Agenda item
Enterprise House, 21 Buckle Street, London E1 8NN (PA/16/03552)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 17th August, 2017 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.1)
- View the background to item 5.1
Proposal:
Demolition of existing office building and erection of a 13 storey building (plus enclosed roof top level plant storey) rising to 56.32m (AOD) containing 103 unit aparthotel (C1 Use) with B1 Use Class office workspace at ground and mezzanine level with an ancillary café (A3 Use Class) and hotel reception space at ground floor, together with ancillary facilities, waste storage and associated cycle parking store.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of existing office building and erection of a 13 storey building (plus enclosed roof top level plant storey) apart hotel lead scheme.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Peter Park and Sumaiya Begum (local residents) spoke in objection to the application. They considered that the proposals would harm the amenity of local residents, especially the properties at Goldpence Apartments due to the separation distances through the loss of sunlighting and daylighting, privacy, overlooking and disturbance during the construction phase. The light levels to these properties were already compromised. The development would also create a sense of enclosure and increase pressure on the local highway due to the servicing arrangements, and therefore put at risk pedestrian safety especially child safety. They also questioned the need for additional hotel units in the area given the number already located in the vicinity and spoke about the lack of public amenities in the area. In response to questions, they expressed concern about the developer’s consultation, the land use, the lack of green space in the immediate area, the height and massing and the road access issues.
Charles Cresser (Applicant’s representative) spoke in support of the application. He recognised the site constraints and reported that the applicant had worked hard to address the reasons for refusing the previous application in 2015. The height had been reduced to minimise the proposal’s impact. Amendments had also been made to introduce further measures to reduce overlooking. The developer had carried out a lot of consultation with residents including representatives of the Grade II St George’s German Church who had influenced the design and were now supportive of the application. Whilst he was mindful of the close separation distances to properties, he considered that the light analysis showed that the breaches would be minimal. He also highlighted the benefits of the proposal in terms of the provision of serviced hotel apartments, flexible office work space to be offered at a discount to local business and the potential for community events within the development. In response to questions, he discussed the changes made to the plans at the pre-application stage, the developers consultation and the measures to minimise overlooking. The developer was willing to introduce further mitigation measures if the Committee felt this necessary. He also stressed the need for further hotel/serviced units in the area catering for longer term guests to meet the needs of businesses. He explained that the development would cater for a different type of guest to a tradition hotel and judging by the marketing evidence, there was clearly a need for these types of units. He also discussed the similarities between this proposal and the previous proposal in terms of their proximity to neighbouring properties.
Gareth Gwynne (Planning Services) presented the detailed report explaining the site location, the surrounds, the site designation in policy, the relationship between the site and the existing developments such as Altitude House and the Goldpence apartments and also the outcome of the Council’s consultation.
He advised that in land use terms, the principle of the development could be supported based on the existing office being vacant for over 2 years and the marketing evidence provided by the applicant. Officers and the GLA accepted that the existing offices are out of date and not fit for purpose. The proposal would deliver a range of benefits including employment and enterprise initiatives. The proposed design of the building was well considered and it was felt that whilst some of the issues with the previous refused scheme in respect to the design of a tall building on the site remained in this scheme taken overall the design approach was considered on balance acceptable.
The proposals presented adverse daylight/sunlight impacts to neighbouring residents and issues regarding outlook and sense of enclosure, albeit to a lesser extent than the previous application. On balance, Officers considered that the adverse amenity impacts of the development were not considered sufficient to justify a grounds for refusal when weighed against the benefits of the proposal and the site constraints.
Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.
The Committee asked questions about the overshadowing to properties and the sunlight and daylight impacts, particularly to the Goldpence apartments. The Committee were advised that the applicant had carried out further testing to identify how the proposal would affect properties and the results were set out in the Committee report. The results compared favourable to the previously refused scheme in terms of both the quantity and degree of failures. Nevertheless, it was noted that a number of properties would still experience a loss of natural light including the properties at Goldpence House. In response to further questions, Officers explained that the daylight impact on the properties on the lower three stories of the development would be negligible as these properties already relied on artificial light. However the development would have a more noticeable impact on the properties located above three lower residential floors as they currently benefit from more natural light.
The Committee also asked about the impact on the heritage assets including the Grade II listed buildings and Officers confirmed that the impacts would be minimal and not anything like the scale of the previous application.
Members also asked questions about the need for further hotel accommodation in the area given the targets in policy and the average length of stay for this type of hotel use. They also asked about the discount for local businesses and the monitoring of the proposals especially the smoking area. Members also asked questions about the opportunities for a residential development on the site.
Officer explained that the applicant had provided information about the average length of stay and this indicated that it would be about 10 days based upon the applicants aparthotel hotel. In relation to the discount, the applicant had recently confirmed that they would offer a 50% discount to Borough based local businesses/residents for use of the work space and details of this was set out in the update report. It was also noted that the Greater London Authority set supply targets for each Borough for the provision of hotel accommodation. It was also stated there was no evidence to suggest that the site would lend itself to residential development due to the site constraints. Officers also responded to the questions about the enforcement of the application and conditions.
On a unanimous vote the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at Enterprise House, 21 Buckle Street, London E1 8NN for the
demolition of existing office building and erection of a 13 storey building (plus enclosed roof top level plant storey) rising to 56.32m (AOD) containing 103 unit aparthotel (C1 Use) with B1 Use Class office workspace at ground and mezzanine level with an ancillary café (A3 Use Class) and hotel reception space at ground floor, together with ancillary facilities, waste storage and associated cycle parking store. (PA/16/03552)
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over:
· Sunlight and daylight impacts from the development
· Scale bulk and height of the development
· Adverse heritage impacts
· Overprovision of short stay accommodation and associated opportunity cost.
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: