Agenda item
The Quay Club, Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London, E14 (PA/16/00899 & PA/16/00900)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 20th October, 2016 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.3)
- View the background to item 5.3
Proposal:
Demolition of the existing concrete slab and associated infrastructure; alterations to Bank Street including the removal of existing coping stones above the existing Banana Wall to enable the installation of proposed utilities services and future deck; the installation of new piles in the Bank Street; and the erection of a five storey building on the existing marine piles for use as a members club (Use Class Sui Generis) and other associated works incidental to the development.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and listed building consent subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations and, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Officers clarified that the application address should be entitled ‘Land at Bank Street’ Canary Wharf, London, E14.
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of the existing concrete slab and associated infrastructure; alterations to Bank Street including the removal of existing coping stones above the existing Banana Wall to enable the installation of proposed utilities services and future deck; the installation of new piles in the Bank Street; and the erection of a five storey building on the existing marine piles for use as a members club (Use Class Sui Generis) and other associated works incidental to the development.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Dave Chesterton spoke in opposition to the application. He objected to the loss of the open water space and that the policy criteria for allowing this in the report had not been met. He also urged that if granted, the proposed S106 contribution for improving and enhancing the natural environment in the Borough should be used to enhance the water space. He cited examples of previously approved applications that had resulted in the loss of a water space without providing sufficient mitigation. Councillor Chesterton then answered questions from Members about his concerns.
The applicant had declined to speak in support of the application.
Jermaine Thomas (Planning Services) presented the application explaining the planning history and the site location and the key features of the application. Consultation had been carried out and no objections had been submitted. It was considered that the land use was acceptable for a town centre location and also that the loss of the water space could be supported given the limitations in terms of its potential use. The plans would be of a high quality design and would be carried out in a sensitive matter to protect the heritage assets. There would also be a S106 contribution towards improving and enhancing the natural environment in the Borough. The plans also included biodiversity measures to mitigate the impact of the application
Officers were recommending that the application was granted permission.
In response to the presentation, Members also asked about the impact of the development on pedestrian access and the employment opportunities from the plans. Officers explained that the proposal would be subject to a construction management plan and if granted Officers could ensure that it would safeguard pedestrian access during the construction phase where possible. The plans also included obligations in respect of local employment.
Members also asked about the loss of water space and the special
circumstances justifying this. It was questioned whether
alternative designs had been considered to lessen the impact on the
water space. The Committee also asked about the other measures
explored prior to proposing the financial contribution and if the
contribution could be spent towards enhancing dock heritage and
waterway facilities to offset the loss of water space.
Members also asked about the design of the proposals, the nature of the proposed use and if the proposed facilities would be open to the general public.
In response, it was reported that S106 planning contributions could theoretically be allocated to enhancing existing water space. However, care would need to be taken to ensure that such a contribution would not be for the provision of infrastructure of a type specified on the Council’s Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 123 List as that would be a duplication of liability with the Community Infrastructure Levy; in which case the failure to secure such a contribution could not be a reason to refuse permission.
It was also noted that the loss of water space was not normally supported but given the limited value of the water space in this case, it was felt that special circumstances existed to agree to its removal. There might be some difficulties in providing replacement water space given that this might involve the agreement of a third party. It was considered that the proposal would be of a high quality design and would include special features to reflect the water space. Consideration had been given to an alternative design but the plans had been designed by the applicant with a particular end user in mind. It was understood that some of the facilities would be open to the general public, but use of the facilities would mainly be restricted to Members and their guests.
The Committee also asked about the impact on heritage assets
particularly the listed wall. Members also asked about the impact
on biodiversity and the comments of the relevant experts on the
plans.
Officers considered that the impact of the scheme,
involving essential intervention to the coping of the wall, would
be less than substantial, and be outweighed by the benefits of the
proposal. The Council’s Conservation Officer and Council's
Biodiversity Officer had considered the application including the
proposed lighting on the underside of the development, and felt
that it would not harm the setting of the area or the heritage
assets. If granted, the plans would be reviewed with the
Council’s Conservation Officer and the Biodiversity Officer
again to ensure they were satisfied with the proposal.
In response to further questions about the measure to promote the
local heritage assets, it was noted that plans included a
requirement to install interpretation boards within the public
realm to promote the heritage of the area that should raise their
profile.
The Committee also discussed the planning history of the site.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation, 7 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission and listed building consent.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the recommendation to grant planning permission and listed building consent be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 7 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, it was RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission and listed building consent be NOT ACCEPTEDat Land at Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London, E14 for demolition of the existing concrete slab and associated infrastructure; alterations to Bank Street including the removal of existing coping stones above the existing Banana Wall to enable the installation of proposed utilities services and future deck; the installation of new piles in the Bank Street; and the erection of a five storey building on the existing marine piles for use as a members club (Use Class Sui Generis) and other associated works incidental to the development. (PA/16/00899 & PA/16/00900)
The Committee were minded to refuse the proposal due to concerns over the following issues:
· The loss of open water space and the exceptional circumstances justifying this, set out in the Committee report.
· Impact on the biodiversity of the dock
· Impact on the heritage assets, particularly the Grade 1 listed wall.
· Inadequate mitigation to address the harm caused by the development.
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: