Agenda item
327-329 Morville Street, London (PA/17/01253)
- Meeting of Development Committee, Wednesday, 8th November, 2017 7.00 p.m. (Item 5.1)
- View the background to item 5.1
Proposal:
Demolition of the existing building and chimney and redevelopment of the site with the erection of a new six storey building to provide 62 residential units (Use Class C3), together with associated landscaping, rooftop amenity area, child play space and cycle and refuse storage facilities.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations in the Committee report, conditions and informatives.
Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the demolition of the existing building and chimney and redevelopment of the site with the erection of a new six storey building to provide 62 residential units together with associated works
Brett McAllister (Planning Services) presented the report explaining the site location, the nature of the existing site and the surrounding area. The Committee were advised of the key features of the application, including the proposed layout, revised child play space, the proposed communal space, the quality of the affordable housing, the scale of the development and also the outcome of the consultation and the main issues raised.
Officers considered that the height of the development would sit comfortably within the local setting. It would be of a high quality design. There would be no undue impacts in terms of neighbouring amenity. Nevertheless, the proposal would impact on a number of neighbouring properties in terms of sun lighting and daylighting particularly within Springwood Close as set out in the Committee report. However, it should be noted that the windows at Springwood Close had been designed with the anticipation of a scheme of this scale coming forward on the site. Furthermore, the units affected would have alternative sources of light. This would minimise any impacts.
The development would provide an acceptable mix of housing types and tenure including the provision of 35% affordable housing that would be split 71% affordable rented (in line with Tower Hamlets preferred rent levels) and 29% intermediate.
Transport matters, including parking, access and servicing were acceptable and it was not considered that there would be any significant detrimental impact upon the surrounding highways network as a result of the development. The scheme would meet the full financial and non-financial contributions.
Subject to the recommended conditions and obligations, Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.
The Committee asked questions about the height of the development given the height of the surrounding buildings in the area and also whether the proposal was consistent with longstanding aspirations for the development of the Estate that favoured smaller scale developments in this area. Members also asked questions about the density of the proposal given it exceeded the recommended London Plan guidance. Members also sought clarify about the daylight and sunlight impacts from this proposal in isolation on neighbouring properties. The Committee also asked questions about the impact on social infrastructure, the provision of green space and additional community facilities, the cycle parking and the consultation.
Officers reminded the
Committee of the proposed density of the development and also the
criteria in the London Plan for assessing schemes that exceeded
their density guidance to identify symptoms of overdevelopment. It
would be down to the Committee to make a judgement on whether the
proposal would give rise to any adverse impacts and then to
consider if the proposal met this criteria. In terms of the
daylight/sunlight impacts, Officers considered that any development
of the site (even a smaller scale development) would affect the
sunlight/daylighting levels within Springwood Close. It should also
be noted that this property had been designed with the anticipation
of a scheme of this scale coming forward on the site and that the
design of properties within
Springwood Close to a certain extent acted as a restraint on
sunlight and day light levels to that
property. Nevertheless it was recognised that a number of windows
would experience a major loss of light, but overall it was
considered that the impact would be acceptable.
In terms of the height of the development, it was considered that it would be in line with the nearby five and six storey buildings including Olive Tree Court. It was also noted that the area comprised a number of lower rise buildings such as 3 storey and 4 storey houses.
It was also noted that the child play space plans met the policy requirements and comprised an area of ground floor space play space within the amenity space. As mentioned in the presentation, the application included contributions towards CIL. Both the Council and the applicant carried out a consultation exercise on the application. Representations were received both in support and against. Whilst Officers could not confirm if any changes had been made to the application as a direct result of the consultation, the scheme had been amended to address concerns.
In response to questions about the cycle parking, it was explained that the concerns in the report had been addressed with the provision of Sheffield Stands and it should be noted that the plans exceeded the minimum required standards.
In conclusion, whilst welcoming the proposed development of the site, concern was expressed about the scale of the proposal and that it would be out of kilter with the surrounding area. Concern was also expressed about the density of the proposal and about the adverse daylight and sunlight impacts.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 6 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the officer recommendation to grant planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 6 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at 327-329 Morville Street, London be NOT ACCEPTED for the demolition of the existing building and chimney and redevelopment of the site with the erection of a new six storey building to provide 62 residential units (Use Class C3), together with associated landscaping, rooftop amenity area, child play space and cycle and refuse storage facilities (PA/17/01253)
The Committee were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over the following issues:
§ Height, bulk and massing of the proposal
§ That the density of the proposal exceeded the London Plan density range in view of the adverse impact on residential amenity particularly in relation to sunlight and daylight impact.
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: