Agenda item
Enterprise House, 21 Buckle Street, London E1 8NN (PA/16/03352)
- Meeting of Moved from 25 Sept, Strategic Development Committee, Wednesday, 4th October, 2017 7.00 p.m. (Item 4.1)
- View the background to item 4.1
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 (Area Planning Manager (East)) introduced the report for the demolition of existing office building and erection of a 13 storey building (plus enclosed roof top level plant storey) containing aparthotel with office workspace an ancillary café and hotel reception space at ground floor, together with associated works.
Gareth Gwynne, (Planning Services) presented the application. He advised that the application was considered by the Strategic Development Committee on 17th August 2017. The Committee voted against the officer’s recommendation for approval and were minded to refuse the application on grounds of:
· 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.
It was also noted that since that meeting, Officers had drafted proposed reasons for refusal that reflected the Committee concerns as set out in the 4th October committee report and the update report.
In terms of the amenity impacts, Officers acknowledged that there was tangible evidence that the application would result in significant adverse sunlight and daylight failing to properties. Furthermore, it was open to the Committee to place less weight on the public benefits of the application compared to Officer’s deliberations in the Officer report, and therefore consider that the harm to residential amenity was not outweighed.
Regarding the overdevelopment of the site and heritage impacts, Officers remained of the view that the reductions in the height of the building and the other design features were sufficient to overcome the reasons for refusal of the previous application. Notwithstanding this, Officers recognised that the height and overall scale of the proposal on this confined site presented challenges in respect of residential amenity, townscape impacts and the setting of listed buildings. Accordingly, a reason on this basis could be defended at appeal.
Regarding the visitor accommodation, it could be considered that the need for additional short stay accommodation had not been adequately demonstrated given the levels of supply in the pipeline and that forecast. Members were also reminded that the benefit of the proposed additional rooms to the local economy was likely to be relatively small due to the nature of the application and would result in a net loss of office space and jobs. Therefore, it was considered that a reason for refusal based on the above issue, subject to the amendment in the update report, could be defended at appeal.
It was also reported that if refused, the applicant had stated that they would appeal the decision and this would be considered at a public enquiry.
The officer recommendation remained to grant the planning permission. However if Members were minded to refuse planning permission, they were invited to consider the four reasons of refusal set out in the Committee report subject to the revision in the update report regarding the third reason for refusal.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 4 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 4th October 2017 as amended in the Committee update report (in respect of the third reason for refusal). On a vote of 4 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be REFUSED 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/16/03352) for the following reasons as set out in the 4th October 2017 Committee report as amended in the Committee update report as detailed below:
(1) Harm to residential amenity
The proposed development would cause significant harm to the amenities and living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring residential properties through both major and moderate losses of daylight and sunlight, excessive loss of outlook resulting from the overbearing nature of the development including an undue sense of enclosure. As such the development would be contrary to NPPF, as set out paragraphs 14, 17 and 56 of the NPPF and the Local Plan including Policy SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010) and DM25 of the Managing Development Document (2013) which seek to protect the amenity of residents including ensuring that development does not result in unacceptable material deterioration of daylight and sunlight conditions for future and existing residents.
(2) Overdevelopment
The proposed development exhibits clear and demonstrable signs of
overdevelopment by virtue of:
a) its adverse amenity impacts to residential neighbours;
b) from its detrimental townscape impacts resulting from the proposed height,
scale and mass of the development set on a small, tightly confined site edged
by two narrow streets and set within an established lower scale urban street
block;
c) resultant harm to the significance of the setting of the Grade II* listed St
George’s German Church and to the Grade II listed Dispensary Building, the
former St George’s German and English Schools, the former St George’s
German and English Infants’ School, that are not outweighed by the public
benefits of the scheme, by reason of the height, scale, mass of the development set in immediate proximity to these designated heritage assets
and the proposed schemes impacts upon local townscape views of this cluster of listed buildings.
d)unacceptable relationships to other developments that limits the opportunity to achieve a tall building on site or increase significantly the height of the existing building envelope on site such that it is compatible with the objectives of sustainable development and delivering high quality place-making within Aldgate.
As such the scheme would fail to provide a sustainable form of development in accordance with NPPF including paragraphs 17, 56, 61, 128-134 and would be contrary to the development plan in particular policies 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7 and 7.8 of the London Plan (2016), policies SP02, SP06, SP10 and SP12 of the Tower Hamlets’ Core Strategy (2010) and policies, DM0, DM23, DM24, DM25, DM26, DM27 the Tower Hamlets’ Managing Development Document and the Borough’s vision for Aldgate, that taken as a whole, have an overarching objective of achieving place-making of the highest quality.
(3) Need for short-stay accommodation insufficient to outweigh amenity harm, loss of office floorspace and harm to heritage assets.
The need for additional short stay accommodation to serve visitors and the borough’s economy has not been adequately demonstrated given the strong pipeline supply of short stay accommodation, the limited contribution to the local economy arising from the proposed development, and the discernible disbenefits to the local economy arising from a net loss of office floorspace and associated net loss of local jobs. In addition any need for additional short stay visitor accommodation in the Borough would not outweigh the harm to residential amenity, local townscape and heritage assets.
As a result the proposal is not considered to be in accordance with the development plan including Polices DM0, DM7,DM24,DM25 of the Managing Development Document, Core Strategies Policies, SP06, SP010, London Plan Policies 2.13,4.1,4.2 7.4.
(4) Lack of a legal agreement to secure mitigation
In the absence of a legal agreement to secure agreed and policy compliant financial and non-financial contributions including for employment, skills, training and enterprise and transport matters the development fails to mitigate its impact on local services, amenities and infrastructure. The above would be contrary to the requirements of Policies SP02 and SP13 of the LBTH Core Strategy, Policies 8.2 of the London Plan (2016) and LBTH’s Planning Obligations SPD (2016).
Supporting documents:
- Enterprise House 21 Buckle Street SDC Deferral Report (PA-16-03552), item 4.1 PDF 243 KB
- Enterprise House Committee Report, item 4.1 PDF 806 KB