Agenda item
Land at corner of Broomfield Street and Upper North Street known as "Phoenix Works", London, E14 6BX (PA/16/01090)
Proposal:
The erection of buildings that range from 3 to 12 storeys in height comprising of 143 residential units including 28 car parking spaces and a central landscaped courtyard.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by the London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, conditions and informative
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the erection of buildings that range from 3 to 12 storeys in height comprising of 143 residential units including 28 car parking spaces and a central landscaped courtyard.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee. Catherine O'Mahony (Aqua Vista Development) Andy Ager (Silver Wharf Development) spoke in opposition to the development.
They considered that the concerns raised in relation to the previous scheme around impact on the neighbouring properties still applied and had not been addressed. The application would obstruct sunlight and daylight to neighbouring properties given that many of the properties were single aspect. There would also be a loss of privacy, the development would obscure local views (given the height of the scheme), displayed symptoms of overdevelopment due to the density and would have an adverse impact on the amenity value of the canal. They also expressed concern that the height of the scheme was out of keeping with the surrounding building heights and views of Canary Wharf would be obscured . There was no justification for a deviation in policy in this regard. A low rise, low density development would be more in keeping with the area and would comply with policy. They also objected to the lack of consultation with neighbours.
In response to Members questions, they clarified their concerns about the consultation exercise, the height of the scheme and its appearance, the sunlight and daylight impacts, overshadowing from the scheme, the density of the scheme and overdevelopment of the area given the existing issues in this regard.
The applicant’s agent Mike Walker, spoke in favour of the scheme, highlighting the scope of the applicants consultation exercise that involved amongst other measures door step canvassing. There had been significant improvements to the application since previously submitted to the Committee with regards to the height, massing, density, sunlight/daylight impacts, removal of balconies nearest the tow path to ensure that the application would be more in keeping with the area to protect amenity and preserve the setting of the tow path. He also highlighted the benefits of the application including the provision of 35% affordable housing. Should this application be approved, the previously refused application would be withdrawn. The applicant then answered questions from Members about the changes to the scheme, the scope of the local consultation, that primarily focused on the immediate neighbours most effected by the plans, the measures to improve the scheme’s relationship with the tow path and protect privacy including the introduction of landscaping. The Canal and River Trust had no objection to the application and the developers provided a litter picking service covering the canal side and this was very effective.
Nasser Farooq (Planning Services, Development and Renewal) gave a detailed presentation of the plans explaining the site location showing images of key views including the canal side. He described the planning history and the key changes to the scheme (compared to the previous scheme) in regard to the height, massing, number of units, reduction in balconies and the sunlight and daylight impacts on Werner Court and Craig Tower. Overall the changes to the scheme had resulted in a reduction in the number of properties experiencing adverse daylight and sunlight impacts. The daylighting to these properties would remain at a good level. It was also explained that despite the changes to the proposal, the proposed number of affordable remained unchanged – 35% by habitable room.
Officers considered that the proposed changes to the scheme overcame the previous reasons for refusing the November 2015 application therefore Officers recommended that the development should be granted permission
The Committee asked questions relating to the location of the affordable housing in the development, the quality of the accommodation and the location of the entrances to these properties. They also asked about the location of the proposed balconies, the concerns about loss of light, lack of consultation, the previous application and the outstanding appeal.
In response Officers drew attention to the location of the affordable housing and the access arrangements within the development. It was explained that the units were of a high quality design and would have views across the nearby park comparable in quality to the private units that would have views across the canal. For viability reasons, it was considered necessary to locate the private units in the more profitable areas of the development to provide enough profit to support the affordable housing.
As explained in the presentation, the plans had been amended to reduce the number of balconies and move them away from the tow path. Any development on this site would have some impact on the amenity of the neighbouring ground floor units. However, the reduction in the height and massing should minimise the impacts.
It was also explained that in considering the sunlight/daylighting issues, it was important to take into account the nature of the site and surrounds and the mitigating factors (such as the generous separations, the fact that the properties were south facing), rather than merely the statistics. Given these factors, Officers were of the view that the units would continue to receive acceptable levels of light.
In terms of the LBTH consultation, it was explained that the correct process had been followed. However, Officers were happy to look into any concerns about this.
Officer also responded to the questions about the outstanding appeal in respect of the previously refused scheme, explaining the date of its submission and that it was scheduled to be heard in December 2016.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 4 against with the Chair using a casting vote in favour of the application, the Committee RESOLVED
1. That the planning permission be GRANTED at Land at corner of Broomfield Street and Upper North Street known as "Phoenix Works", London, E14 6BX for erection of buildings that range from 3 to 12 storeys in height comprising of 143 residential units including 28 car parking spaces and a central landscaped courtyard (PA/16/01090) subject to:
2.Any direction by the London Mayor and the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations in the Committee report.
3.In addition to the above, the development would be liable for approximately £276,255 to the Mayor of London’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and £276,255 for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets CIL.
4.That the Director of Development & Renewal is delegated authority to negotiate and complete the Section 106 legal agreement referred to above.
5.That the Director of Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informative on the planning permission to secure the planning obligations in the Committee report
6.Any other planning condition(s) considered necessary by the Strategic Development Committee and/or Corporate Director Development & Renewal.
Supporting documents: