Agenda item
Site at 14 to 16 Clegg Street, 13 to 15 Cinnamon Street and 125 to 129 Wapping High Street (PA/15/03561)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 23rd November, 2016 7.00 p.m. (Item 4.1)
- View the background to item 4.1
Proposal:
Partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of all three sites to create 41 residential units and a retail unit along Wapping High Street, together with associated hard and soft landscaping works and the provision of cycle parking across all three sites. Site A would contain the majority of the units, with 27 flats; Site B would contain 10 and Site C, the 4 town houses.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT full planning permission subject to any direction by the London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of all three sites to create 41 residential units and a retail unit along Wapping High Street, together with associated works.
He reported that the application was previously considered at the 28 September 2016 meeting of the Development Committee where Members deferred the consideration of the application for a site visit. Following which, the application was brought back the Committee on 26th October 2016 where Members were minded to refuse the application for the reasons in the updated Committee report.
Officers have since considered the Committee proposed reasons and had drafted suggested detailed reasons for refusal as set out in the updated report.
Tim Ross, (Planning Services) gave a brief presentation on the application and the suggested reasons for refusal. He advised that since the October Committee meeting, comments had been received from objectors about the impact of the development on the nearby Tasman House and the properties adjacent to Site C. The objectors considered that the impact on which should be included in the Committee reasons for refusal. However, Officers considered that the properties in Tasman House would not be significantly affected by the application given the level of BRE compliance in relation to daylight and sunlight, so did not consider that these issues should be included in the Committee’s reasons.
In response, Members supported the suggested reasons for refusal and concurred with Officers views regarding Tasman House, as reported above.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 6 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the Committee report dated 23 November 2016 and on a vote of 6 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be REFUSED at Site at 14 to 16 Clegg Street, 13 to 15 Cinnamon Street and 125 to 129 Wapping High Street for Partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of all three sites to create 41 residential units and a retail unit along Wapping High Street, together with associated hard and soft landscaping works and the provision of cycle parking across all three sites. Site A would contain the majority of the units, with 27 flats; Site B would contain 10 and Site C, the 4 town houses (PA/15/03561) for the following reasons as set out in the Committee report, dated 23 November 2016:
Impact of highway network
1. The existing narrow streets and lack of dedicated drop-off provision will result in a detrimental impact upon the safety and free-flow of traffic in the surrounding street network due to the servicing requirements and vehicle movements generated by the proposal, contrary to policies SP09 of the Core Strategy 2010 and DM20 of the Managing Development Document 2013 which seeks to ensure that new development does not have an adverse impact upon the safety and capacity of the road network.
Impact of neighbour’s amenity
2. The proposed development will have unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties due to a detrimental reduction in daylighting and sunlighting conditions of neighbouring residential properties located within Ross House and 10-12 Clave Street. The proposals are therefore contrary to Policy SP10(4) of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy (2010) and Policy DM25 of the Council’s adopted Managing Development Document (2013) require development to protect, and where possible improve, the amenity of existing and future residents and buildings occupants, together with the amenity of the surrounding public realm.
Impact of heritage assets
3. The proposed development, by way of the design, scale, height, and profile, compared to the buildings to be demolished, would appear as a visually incongruous to the local area and fails to respect the scale, proportions and architecture of the former buildings. As a result, the development would cause less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Wapping Wall Conservation Area and would fail to preserve the character of this heritage asset. The harm identified to the designated heritage asset is not outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.
As a result the proposal is not considered to be sustainable development, contrary to paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), and fails to meet the requirements of Policy SP10 of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy (2010), Policies DM24 and DM27 of the Council’s adopted Managing Development Document (2013) and government guidance set out in Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) as well as the Wapping Wall Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Guidelines (2009).
Councillor Gulam Kibria Choudhury did not vote on this application having not been present at the meeting on 28th September 2016 when it was previously considered
Supporting documents:
- Item 4.1, item 4.1 PDF 97 KB
- Item 4.1, Committee Report, item 4.1 PDF 3 MB
- Item 4.1, Update Report, item 4.1 PDF 69 KB