Agenda item
Sainsbury Foodstore, 1 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E1 5SD (PA/17/01920)
Proposal:
Demolition of the existing store and decked car park to allow for a replacement Sainsbury's store (Use Class A1) of 5,766 sqm (net sales area), 11,414 sqm (GIA) to include a Use Class D1 'explore learning' facility (118 sqm GIA); 871 sqm (GIA) of flexible retail/office/community floorspace (Use Class A1, A2, A3, B1 and D1); 471 residential units arranged in 8 blocks ranging from six to 14 storeys in height (up to a maximum height of 58.9m AOD); an energy centre and plant at basement level; 240 'retail' car parking spaces and 40 disabled car parking spaces for use by the proposed residential units; two additional disabled parking bays proposed at Merceron street; creation of an east-west public realm route from Cambridge Heath Road to Brady Street and public realm provision and enhancements; associated highway works to Brady Street, Merceron Street, Darling Row and Collingwood Street, and Cambridge Heath Road.
Officer recommendation to the Committee:
That the Committee resolves to inform the Planning Inspectorate that were it empowered to determine the application for planning permission the Council would have REFUSED permission for the reasons set out in the Committee report
Minutes:
Update report.
Paul Buckenham (Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of the existing store and decked car park to allow for a replacement Sainsbury's store to include an 'explore learning' facility, flexible retail/office/community floorspace, 471 residential units arranged in 8 blocks ranging from six to 14 storeys in height with associated works.
The Committee were advised that on the 14 December 2017, the Planning Inspectorate notified the Council that an appeal had been submitted because the statutory period for determining the application had expired and no decision had been made. As such, the powers to determine the planning application had been taken away from the Council and now lie with the Secretary of State (Planning Inspectorate). The Committee was advised to consider the application in the same manner as it would have done if the decision to determine application had not been removed from the Committee. The Committees resolution would determine the position that the Council would adopt at the Appeal. The appeal for non - determination would be considered alongside the appeal for the refusal of planning application PA/15/00837 in May 2017 at a conjoined Public Inquiry with the appeal.
Simon Westmorland (Planning Services) presented the report describing the site location, the surrounding area including the conservation areas and the listed buildings that were close to the site. He also referred to the consultation responses and the issues raised. The Committee were reminded of the concerns about the previously refused application relating to harm to heritage assets and loss of sunlight and daylight to neighbouring properties. Members noted the key changes to the proposal in terms of the reduction in the height of the proposal that had in turn reduced the number of residential units.
The Committee were advised of the key features of the application, including the proposed layout, floorspace, the elevations and the new walkway. Overall the proposal was considered to have a good design. The application would provide 17.5% affordable housing by habitable room (65 units). This falls significantly below the development plan policy requirements for 35 to 50 per cent affordable housing provision. The viability of the application had been independently tested on behalf of the Council and by the Greater London Authority (GLA). However no agreement on the viability of the application had been reached and the GLA considered that the amount of affordable housing to be wholly unacceptable. The application was appealed before viability matters could be resolved.
In heritage terms, the reduction in height had removed some of the harmful impacts from the previous refusal, particularly in relation to the Grade 1 listed Trinity Green Almshouses. However, the scheme would still result in less than substantial harm to the Grade 11 listed Albion Yard Brewery and the Whitechapel Market Conservation Area. In terms of the daylight and sunlight issues, there had been some positive improvements to a limited number of nearby properties when compared to the previous refusal. Despite this, the proposal would still result in the loss of daylight and sunlight to a significant number of neighbouring properties.
The Committee also noted the revised play space requirements and the issues around the felling of the trees.
Overall, it was considered that, whilst there were a number of public benefits arising from the application, these were not considered sufficient to outweigh the harm to the heritage assets. Additionally the proposed level of affordable housing was not justified and failed to meet the policy targets. Finally the changes with respect to daylight/sunlight were not considered sufficient to overturn the refusal of the previous application on these grounds.
Therefore, Officers were recommending that the application should be refused permission for the reasons set out in the Committee report.
The Committee asked questions about the level of affordable housing and the efforts to increase this from 17.5% of the proposed housing. They also asked questions about the lack of an agreed position on the viability assessment. It was reported that a lot of work had gone into looking at the viability of the scheme (as detailed in the presentation).Should the appeal not have been submitted, Officers would have carried out further work to try to increase the level of affordable housing given the shortfall. However, the appeal was submitted before such further action could be taken. The Greater London Authority considered that the level of affordable housing was unacceptable and had questioned the methodology used for the viability assessment.
The Committee also asked questions about the sunlight and daylight impacts particularly to Albion Yard, Kempton Court and Grindall House.
It was noted that these properties would experience a moderate/adverse impact in terms of loss of daylight and sunlight with some properties experiences a major loss of daylight and sunlight
In response to further questions, it was noted that any new application submitted before the planning appeal inquiry, would need to be considered on its planning merits.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Committee resolves to inform the Planning Inspectorate that were it empowered to determine the application for planning permission at Sainsbury Foodstore, 1 Cambridge Heath Road, London, E1 5SD (PA/17/01920) the Council would have REFUSED permission for:
· Demolition of the existing store and decked car park to allow for a replacement Sainsbury's store to include a 'explore learning' facility, flexible retail/office/community floorspace, 471 residential units arranged in 8 blocks ranging from six to 14 storeys in height, an energy centre and plant at basement level; car parking spaces, the creation of a public realm route, public realm enhancements and associated highway works. (The full description of the proposal is set out in the Committee report)
For the following reasons as set out in the Committee report:
1) The affordable housing offer of 17.5% within the proposed development would fail to meet the minimum requirement of the adopted Tower Hamlets Local Plan. The offer has not been justified in financial viability terms and would fail to provide an adequate amount of affordable housing to meet strategic targets.
The development consequently fails to accord with a number of material considerations, including but not limited to: the Borough’s adopted Development Management Document policy DM3, the Borough’s adopted Core Strategy policy SP02, the adopted London Plan including policies 3.8, 3.11 and 3.12, the National Planning Policy Framework and supplementary planning guidance as set out in LBTH’s Development Viability SPD (October 2017), LBTH Planning Obligations’ SPD (2016) and the Mayor of London’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG (August 2017).
2) The proposed development within the setting of the Grade II listed Albion Yard Brewery would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Whitechapel Market Conservation Area, by reason of the adverse impacts of the development upon townscape views of Albion Yard Brewery from Whitechapel Road.
As such, the proposal fails to provide a sustainable form of development in accordance with paragraphs 17, 56 and 61 of the NPPF and fail to be consistent with the guidance set out in Chapter 12 of the NPPF in respect to conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. The proposal is also contrary to policies 7.4, 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7 and 7.8 of the London Plan (2016), SP10 and SP12 of the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy (2010) and policies, DM24, DM26 and DM27 of the Tower Hamlets Managing Development Document (2013).
3) The development would unacceptably impact on the amount of daylight and sunlight that would be received by surrounding properties namely, Albion Yard, Blackwood, Berry, Collingwood and Grindall Houses, Kempton Court, Key Close breaching guidance in the Building Research Establishment Handbook ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ 2011. The extent and severity of the impacts are such that the development would not be consistent with the Mayor’s London Plan Policy 7.6 B(d) and the Borough’s ‘Managing Development Document’ Policy DM25 Amenity.
4) In the absence of a legal agreement to secure financial and non-financial contributions including affordable housing, street market enhancements, highway works, land allocated for Transport for London bike station, employment, skills, training and enterprise, and energy, the development fails to maximise the delivery of affordable housing and fails to mitigate its impact on highways, local retail sector, local services and amenities. This would be contrary to the requirements of Policies SP01, SP02, SP09, SP12, and SP13 of the LBTH Core Strategy, Policy DM1, DM3, DM20, DM21 of the LBTH Managing Development Document and Policies 2.15, 3.11, 3.12, 4.7, 6.3 and 8.2 of the London Plan and the LBTH Planning Obligations SPD 2016.
Supporting documents: