Agenda item
Sainsbury Foodstore, 1 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E1 (PA/15/00837)
Proposal:
Demolition of the existing store and decked car park to allow for a replacement Sainsbury's store (Use Class A1) of 5,766 sqm (net sales area), (11,208 sqm GIA to include a Use Class D1 'explore learning ' facility (118 sqm GIA), 871 sqm (GIA) of flexible retail/office/community floorspace (Use Class A1, A2, A3, B1 and D1) and 559 residential units (Use Class C3) arranged in 8 buildings, including a 28 storey tower (101.375m (AOD)), an energy centre and plant (2,509 sqm (GIA)) is proposed at basement level with 240 'retail' car parking spaces and 40 disabled car parking spaces for use by the proposed residential units. 2 additional disabled parking bays are proposed at ground floor level at Merceron Street. The creation of an east-west public realm route from Cambridge Heath Road to Brady Street, including further public realm provision and associated highway works to Brady Street, Merceron Street, Darling Row, Collingwood Street and Cambridge Heath Road.
Recommendation:
That the Strategic Development Committee REFUSES planning permission, subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, for the reasons set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of the existing store and decked car park to allow for a replacement Sainsbury's store along with residential units and associated works.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee
Ian Lawson, (Collingwood Tenants Residents Association) and Thomas Antoniw, (Friends of Trinity Green/East End Preservation Society), spoke in opposition to the scheme. They noted the need for the redevelopment of the site and additional housing, however they objected to the height of the proposal and the harmful effect this would have on the nearby heritage assets and the Conservation Area as well as neighbouring amenity. The development would overpower surrounding buildings that were much lower in height and cause a loss of sunlight and daylight. They also objected to the density of the application (given the size of the site) and the level and affordability of the housing for local residents in particular. They also commented on the strength of the opposition to the application. The speakers then responded to questions of clarification from the Committee about their concerns. In relation to the heritage impacts, it was considered that the development would harm the setting of the historic Trinity Green Almshouses by interrupting the unspoilt skyline, particularly at the east and west of the site, that no other development had done. They also answered questions about their other concerns with the application
Bruno Moore (Sainsbury’s) spoke in support of the application. He considered that the impact on the heritage of the area would be less than substantial and the benefits of the scheme would outweigh this . A viewed shared by the Greater London Authority whose comments had been submitted before the height of the application had been reduced. In response to the Committee questions, he commented on the scope of the applicant’s consultation, the changes to the application, the implications of reducing the height any further on the viability of the scheme, Historic England’s comments on the height, and the frontage treatment. He also responded to questions about the housing mix (in view of the shortfall of 4 bed affordable units), the shortfall in affordable housing, due in part to the costs of closing the supermarket during the construction phase, and the energy efficiency measures. He also considered that the density of application was an honest response to the site constraints.
Sunil Khosla (Representative of the Whitechapel Market Traders) also spoke in support of the application. He considered that traders welcomed the application given the beneficial effect that it would have on local trade. It would help modernise the local market and bring customers into the area benefiting the local economy. This was especially welcomed with the coming of the new Cross Rail station
Gareth Gwynne, (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a comprehensive presentation of the application describing the key features of the site and surrounds and the application. He described in some detail the merits of the application (including the high quality design features, the provision of new housing, a new walk way and new public realm). He also described the deficiencies of the proposal in terms of its impact on heritage assets. It was considered that the proposal would cause substantial harm to the setting of the Grade 1 Listed Trinity Green Almshouses and would harm other heritage assets. Therefore in line with policy Officers were recommending that the planning permission be refused.
In response to questions about the impact of the application on neighbouring properties, it was explained that the committee report contained a detailed analysis of the sunlight and daylight impacts on neighbour properties. However, given that the results were quite typical for a dense urban setting, that the scheme had been carefully designed to minimise such impacts and that the neighbouring properties had design features that could enhance the impacts, Officers considered that such impacts were acceptable for an urban setting. It was also clarified that the application did meet a number of the objections in the Whitechapel Vision Master Plan SPD but notwithstanding this, it was not considered that this would outweigh the adverse impacts. The Whitechapel Vision did identify an opportunity for a landmark building in the approximate location of building 1 but did not identify a landmark building as being necessarily a tall building and specifically not a building of 28 storeys in height.
It was also noted that the affordable housing offer of 25% per habitable room had been independently tested and it was found that this was the most that the scheme could afford. The plans would result in a net loss of on street car parking spaces. However, Highway Services had assessed the plans and found that this was acceptable given the number of surplus spaces in the surrounding streets.
In response to questions about the child play space, Officers explained that while the plans were far from ideal (given the shortfall in the play space for the affordable units), it was not considered that a reason based on this issue could be sustained at appeal given the proximity of the site to nearby parks.
Officers also responded to questions about the landscaping plans, the comments from the heritage bodies, the need to consider each application on its own merits, the public realm improvements and the Community Infrastructure Levy contributions.
Councillor Marc Francis moved that an additional reasons for refusal be added to the recommendations relating to the sunlight and day light impact on properties in: Albion Yard, Blackwood House, Collingwood House, Grindall House, Kempton Court and 1-6 Key Court. On a vote of 7 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions this was agreed,
On a vote of 7 in favour of the Officers recommendation, 0 against and 0 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
That the planning permission be REFUSED at Sainsbury Foodstore, 1 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E1 for the:
Demolition of the existing store and decked car park to allow for a replacement Sainsbury's store (Use Class A1) of 5,766 sqm (net sales area), (11,208 sqm GIA to include a Use Class D1 'explore learning ' facility (118 sqm GIA), 871 sqm (GIA) of flexible retail/office/community floorspace (Use Class A1, A2, A3, B1 and D1) and 559 residential units (Use Class C3) arranged in 8 buildings, including a 28 storey tower (101.375m (AOD)), an energy centre and plant (2,509 sqm (GIA)) is proposed at basement level with 240 'retail' car parking spaces and 40 disabled car parking spaces for use by the proposed residential units. 2 additional disabled parking bays are proposed at ground floor level at Merceron Street. The creation of an east-west public realm route from Cambridge Heath Road to Brady Street, including further public realm provision and associated highway works to Brady Street, Merceron Street, Darling Row, Collingwood Street and Cambridge Heath Road. (PA/15/00837) for the following reasons as set out in the Committee report subject to any direction by the Mayor of London
1. The proposed development would cause substantial harm to the significance of the Grade I Listed Trinity Green Almshouses, by reason of the introduction of Building 1 which impacts adversely upon the setting of this historic, low scale courtyard arranged set of buildings.
As such, the proposal fails to provide a sustainable form of development in accordance with paragraphs 17, 56 and 61 of the NPPF and fail to be consistent with the guidance set out in Chapter 12 of the NPPF in respect to conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The proposal is also contrary to policies 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7 and 7.8 of the London Plan (2016), SP10 and SP12 of the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy (2010) and policies, DM24, DM26 and DM27 of the Tower Hamlets Managing Development Document (2013).
2. The proposed development would cause significant, albeit less than substantial, harm to the character and appearance of the Stepney Green Conservation Area, by reason of the height, scale and mass of the proposed development and its impact upon local townscape views from Mile End Road.
As such, the proposal fails to provide a sustainable form of development in accordance with paragraphs 17, 56 and 61 of the NPPF and fail to be consistent with the guidance set out in Chapter 12 of the NPPF in respect to conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The proposal is also contrary to policies 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7 and 7.8 of the London Plan (2016), SP10 and SP12 of the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy (2010) and policies, DM24, DM26 and DM27 of the Tower Hamlets Managing Development Document (2013).
3. The proposed development would cause significant, albeit less than substantial, harm to the setting and appearance of the Grade II listed Albion Brewery Entrance Building, together with the Whitechapel Market Conservation Area, by reason of the adverse and visually overbearing imposition of the development upon townscape views of Albion Yard Brewery from Whitechapel Road.
As such, the proposal fails to provide a sustainable form of development in accordance with paragraphs 17, 56 and 61 of the NPPF and fail to be consistent with the guidance set out in Chapter 12 of the NPPF in respect to conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The proposal is also contrary to policies 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7 and 7.8 of the London Plan (2016), SP10 and SP12 of the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy (2010) and policies, DM24, DM26 and DM27 of the Tower Hamlets Managing Development Document (2013).
4. In the absence of a legal agreement to secure financial and non-financial contributions including affordable housing, street market enhancements, highway works, land allocated for Transport for London bike station, employment, skills, training and enterprise, and energy, the development fails to maximise the delivery of affordable housing and fails to mitigate its impact on highways, local retail sector, local services, amenities and infrastructure. This would be contrary to the requirements of Policies SP01, SP02, SP09, SP12, and SP13 of the LBTH Core Strategy, Policy DM1, DM3, DM20, DM21 of the LBTH Managing Development Document and Policies 2.15, 3.11, 3.12, 4.7, 6.3 and 8.2 of the London Plan and the LBTH Planning Obligations SPD 2016.
5. Concerns about the sunlight and daylight impacts on properties in Albion Yard, Blackwood House, Collingwood House, Grindall House, Kempton Court and 1-6 Key Court.
Supporting documents: