class C3), retail use (Class A1), flexible restaurant and cafe and drinking establishment uses (Classes A3/A4), flexible office and financial and professional services uses (Classes B1/A2), Community uses (Class D1), car and cycle basement parking, associated landscaping, new public realm and enabling work.
The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment and represents EIA development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. Both the Council and the Mayor of London as local planning authority must take the environmental information into consideration in formulating their decision.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolves to inform the Mayor of London that were it empowered to determine the application for planning permission the Council would have REFUSED permission for the reasons in the Committee report:
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Owen Whalley (Service Head, Planning and Building Control) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings and structures and the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment including buildings ranging from 4 - 30 storeys in height (tallest 110 m. AOD) comprising: a secondary school (Class D1), 722 residential units (Class C3), retail use (Class A1), flexible restaurant and cafe and drinking establishment uses (Classes A3/A4), flexible office and financial and professional services uses (Classes B1/A2), Community uses (Class D1), car and cycle basement parking, associated landscaping, new public realm and enabling work.
It was reported that by letter dated 4th February 2016, the Mayor of London directed the Council that he would act as the local planning authority for the purposes of determining the planning application. The Council was consequently unable to determine the application. The Mayor of London intended to hold a Representation Hearing on 27th April 2016 when the application would be determined. Officers were recommending that the Council informs the Mayor that objection was raised to a grant of planning permission given the concern around the impact on the use of the dock for water sports and the level of affordable housing given the results of the viability assessments.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Dr Mike Barraclough (Chair, East London Marine Venture) Leila Moore, (a sailor at the Docklands Sailing and Waters Sports Centre), Councillor Dave Chesterton (Ward Councillor and a Trustee of the Centre) and Councillor Andrew Wood (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. Whilst noting the merits of the scheme, they stated that the application would adversely affect the wind sailing conditions around the dock, due to the proposed building heights and their proximity to the water’s edge as set out in expert reports. This would particularly affect sailing conditions around the north west corner of the outer dock. This in turn would seriously jeopardise the club’s attractiveness to sailors and potential sailors putting the clubs future at risk. Whilst it was noted that the application would deliver new social infrastructure, this should not be delivered at the expense of existing sporting facilities. Accordingly, the scheme should be redesigned in conjunction with wind engineers to maintain present wind conditions to enable this highly regarded sailing club to continue to operate.
The speakers also commented on the popularity of the club, its unique features and potential, its charity status, the opportunities that it provided to young people and the shortage of sporting facilities in the area.
Concern was also expressed about a lack of affordable housing within the scheme and the credibility of the viability assessment saying that only 11% affordable housing could be afforded and also about the proposed school
In response to questions, the speakers clarified their concerns over the wind impact from the scheme, explaining it would make sailing conditions unpredictable causing crafts to capsize. To lessen the impact, it would be necessary to move the buildings back further from the waters edge in consultation with micro climate specialists. Alternative plans that achieved this should be considered. They also answered questions about the popularity of the club, the shortage of local sports facilities in the area and the findings of the wind engineers reports
It was noted that the applicant had been invited to address the Committee but had declined to.
Richard Humphreys (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report and the update report. He firstly drew attention to the proposal to delete reason 3 in the main report given the concerns about the affordability of the 3 bed intermediate units, and the recommendation to delete conditions 1-3 as full details of the school had been submitted so these were superfluous. It was also recommended that an additional condition be included regarding the submission of a waste and recycling strategy.
He explained and showed images of the site and surrounding area and the site design principles in the Council’s Managing Development Framework. The scheme would meet a number of these aims.
He drew attention to the key features of the application including the proposed building heights and the proposed new facilities, showing images of the surrounding area with and without the scheme. Objections had been received and these were summarised. Whilst objections had been received by Thames Water about pressure on water infrastructure from the plans, this could be addressed.
Whilst the scheme had a number of positive features, it was considered that on balance that the negative aspects of the scheme outweighed these benefits. Therefore it was recommended that the Committee inform the Mayor of London it should be refused for the two suggested reasons.
Members asked questions of clarification about the proposed changes to the recommendations. It was confirmed that the provisions of larger affordable units was generally not supported by LBTH Housing from an affordability perspective. This decision had been party informed by the discussions at Committee last year on the 3 Millharbour scheme. The GLA had also raised concerns about the affordability of such properties. Members also asked about the impact on the Docklands Sailing Centre and the findings of the experts’ assessment of this as mentioned by the speakers. It was explained that the Council had not been provided with the report by the Building Research Establishment but the speaker had indicated that the BRE advised that it was likely that the impact on sailing conditions had been underestimated. In response to questions about the viability assessment, it was reported that, according to the independent BNP Paribas report, the scheme could afford 36% affordable housing as opposed to 11% as set out in the applicant viability report. Officers had earlier today received a further report submitted on behalf of the applicant challenging the results of the BNP Paribas report. However given the absence of the expected GLA viability appraisal and the lack of time to assess this latest review, Officer saw no reason to alter the reason for refusal regarding the quantum of affordable housing.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Committee resolves to inform the Mayor of London that were it empowered to determine the application for planning permission the Council would have REFUSED permission for the following reasons:
Reasons for refusal
Site design principles and microclimate
1. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed development would not place the important Docklands Sailing and Watersports Centre in jeopardy due to adverse effect on wind climate in the northwest corner of Millwall Outer Dock with resultant conditions unsuitable for young and novice sailors. This would conflict with London Plan Policy 7.27 ‘Blue Ribbon Network: Supporting infrastructure and recreational use’ and Policy 7.30 ‘London’s canals and other rivers and waterspaces,’ Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP04 ‘Creating a green and blue grid,’ Tower Hamlets Managing Development Document Policy DM12 ‘Water spaces’ and Policy DM26 ‘Building heights.
Affordable housing
2. WestferryPrintworks is a crucial element within Tower Hamlets supply of land for both market and affordable housing. The affordable housing offer of 11% within the proposed development would fail to meet the minimum requirement of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan, is not financially justified and would fail to provide an adequate amount of affordable housing to meet targets. The development is consequently not consistent with the NPPF, London Plan Policy 3.8 ‘Housing choice,’ Policy 3.11 ‘Affordable housing targets,’ Policy 3.12 ‘Negotiating Affordable Housing on Individual Private Residential and Mixed Use Sites’ or Tower Hamlets Core Strategy Policy SP02 ‘Urban living for everyone.’
3. Planning obligations - Heads of Agreement
The Council requests that the Mayor of London refuses planning permission for the above reasons. Should the Mayor decide to grant permission, it is recommended without prejudice that this should be subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement with the developer to secure the planning obligations in the Committee report
4. Conditions and Informatives
To adopt the indicative conditions and informatives at Appendix 1 of the Committee report for recommendation to the Mayor should he decide to grant planning permission save for the deletion of conditions 1-3 and the inclusion of an additional condition and informative regarding the submission of a Waste and Recycling Strategy for the operation of waste as set out in the update report.
.
Supporting documents:
- Westferry Printworks PA 15 2216 - Final, item 7.1 PDF 6 MB
- Update Report from meeting, item 7.1 PDF 514 KB