Agenda item
Royal Duchess Public House, 543 Commercial Road, London E1PA/16/03300
Proposal:
Erection of a part 6, part 7 and part 8 storey building comprising 30 residential units (use class C3) and 70sqm of flexible floor space (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/B1/D1) together with associated access, cycle parking and landscaping
Recommendation:
That the Development Committee REFUSES planning permission, subject to any direction by the London Mayor, for the reasons in the Committee report.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
With the permission of the Chair, Elaine King the Chair of Pitsea Estate Tennant Residents Association addressed the meeting. She stated that she had submitted the online petition. She expressed concern about the adequacy of the developers consultation, direct overlooking to neighbours due to the closeness to neighbouring properties, that the application would create a sense of enclosure and that the height was out of keeping with the surrounding building heights. There would also be a lack of affordable housing. In response to members she answered questions about the height. The height of the building would exceed that of neighbouring buildings which were set back, in contrast with the proposal.
Rob Piggott, (Applicant’s representative) and Alison Arnaud (Tower Hamlets College) spoke in support. Mr Piggott spoke about the changes made to the scheme to reduce its height. He considered that it was an appropriate form of development for the area and the appearance was consistent with the surrounding area that included buildings of up to 7 stories in height. The Council’s officers and the developers own specialist heritage experts were of the view that the impact on the setting of the area would be less than substantial. The plans would provide a range of benefits including good quality homes with a focus on family rented homes and a much needed education facility. The applicant had looked at the possibility of further reducing the height, but it was found that this would harm the viability of the plans. Ms Arnaud also spoke in support of the proposed education facility. She explained that it would include a Community café providing amongst other benefits, work experience opportunities for students.
In response to questions, it was confirmed that all of the child play space would be located on the roof terrace and the application would only marginally fall short of the play space requirement in policy should the private gardens be taken into account as well. They also answered questions about the height of the building and the proposed materials.
Kamlesh Harris (Planning Services) presented the report explaining the nature of the site and surrounds that was predominantly residential and had excellent transport links. The plans sought to provide a residential led development that would vary in height but generally exceed the surrounding building heights. There would be a policy compliant level of affordable housing including family housing.
Consultation had been carried out and the results were noted. Turning to the assessment, it was noted that the provision of a residential lead scheme in the area with an education facility could be supported and complied with policy and the loss of the public house was considered acceptable. The house mix could also be considered as acceptable. However, the residential density exceeded the guidance in the London Plan for a site with a Public Transport level rating of 5 and there was also a shortfall of child play space. There were also concerns about the quality of the internal amenity for the future occupants. So for the reasons set out in the committee report, Officers were recommending that the application was refused permission.
Members agreed that the scheme displayed symptoms of overdevelopment. However they welcomed the plans to accommodate a community facility within the development. The Committee questioned whether it had been factored into the viability assessment and whether it would affect the amount of affordable housing that could be secured. Officers confirmed that the plans included a flexible retail community use. It would be relatively small in size. The unit had been classified as a retail unit for the purposes of the assessment.
The Committee also asked about the child play space and it was noted that it had been positioned away from the busy roads and there would be a condition, if granted, requiring details of the proposed equipment be approved. The Committee also asked about the third reason for refusal regarding the lack of a legal agreement to secure financial and non-financial obligations and it was noted that it was standard practice to include such a reason for refusal in case the matter went to appeal.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission at Royal Duchess Public House, 543 Commercial Road, London E1 be REFUSED subject to any direction by the London Mayor for the erection of a part 6, part 7 and part 8 storey building comprising 30 residential units (use class C3) and 70sqm of flexible floor space (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/B1/D1) together with associated access, cycle parking and landscaping (PA/16/03300) for the following reasons as set out in the Committee report
Reason 1 – harm to local heritage
1. The proposed development by virtue of its excessive height and scale would be visually intrusive in the backdrop of the Grade II listed buildings at Albert Gardens, Marion Richardson School, the Troxy Building and the would also be harmful to the setting of the Albert Gardens and York Square Conservation Areas. The proposal would fail to respect the restrained scale of the adjacent conservation areas, creating a visually dominant development that would be visible from the public realm. The public benefits associated with the proposal, which include thirty new homes, including nine affordable dwellings, and additional jobs generated from 70sqm of retail/ community floorspace, are not considered to overcome the harm to the setting of the neighbouring listed buildings.
As a result the scheme would also fail to comply with sections 61 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended), the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) objectives in particular paragraph 14, and section 12 of the NPPF, the London Plan, in particular policies 3.5, 3.7, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8 of the London Plan (2016), policies SP02, SP10 and SP12 of the Tower Hamlets’ Core Strategy (2010) and policies, DM4, DM23, DM24, DM25, DM26, DM27 the Tower Hamlets’ Managing Development Document and the priorities and principles of the Limehouse Vision (Core Strategy 2010) which seek to deliver place-making of the highest quality in accordance with the principle of sustainable development, including preserving, protecting or enhancing heritage assets.
Reason 2 – overdevelopment and poor quality design
2. The proposed development exhibits poor quality design and demonstrable signs of overdevelopment by virtue of:
a) lack of privacy for the occupiers of the proposed development due to overlooking associated with inter-visibility between windows and balconies of the proposed residential dwellings;
b) the loss of street trees which provide significant landscape and visual amenity value;
c) the proposal for a tall building in this location would fail to adhere to the principles of good design and place-making by virtue of its height and scale which would result in an unsympathetic built form that would not positively respond to and mediate with existing developments within the immediate surroundings. The detrimental townscape impacts result from the proposed height, scale and mass of the development which is set on a small, tightly confined site situated in a narrow street and set within an established lower scale of the adjoining housing estate and bounding conservation areas;
d) proposed density significantly above the Greater London Authority’s
density matrix guidance and the scheme would fail to demonstrate the
exceptional circumstances and design quality required to justify the
excessive density; and
e) the proposal provides insufficient child play space and poor quality
private amenity spaces for the proposed maisonettes and the ground
floor wheelchair accessible unit which will suffer from the overbearing
nature of the development including an undue sense of enclosure.
As such, the scheme would fail to provide a sustainable form of development in accordance with paragraphs 14, 17, 56 and 61 of the NPPF and would be contrary to the Development Plan, in particular policies 3.6, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7 and 7.8 of the London Plan (2015), policies SP02, SP06, SP10 and SP12 of the Tower Hamlets’ Core Strategy (2010) and policies, DM23, DM24, DM25, DM26 and DM27 the Tower Hamlets’ Managing Development Document and the Borough’s vision for Limehouse, that taken as a whole, have an overarching objective of achieving place-making of the highest quality.
Reason 3 – lack of a legal agreement to mitigate the impacts of the proposed Development
3. No agreed planning obligations in the form of policy compliant financial and nonfinancial contributions have been secured to mitigate the impacts of the development. As a result, the proposal would fail to meet the requirements of policies SP02 and SP13 of the adopted Core Strategy (2010), policy 8.2 of the London Plan, the Planning Obligations SPD (April 2016) which seek to agree planning obligations between the Local Planning Authority and developers so as to mitigate, compensate and prescribe matters relating to the development.
Supporting documents: