Agenda item
William Brinson Centre, 3-5 Arnold Road, London, E3 4NT (PA/16/02789)
Proposal:
Demolition of existing building, construction of an 8 storey building and a 6 storey building to provide 62 dwellings (affordable housing tenure) and 398 sq.m B1 floorspace with amenity space, access, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of existing building, construction of an 8 storey building and a 6 storey building to provide 62 dwellings (affordable housing tenure) and 398 sq.m B1 floorspace with amenity space, access, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works
The Chair then invited registered speaker to address the Committee.
Sara Stratton and Michael Keith, local residents spoke in objection to the application. They expressed concern about the lack of consultation on the application, and the impact on existing businesses. They also expressed concerns about the scheme’s density being in excess of London Plan guidance, the height, scale and massing of the plans that would be out of keeping with the surrounding building heights and the separation distances to nearby properties. They also expressed concern about the lack of a heritage assessment. The speakers considered that as a result of these issues, the development would harm the setting of the nearby Conservation Area, would harm residential amenity and would impact on the biodiversity value of the site. The speakers also considered that the development was of a poor quality design and the layout had not been adequately thought through. In response to questions, they expressed concerns about the closure of roads due to the plans and the displacement of businesses. They considered that the plans should be redesigned to address the concerns.
John Coker (LBTH Strategic Housing) and Gavin Hale-Brown (Architect) spoke in support of the application. The supporters stressed the need for additional affordable units in the Borough which the application would make a critical contribution to. It was not considered that it would result in an overconcentration of one housing type in the area given the nature of the surrounding area in terms of housing types. Any road closures would be temporary. A significant amount of consultation was carried out. The site was well connected and in a relatively isolated area, in relation to residential developments. The scheme had been designed to fit in with the area and would comprise a generous amount of family sized houses. There was nothing to suggest that the existing businesses would close down.
In response to questions about progress in meeting housing targets, Jen Pepper (Affordable Housing Programme Manager) reported that at present the Council was below target. In response to further questions, the speakers considered that the plans would enliven the area, provide natural surveillance, deliver much needed affordable units and business units and would be secure by design. Furthermore, given the distance between the site and heritage assets, it would not harm the setting of the nearby Conservation Area. A noise assessment had been carried out and there would be noise mitigation measures. The speakers also answered questions about the merits of layout from a security point of view.
Officers reported that the Committee should place no weight on the images submitted by objectors circulated at the meeting as Officers had not had sight of these before the meeting and therefore could not verify the accuracy of them. The Committee also should disregard the comments made by third parties about the displacement of business as there was no evidence to say that this was factually accurate. The issues around the road closures could be dealt with by condition.
Victoria Olonisaye-Collins (Planning Officer) presented the report, describing the nature of the application site and surrounds and the key features of the application. She explained the outcome of the consultation. In terms of the assessment, it was considered that the loss of the community use was acceptable given the proposal to relocate this at an alternative suitable location. Furthermore, the application would increase employment opportunities at the site. The new housing, that comprised 100% affordable units, would help meet housing targets and the commercial units would improve natural surveillance. The design of the application would sit comfortably with the area and would preserve residential amenity. Whilst the density of the proposal exceeded guidance, Officers felt that the site could accommodate the density given the merits of the plans and character of the site and the surrounding area. Highway Services had raised no objections to the application. Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.
In response to questions about the sunlight and daylight impacts, it was noted that there would be some impact on properties in Tomlins Grove. However, given the separation distances and that the design of the properties at Tomlins Grove restricted light exposure, the impacts from this development itself would be minimal. In response to further questions, Officers provided reassurances about the height and design of the application in relation to the surrounding area and the density of the application.
On a vote of 5 in favour 0 against and 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission be GRANTED at William Brinson Centre, 3-5 Arnold Road, London, E3 4NTfor the demolition of existing building, construction of an 8 storey building and a 6 storey building to provide 62 dwellings (affordable housing tenure) and 398 sq.m B1 floorspace with amenity space, access, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works (PA/16/02789) subject to:
2. That the Corporate Director, Development & Renewal is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the Committee report.
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the Committee report.
4. Any other conditions considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal.
Supporting documents: