Agenda item
99 Mansell Street & 31-33 Prescot Street, London E1 (PA/16/00757)
Proposal:
Mixed-use development in a part 6, part 8 and part 11 storeys block with lower ground floor comprising 67 serviced apartments (Use Class C1) on the upper floors and 1,115sqm of office floorspace (Use Class B1) at basement, ground and first floor and a 103 sqm of flexible retail/financial services/restaurant/cafe/drinking establishment floorspace (Use Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5) at ground floor level.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for mixed-use development in a part 6, part 8 and part 11 storeys block with lower ground floor comprising 67 serviced apartments on the upper floors and 1,115sqm of office floorspace at basement, ground and first floor and a 103 sqm of flexible retail/financial services/restaurant/cafe/drinking establishment floorspace at ground floor level.
The Chair then invited the registered speakers to address the meeting.
Dr David O’Neil (Londinian Tower Residents Association) and Dr Maria Salichou spoke in objection the application. The speakers stated that they were speaking on behalf of the residents who have raised concerns about the proposals. They objected to the impact of the proposal on residential amenity in terms of loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight, overshadowing and overlooking from the development due to height and the inadequate separation distances. The speaker’s stated that their standard of living had already been affected by development. The proposal would worsen these current issues. They also considered that the plans would be out of keeping with the neighbouring buildings disturbing the street pattern and would be visually overbearing due to its height. Concern was also expressed about the developer’s consultation exercise with neighbours. In response to Members questions they clarified their concerns about the impact on neighbouring amenity.
Simon Smith, Applicant’s representative, spoke in support of the application. He drew attention to the positive aspects of the proposal in terms of the design, and its relationship to the church. The setting down design towards Prescot Street would provide an appropriate transition to the surrounding area. The proposals complied with the tests in policy as set out in the Officers report and would not harm amenity. He also highlighted the similarity between the scheme and the approved scheme. They were broadly similar save for the provision of the new Mansell Street elevation that would be slightly taller than the consented application. In response to questions from the Committee he commented on similar developments in London
Beth Eite, (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. She explained the site location and the similarities between the new scheme and the consented scheme Whilst comparable, changes had also been made to the design of the elevation and to provide a new 11 storey building at Mansell Street. Consultation on the plans had been carried out and the concerns raised were noted. The proposed land use complied with the tests in policy applicable to the site, and it was not considered that it would result in an overprovision of short term accommodation. The proposal, whilst higher in part, would preserve the setting of the nearby church and the listed buildings.
It was considered that the impact on the neighbouring amenity (in terms of sunlight/daylight and privacy) were predominantly negligible. It was however recognised that a small number of properties would experience a modest loss of light and the separation distances marginally fell short of the policy requirements. However, these were fairly common issues for a dense urban area and given the benefits of the application, Officers did not consider that they justified a refusal.
Officers also explained the highway issues including the proposed servicing and loading bay and that there would be a S106 agreement and that the plans would be CIL liable.
Officers were recommending that the planning permission be granted approval.
In response to the presentation, the Committee sought clarity on the consented developments on site and Officers answered these questions. The Committee also asked whether the application would deliver public realm improvements. It was explained that due to the site constraints and the small size of the site, there would be limited opportunities to provide public realm improvements. However, there would be CIL contributions and representations could be made to channel funding into certain areas. In response to questions about the consultation, it was noted that the consultation carried out by the Council included the display of site notices and all of the supporting materials were available on its website.
In response to questions about residential amenity (overlooking and the severity of the loss of light particular to properties at Prescott street and Mansell Street,), it was noted that careful consideration had been given to these issues, and it was considered that overall, the impacts, in numerical terms were not that significant. However, it was noted that properties on Mansell street would experience a loss of light (greater than that from the consented scheme). It was also noted that properties would experience a loss of winter sun lighting. However, this was not uncommon for a London location and that it would only require a relatively modest development to effect winter sunlight. It was also noted that the proposal footprint broadly covered that of the consented scheme. In summary Officers felt that despite the issues, the amenity impacts would be acceptable and would be offset by the merits of the application.
Members also asked about the impact of the proposal on the setting of the Church given its proximity to the Church and that the proposal would sit just below the church spire. Officers reported that they considered that it would preserve its special features given its positioning away from the church and the proposal’s high architectural quality.
The Committee also questioned the need for additional service apartments in area and progress in meeting the targets for such uses. Officers responded that the targets had yet to be met but they could provide more detailed information on this
On a vote of 1 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 5 against and 2 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the recommendation to grant planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 6 in favour, 1 against and 1 abstention, it was RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTEDat 99 Mansell Street & 31-33 Prescot Street, London E1 for mixed-use development in a part 6, part 8 and part 11 storeys block with lower ground floor comprising 67 serviced apartments (Use Class C1) on the upper floors and 1,115sqm of office floorspace (Use Class B1) at basement, ground and first floor and a 103 sqm of flexible retail/financial services/restaurant/cafe/drinking establishment floorspace (Use Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5) at ground floor level. (PA/16/00757)
The Committee were minded to refuse the proposal due to concerns over the following matters:
· Adverse impact on the setting of the grade II listed Church and 30 Prescot Street
· Adverse impact on the residents of Londinium Tower particularly in terms of access to sunlight and daylight.
· Insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed serviced apartments use would assist in meeting the targets in the London Plan and LBTH Core Strategy.
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: