Agenda item
1-3 Corbridge Crescent and 1-4 The Oval, E2 9DS (PA/16/03771)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Thursday, 26th October, 2017 7.00 p.m. (Item 4.1)
- View the background to item 4.1
Proposal
Demolition of existing single storey commercial buildings, with the retention, restoration, external alteration and residential conversion of the existing Regency and Victorian Cottages, together with the erection of three linked blocks of 4, 5 and 10 storeys to provide 57 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), with associated private and communal amenity space, cycle parking and refuse storage, and 461sqm of dual use office/community floorspace (Use Class B1/D1).
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to Any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Nasser Farooq, (Team Leader – East Area, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of existing single storey commercial buildings, with the retention, restoration, and residential conversion of the existing Regency and Victorian Cottages, together with the erection of three linked blocks of 4, 5 and 10 storeys to provide a residential led scheme.
Jennifer Chivers (Planning Services) presented the application. The application for planning permission was considered by the Strategic Development Committee on 4 October 2017 (along with similar appeal scheme for an 8 storey development for the Committee to express a view to the planning inspector)
The Committee voted against the officer’s recommendation for approval and were minded to refuse the application on the following basis:
- Height, bulk and massing of Block A.
- Land use and lack of employment use.
- Level of affordable housing.
- Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
- Environmental concerns arising from use of the site as a coach depot.
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.
The officer recommendation remained to grant the application. However, officers had drafted suggested reasons for refusal to reflect the concerns should Members decide to refuse the application.
Ms Chivers then addressed each of the Committee’s reason for refusal.
· Scale of the development.
It was noted that Members expressed concern that the proposal would exceed the prevailing buildings heights within the local context, despite the reductions in the proposals height. It was noted that the proposal presented a marked contrast in scale to the surrounding buildings and it could therefore be considered that the proposal would be out of keeping with the setting of the surrounding area. Therefore, whilst officers considered that the proposal would be acceptable on this ground, it would be reasonable for Members to reach a different conclusion.
· Land use
Members considered that the proposal failed to provide a significant level of employment floor space and that the proposal would not offset the loss of existing floor space. Taking into account the low quantum of employment floor space, Members could conclude that the proposal conflicted with the aspirations in the City Fringe/Tech Opportunity area. A reason on this ground could therefore be defended at appeal
· Level of affordable housing.
Members were advised that it would be reasonable for them to conclude that despite the submission of detailed and robust financial statements (which were independently reviewed), that there were insufficient benefits of the scheme to outweigh the low levels of affordable housing. Officers therefore considered that a reason on this ground could be defended at appeal.
· Impact on the Conservation Area.
Members felt that the proposals would cause harm to the setting of heritage assets and that the merits of the plans would not outweigh this. In the absence of Members identifying public benefits that outweigh the identified harm to heritage, this reason could be defended at appeal.
· Environmental concerns.
It was noted that the applicant had provided a site investigation preliminary risk assessment report. The environmental health contaminated land officer had reviewed the submitted information and considered there was a possibility for contaminated land to exist, however that the risk could be mitigated by condition. The Environmental Health Officer had recommended a two part condition which required a report which identified the extent of the contamination and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk to public and environment. The redevelopment would not be occupied until this remediation had been carried out in full, and further reports have been submitted to the council demonstrating the remediation works had been effective. As such, officers consider that this reason for refusal would be difficult to defend at appeal.
The Committee were also advised of the implications of a refusal and the possibility that any appeal would result in a cost of awards.
In view of the advice, the Committee agreed that the fifth suggested reason in respect of land contamination should not be pursued.
It was also noted that the application was for a 10 storey development and that the reasons should read as such.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 4 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not accept the recommendation.
Councillor Marc Francis moved that the application be refused for the reasons set out in the 26th October 2017 Committee deferral report with the exception of the reason for refusal on land contamination.
On a vote of 4 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, it was RESOLVED:
That planning permission at REFUSED at 1-3 Corbridge Crescent and 1-4 The Oval, E2 9DS for the demolition of existing single storey commercial buildings, with the retention, restoration, external alteration and residential conversion of the existing Regency and Victorian Cottages, together with the erection of three linked blocks of 4, 5 and 10 storeys to provide 57 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), with associated private and communal amenity space, cycle parking and refuse storage, and 461sqm of dual use office/community floorspace (Use Class B1/D1). (PA/16/03771) for the following reasons as set out in the 26th October 2017 Committee deferral report
Reason 1 - Scale of development
1. The proposed development does not respond positively to the existing character, scale, height, massing and fine urban grain of the surrounding built environment, and fails to integrate with heritage assets in the surrounding areas; Block A at 10 storeys would be significantly higher than the prevailing height of development, within its local context, the Regents Canal and within the Regents Canal Conservation area. It would therefore be contrary to policy SP10(4) of the Core Strategy (2010), Policy DM24 of the Councils adopted Managing Development Document (2010) and Policy 7.3 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2016).
Reason 2 - Land Use
2. The proposal results in the loss of an existing business which has not been adequately justified, loss of an existing employment site and low quantum of replacement employment floorspace is contrary to the objectives of the City Fringe / Tech City Opportunity Area Framework and meeting the needs of small-medium enterprises, start-ups and creative and tech industries. As such the proposal is contrary to Core Strategy Policy SP06, Policy DM15 of the Councils Managing Development Document (2010), policies 4.3 and 4.4 of the London Plan (2016).
Reason 3 – Housing
3. By virtue of its excessive density, and level of affordable housing in a strategic housing allocation which falls significantly below the Council’s target of 35 – 50%, the proposed new housing would not assist in the creation of a sustainable place and contribute to the creation of socially balanced and inclusive communities and would fail to meet identified housing needs contrary to Policy SP02 of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy (2010), Policy DM3 of the Council’s adopted Managing Development Document (2013) and Policies 3.3, 3.4, 3.9, 3.11, 3.12 and 3.13 of the London Plan (2016).
Reason 4 - Impact on the Conservation Area
4. The proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to the Regents Canal Conservation Area and would fail to preserve or enhance the character of this heritage asset. Block A at 10 storeys would be significantly higher than the prevailing height of development, within the Regents Canal Conservation area. The harm identified to the designated heritage asset is not outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme. The scheme would therefore be contrary to paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and policies SP10 of the Core Strategy (2010) and policies DM24 and DM27 in the Managing Development Document.
Reason 5 – necessary mitigation not secured
5. 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:
- 1 - 3 Corbridge Crescent deferral report, item 4.1 PDF 116 KB
- item 5.1, 04/10/2017 Strategic Development Committee, item 4.1 PDF 2 MB
- Update Report, 04/10/2017 Strategic Development Committee, item 4.1 PDF 90 KB