Agenda item
South Quay Plaza 4, Marsh Wall, London, E14 (PA/15/03073)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 28th July, 2016 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.1)
- View the background to item 5.1
Proposal:
Erection of a 56 storey building comprising of 396 Residential (Class C3) Units, Community Use (Class D1) together with basement, ancillary residential facilities, access servicing, car parking, cycle storage, plant, open space and landscaping and other associated works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
The Chair reported that the Council had received representations from objectors to address the Committee. Given that the application was a deferred item and that the Council’s Constitution did not allow public speaking on deferred items he was not minded to approve this request. The Chair then asked the Committee if they had any objections to this decision and they indicated that they agreed with the Chair on this matter.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) reported that the application was previously considered by the Committee on 12 May 2016 where Members were minded to refuse the scheme for the following reasons:
· Excessive density.
· Impact on infrastructure particularly the transport network, the highway and social infrastructure including education and health facilities.
· Unacceptable level of affordable housing.
· Impact on residential amenity in terms of sunlight and daylight.
Since that meeting, the applicant had modified the application to help overcome the concerns as set out in the Committee report.
Jermaine Thomas (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the revised application reminding Members of the site location plan, nature of the existing site and the site designation in policy. He showed the Committee images of the proposed scale and massing of the proposal in context with surrounding buildings.
As mentioned above, the applicant had proposed changes to the proposals to provide:
· 189sqm community facility (D1 use) provided at ground floor level
· All 49 on site affordable units (1,2,3 and 4 beds) provided at Social Target Rent Level
· Replacement of 27 intermediate units with 27 market sale units
· A £7 million commuted sum to deliver affordable units off site
· S106 clause securing expansion of approved SQP2 Nursery from 678sqm to 891sqm prior to occupation of the development (SQP4)
He explained the implications of the changes drawing attention to the revised housing mix and the updated viability appraisal including the revised cost of delivering the off site intermediate units.
It was also explained that Highway Services had no objection to the scheme and that any impact would be mitigated by the Community Infrastructure Levy. Regarding the density, the Greater London Authority had no concerns about the plans. The proposal exhibited one symptom of overdevelopment relating to the sunlight and daylight impact. However, this was a common problem experienced in building tall buildings in a dense urban area. Overall, Officers felt that given the significant public benefits of the scheme, it cannot be considered that the resultant harm outweighed this. Therefore, Officers considered that the previous issues had been addressed and Officers were recommending that the application be granted permission.
Mr Thomas advised that should the Committee be minded to refuse the scheme there were suggested reasons for refusal set out in the update report.
In response to the presentation, Members asked questions about the proposed community facilities, in particularly whether they could be ring fenced for community activities. They also asked about the density of the scheme, the tests in policy for assessing overdevelopment, the sunlight and daylight impacts, the waste and recycling arrangements, National Grids comments, the number of apprenticeship places and disabled parking bays.
They also asked questions about the affordable housing offer, the negotiations to secure the revised offer and the targets in policy for ‘hybrid schemes’ (comprising on site affordable housing and an off site contribution)
Officers reported that the applicant was in discussions to provide an end user for the D1 use and that the developer had expressed a commitment to provide a genuine community use. It would be best to leave the proposed use as a general D1 use to give the applicant greater opportunities to find a suitable occupant. It was also noted that any change of use to say an office space would require another application.
Regarding the density issues, the scheme passed all but one of the tests in policy as mentioned in the presentation (applicable to schemes that exceeded the London Plan density matrix). Whilst the scheme would result in a loss of daylight and sunlight, any development of this cleared site would have an impact in this regard. It should also be noted that other schemes such as the Alpha Square development, which result in a loss of light, were not refused by Members for sunlight and daylight impacts. The application site was also designated for strategic housing development. In other words a large development. It was also confirmed that the impact on Discovery Dock in terms of the sunlight and daylight impacts remained as per the May 2016 scheme.
Officers have had extensive discussions with the Council’s refuse team with regard to the proposed waste management system. In light of this, there would be a condition requiring that the Council and their waste contractors were satisfied with the proposed in skip compacting system. Details of the recycling measures would be included in waste management strategy.
As highlighted in the presentation, the Council’s viability consultants have reviewed the estimated costs of delivering the off site intermediate units. The findings of the study confirmed that the cost to deliver this housing would be £87,500 per habitable room. Therefore, the proposed commuted £7m would now equate to a reduced affordable housing provision of 25%. Overall, Officers considered that the revised housing proposal would produce the greatest public benefits. The Committee also heard about the percentage of affordable housing that could have been provided if the Council were still only securing £55k per habitable room (as previously advised and adopted by the Council).
On the issue of the affordable housing, it was explained that there were no specific targets in policy for hybrid schemes (involving on site affordable housing and an offsite contributions). The key question to take into account was whether the proposal maximised the affordability housing products and mitigated wider affordability housing issues within the Borough.
In summary, the Chair commented that the impact of the scheme in terms of the sunlight and day light failing had not been addressed. However, he was also mindful of the fact that the scheme only displayed this one failure when assessed against the density and overdevelopment tests. Furthermore, he welcomed the fact that the revised plans would deliver generous levels of social housing. Therefore he considered that it should be granted permission.
On a vote of 3 favour, 2 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED
1. That the planning permission be GRANTED at South Quay Plaza 4, Marsh Wall, London, E14 for the Erection of a 56 storey building comprising of 396 Residential (Class C3) Units, Community Use (Class D1) together with basement, ancillary residential facilities, access servicing, car parking, cycle storage, plant, open space and landscaping and other associated works(PA/15/03073) subject to:
2. Any direction by The London Mayor.
3. The prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the update report (dated 28th July 2016)
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within normal delegated authority.
5. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to recommend the conditions and informatives in relation to the matters set out in the 12 May 2016 Committee report
Supporting documents:
- SQP4 Deferral Report - Final, item 5.1 PDF 176 KB
- South Quay Plaza 4 - Agenda, 12/05/2016 Strategic Development Committee, item 5.1 PDF 6 MB
- Update Report, item 5.1 PDF 406 KB