Meeting of the
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ______
Wednesday, 31 January 2007 at 7.30 p.m. ______
A G E N D A ______
VENUE Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Members: Deputies (if any):
Chair: Councillor Rofique U Ahmed Vice-Chair:Councillor Alexander Heslop
Councillor Alibor Choudhury Councillor M. Shahid Ali, (Designated Councillor Shamim A. Chowdhury Deputy representing Councillors Alibor Councillor Rupert Eckhardt Choudhury, Shiria Khatun, Ahmed Omer, Councillor Waiseul Islam and Alex Heslop) Councillor Shiria Khatun Councillor Shahed Ali, (Designated Councillor Timothy O'Flaherty Deputy representing Councillors Shamim Councillor Ahmed Adam Omer Choudhury and Waiseul Islam) Councillor Ahmed Hussain, (Designated Deputy representing Councillors Shamim Choudhury and Waiseul Islam) Councillor A A Sardar, (Designated Deputy representing Councillors Alibor Choudhury, Shiria Khatun, Ahmed Omer, and Alex Heslop) Councillor Dr. Emma Jones, (Designated Deputy representing Councillor Rupert Eckhardt) Councillor Azizur Rahman Khan, (Designated Deputy representing Councillor Tim O'Flaherty) Councillor Stephanie Eaton, (Designated Deputy representing Councillor Tim
O'Flaherty)
[Note: The quorum for this body is 4 Members].
If you require any further information relating to this meeting, would like to request a large print, Braille or audio version of this document, or would like to discuss access arrangements or any other special requirements, please contact: Louise Fleming, Democratic Services, Tel: 020 7364 4878, E-mail:[email protected]
LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 31 January 2007
7.30 p.m.
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992.
Note from the Chief Executive
In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, Members must declare any personal interests they have in any item on the agenda or as they arise during the course of the meeting. Members must orally indicate to which item their interest relates. If a Member has a personal interest he/she must also consider whether or not that interest is a prejudicial personal interest and take the necessary action. When considering whether or not they have a declarable interest, Members should consult pages 181 to184 of the Council’s Constitution. Please note that all Members present at a Committee meeting (in whatever capacity) are required to declare any personal or prejudicial interests.
A personal interest is, generally, one that would affect a Member (either directly or through a connection with a relevant person or organisation) more than other people in London, in respect of the item of business under consideration at the meeting. If a member of the public, knowing all the relevant facts, would view a Member’s personal interest in the item under consideration as so substantial that it would appear likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest, then the Member has a prejudicial personal interest.
Consequences:
• If a Member has a personal interest: he/she must declare the interest but can stay, speak and vote.
• If the Member has prejudicial personal interest: he/she must declare the interest, cannot speak or vote on the item and must leave the room.
When declaring an interest, Members are requested to specify the nature of the interest, the particular agenda item to which the interest relates and to also specify whether the interest is of a personal or personal and prejudicial nature. This procedure is designed to assist the public’s understanding of the meeting and is also designed to enable a full entry to be made in the Statutory Register of Interests which is kept by the Head of Democratic Renewal and Engagement on behalf of the Monitoring Officer.
PAGE WARD(S) NUMBER AFFECTED 3. UNRESTRICTED MINUTES
To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the 1 - 10 unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 10 th January 2007.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 To NOTE that the Chair has agreed to the submission of the Update Report of the Head of Development Decisions in accordance with the urgency provisions at Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to ensure Members have before them all the relevant facts and information about the planning applications set out in the agenda.
4.2 To RESOLVE that, in the event of recommendations being amended at the Committee in light of debate, or other representations being made by Members of the public, applicants, or their agents, the task of formalising the wording of any amendments be delegated to the Head of Development Decisions along the broad lines indicated at the meeting.
5. PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS
To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings 11 - 12 of the Development Committee.
6. DEFERRED, ADJOURNED AND OUTSTANDING 13 - 14 ITEMS
6 .1 Porter's Lodge, Regents Wharf, Wharf Place, London 15 - 34 Bethnal E2 9BD Green North
7. PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION 35 - 36
7 .1 Devons Wharf, Leven Road, London E14 0LL 37 - 50 East India & Lansbury 7 .2 British Street Estate, Merchant Street, London 51 - 74 Mile End East 7 .3 Mary Jones House, 8 Garford Street, London E14 75 - 84 Millwall
7 .4 Land south of Rainhill Way, Site 11, Crossways Estate 85 - 94 Bromley-By- Bow 7 .5 Sebright Arms Public House, 31-35 Coate Street, 95 - 106 Bethnal London E2 9AG Green North
7 .6 Proposed Telecommunications Antenna, Land 107 - 112 Shadwell Between South West of 7 Branch Road and North West of Limehouse Basin, Branch Road, London
8. PLANNING APPLICATIONS WITH NON- 113 - 124 COMPLETED LEGAL AGREEMENTS
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 10/01/2007 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)
LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS
MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
HELD AT 7.30 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, 10 JANUARY 2007
COUNCIL CHAMBER, 1ST FLOOR, TOWN HALL, MULBERRY PLACE, 5 CLOVE CRESCENT, LONDON, E14 2BG
Members Present:
Councillor Rofique U Ahmed (Chair)
Councillor Alexander Heslop (Vice-Chair) Councillor Alibor Choudhury Councillor Shamim A. Chowdhury Councillor Rupert Eckhardt Councillor Waiseul Islam Councillor Shiria Khatun
Other Councillors Present: Councillor Ahmed Hussain Councillor Oliur Rahman Councillor Dulal Uddin
Officers Present:
Michael Kiely – (Service Head, Development Decisions) Stephen Irvine – (Development Control Manager, Planning) Renee Goodwin – (Acting Applications Manager) Neil Weeks – (Legal Advisor)
Louise Fleming – Senior Committee Officer
1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Councillors Tim O’Flaherty and Ahmed Omer.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Councillor Alibor Choudhury declared a personal item in item 7.4 which related to the former Arbour Square Police station as the ward member for St Dunstan’s and Stepney Green.
1 Page 1 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 10/01/2007 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)
3. UNRESTRICTED MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 20 th December 2006 were confirmed and signed as a correct record by the Chair.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 The Committee noted that the Chair had agreed to the submission of the Update Report of the Head of Development Decisions in accordance with the urgency provisions at Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 to ensure that Members had before them all relevant facts and information about the planning applications set out in the agenda.
4.2 The Committee RESOLVED that, in the event of recommendations being amended by the Committee in light of debate, or other representations being made by Members of the public, applicants or their agents, the task or formalising the wording of any additional conditions be delegated to the Head of Development Decisions along the broad lines at the meeting.
5. PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS
The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections and those who had registered to speak.
6. DEFERRED, ADJOURNED AND OUTSTANDING ITEMS
The Committee noted that the application relating to Porter’s Lodge, Regents Wharf, Wharf Place would remain deferred.
6.1 17-19 Whitechapel Road, London E1
The Committee noted that the application had been withdrawn from the agenda and would be considered at a future meeting. It was also noted that the application site fell in the Spitalfields and Banglatown ward and not the Whitechapel ward as stated in the agenda.
7. PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION
7.1 139-141 Salmon Lane, London E14
Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for the change of use from a Restaurant (A3) to a Cultural Association (D1) at 139-141 Salmon Lane, London E14.
Mr Stephen Irvine, Development Control Manager, presented a detailed report on the application. He outlined the conditions which were proposed to
2 Page 2 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 10/01/2007 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)
mitigate against disturbance to neighbouring residents and the reasons why the application had been recommended for approval.
Members asked questions relating to sound insulation and noise amplification conditions. It was explained that conditions had been proposed to protect residents. Members proposed that condition 4 be amended to allow the applicant to submit a scheme relating to amplification of noise to the Council for approval.
The Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the change of use from a Restaurant (A3) to a Cultural Association (D1) at 139-141 Salmon Lane, London E14 be GRANTED subject to the conditions outlined below:
1. Timeframe 2. Hours of operation 3. Sound insulation measures to residential uses above 4. No external sound amplification shall be used and sound amplification shall only be used in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 5. A shopfront and display should be maintained to ensure the character of the street is protected 6. Limitation on use class
Informative
Any material alterations to the existing shopfront will require the benefit of planning permission.
7.2 1-3 Muirfield Crescent and 47 Millharbour, London
Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for the the outline redevelopment to provide 143 residential units in buildings up to 10 storeys in height (and no greater than 30m) with A1 and A3 use at ground floor level with reconfiguration of existing basement car park, associated servicing and landscaping at 1-3 Muirfield Crescent and 47 Millharbour, London.
Ms Renee Goodwin, Strategic Applications Manager, presented a detailed report on the proposal and outlined the issues which the Committee needed to consider when making its decision.
The Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the outline redevelopment to provide 143 residential units in buildings up to 10 storeys in height (and no greater than 30m) with A1 and A3 use at ground floor level with reconfiguration of existing basement car park, associated servicing and landscaping at 1-3 Muirfield Crescent and 47 Millharbour, London be GRANTED subject to
A Any direction by the Mayor
3 Page 3 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 10/01/2007 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)
B The prior completion of a legal agreement to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal officer, to secure the following:
a) A contribution of £35,000 to public art b) Affordable housing provision of 44% of the proposed habitable rooms with an 80/20 split between rented/shared ownership to be provided on site in accordance with the mix specified in table 8.22 of the agenda report c) A contribution of £219,505 towards the improvement and upgrade of transport infrastructure, public realm and open spaces, the provision of training and employment and the securing community facilities to achieve the objectives of the Millennium Quarter Master Plan d) A contribution of £308,550 to mitigate the demand of the additional population on education facilities e) A contribution of £734,516 to mitigate the demand of the additional population on healthcare facilities f) The provision of a public walkway through the site (along Muirfield Crescent) as part of the ‘East-West link’ in the Millennium Quarter and Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan g) The use of local labour in the construction h) ‘Car Free’ agreement, to prohibit residents of the development from applying for residents parking permits in the area.
C That the Head of Development Decisions be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the following:
Conditions
1) Time limit for outline planning permission 2) Outline permission – reserved matters a) Design of the buildings b) External appearance of the building c) Details of treatment 3) Details and samples of materials to be used on external surfaces of buildings 4) Details of provision for storage and disposal of refuse 5) Details of a scheme of external lighting and security measures 6) Details of lower floor elevations to retail units 7) Implementation of landscaping and maintenance 8) Details of noise insulation 9) Prevention of noise and disturbance from plant and machinery 10) Investigation and remediation measures for land contamination 11) Archaeology – investigation prior to commencement of works 12) Details to comply with recommendations in the Sunlight/Daylight report 13) Details of access for people with disabilities 14) Restricted working hours for construction (8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 10am Saturday)
4 Page 4 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 10/01/2007 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)
15) Submission of a Noise and Vibration Assessment and compliance with the approved Noise and Vibration Assessment 16) Submission of Air Quality Management Plan 17) Details of on-site construction parking and delivery arrangements 18) Details of foul and surface water drainage system 19) Details of sustainable development/renewable energy initiatives 20) Assessment and Method Statement outlining all works to be carried out adjacent to the water 21) Submission of a Code of Conduct
Informatives
1) Permission subject to a s106 agreement 2) No additional floors for plant 3) Request to comply with MQ Code of Construction Practice 4) Consideration to be given to green roof systems 5) Environmental Agency advice 6) British Waterways advice 7) Compliance with a post office construction Environmental Management Plan
D That, if by 10 th July 2007 the legal agreement had not been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, the Head of Development Decisions be delegated power to refuse the planning permission.
7.3 Crossways Phase 5, Campbell Road, Bow, E3
Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for the erection of buildings up to six storeys to provide 232 flats at Crossways Phase 5, Campbell Road, London E3.
Ms Renee Goodwin, Strategic Applications Manager, presented a detailed report on the proposal. She outlined the relevant planning history of the site and the differences between the current and previously approved application.
Members asked questions relating to the levels of affordable housing on the site. Ms Goodwin advised that there was 50% affordable housing across the entire estate.
The Committee RESOLVED that planning permission for the erection of buildings up to six storeys to provide 232 flats at Crossways Phase 5, Campbell Road, London E3 be GRANTED subject to
A The prior completion of a supplementary legal agreement to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, to secure obligations as related to PA/03/01683 approved on 5 th August 2005, relating to the wider Crossways Masterplan (Crossways estate, Rainhill Way, including 1-43 Holyhead Close, London E3).
5 Page 5 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 10/01/2007 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)
B That the Head of Development Decisions be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the following:
Conditions
1) Time limit – three years 2) Details of external materials, including the submission of a sample board to be submitted 3) Details of access arrangements a) Level access way at the ramp approach b) Raised safety strips either side of the vehicle ramp c) Underground car park layout d) Entry barrier to the ramped access to car park e) Clarification required as to how vehicles entering via the ramp, denied access will be able to exit without having to reverse back up the ramp f) Pedestrian visibility splays g) Provision of 232 cycle spaces h) Access to garage structure 4) Submission of an Air Quality Assessment 5) Details of any external lighting 6) Details of a Secured by Design Statement (SBD) demonstrating safety and security measures 7) Details of existing trees to be removed retained or relocated and proposed replacement trees 8) Should the existing trees protected by the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) be damaged, suitable replacement planting should be carried out. 9) Details of hard and soft landscaping treatment with details of landscaping along the railway corridor to submitted to Network Rail. 10) Landscape management plan. 11) Provision of refuse store(s) and recycling facilities. 12) Investigations and remediation measures for land contamination. 13) Details of post completion vibration testing is carried out on the building foundation. 14) Hours of construction (8.00 am and 6.00 pm Mondays to Fridays and 9.00 am and 1.00 pm Saturdays). 15) Power/hammer driven piling/breaking out of materials (10.00 am and 4.00 pm Monday to Friday). 16) Details of the route to be used for construction traffic. 17) Details on in site parking and delivery arrangements during the construction phases. 18) Submission of a code of construction practice. 19) Submission of an environmental management place. 20) Submission of a full method statement details alterations to ground levels. 21) Details of noise mitigation measures for the upper floor units to be submitted. 22) Any other conditions(s) considered necessary by the Head of Development Decisions.
6 Page 6 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 10/01/2007 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)
Informatives
1) This permission is subject to a planning obligation agreement made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2) The proposed development will result in buildings that will abut the public highway, Mr Martin Waugh of Structures and Bridges should be consulted. 3) The District and Hammersmith and City Lines pass close to the south end of the application site. The application drawings suggest that the nearby building (Block A) can probably be constructed without endangering the railway. However, it would be prudent for the applicant to contact Mr J Lee Assistant Infrastructure Protection Manager at London Underground (020 7027 9557) to discuss the construction process and related matters. 4) In respect of surface water, it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving network through on or off site storage. Please contact Thames Water on 0845 850 2777. 5) There are public sewers crossing this site. Therefore, no building will be permitted within 3 metres of the sewers without Thames Waters approval. Please contact Thames Water on 0845 850 2777. 6) Thames Water will aim to provide customers with a minimum pressure of 10m head (approx 1 bar) and a flow rate of 9 litres/minute at the point where it leaves Thames Water pipes. The developer should take account of this minimum pressure in the design of the proposed development. 7) Crossrail would like to be appraised on a regular basis regarding the progress of the proposed works. The developer should make Crossrail aware of any ‘features’ in the ground that may be discovered during demolition or construction phases. 8) With regard to comments of DLR please refer to their letter of the 1 st December 2006 (Reference 1.12.06 GEN008.5.RB) detailing comments in relation to the application. 9) Any scaffold which is to be constructed adjacent to the railway must be erected in such a manner that at no time will any poles or cranes oversail or fall onto the railway. All plant and scaffolding must be positioned, that in the event of failure, it will not fall onto Network Rail land. The primary concern is the safe running of the operational. 10) Additional or increased flows of surface water must not be discharged onto Network Rail land nor into Network Rail’s culverts or drains. In the interests of long term stability of the railway, soakaways should not be constructed within 10m of the boundary with the operational railway. 11) In order to ensure the proposed development can be constructed and maintained without encroachment onto the operational railway line all buildings and structures should be set back at least 2m from the boundary with the operational railway or at least 5m for overhead power lines.
7 Page 7 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 10/01/2007 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)
12) With regard to condition 12 (Decontamination), you should contact the Council’s Environmental Health Department, Mulberry Place (AH), 4 th Floor, PO Box 55739, 5 Clove Crescent, London 14 1BY. 13) You are advised that the Council operated a Code of Construction Practice and you should discuss this with the Council’s Environmental Health Department, Mulberry Place (AH), 4 th Floor, PO Box 55739, 5 Clove Crescent, London E14 1BY. 14) You should consult with the Council’s Highways Development Department, Mulberry Place (AH), 4 th Floor, PO Box 55739, 5 Clove Crescent, London E14 1BY regarding any alterations to the public highway.
C That if by 10 th July 2007 the supplementary legal agreement has not been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, the Head of Development Decisions be delegated power to refuse planning permission.
7.4 Former Arbour Square Police Station, Arbour Street and Aylward Street and former Thames Magistrates' Court, Aylward Street and West Arbour Street
Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, introduced the site and proposal for the development at the former Arbour Square Police Station, Arbour Street and Aylward Street and former Thames Magistrates Court, Aylward Street and West Arbour Street.
Mr Michael Sierens spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application. He explained that the application had been reduced in size and the affordable housing mix had been changed. He went through the reasons why he believed the application complied with current policy and why it should be approved.
Ms Renee Goodwin, Strategic Applications Manager, presented a detailed report on the proposal and explained that it was the subject of an appeal for non-determination. Therefore, the Committee would have to make a decision on what it would have done, had it have been in a position to determine the application. She outlined the reasons why the application was recommended for refusal.
Members asked questions relating to why the application did not comply with policy and it was explained that detailed negotiations had taken place with the applicant regarding the issues, prior to the application going to appeal.
The Committee RESOLVED that
A The Director of Development and Renewal be instructed to inform the Planning Inspectorate that had the Committee been empowered to make a decision on the application for planning permission for
8 Page 8 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 10/01/2007 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)
1. demolition of the roof and rear extension of the former Police Station fronting Arbour Street and Aylward Street and the demolition of the former Magistrates Court and associated buildings on Aylward Street and West Arbour Street and 2. change of use and conversion of the Police Station with the erection of a roof level and rear extension with alterations to window openings together with the redevelopment of the Thames Magistrates Court site by the erection of a part three, part four and part five storey building to create in total 63 flats (27 x 1 bedroom, 29 x 2 bedroom, 4 x 3 bedroom, 2 x 4 bedroom and 1 x 5 bedroom) with 13 car parking spaces and amenity space provision
it would have been REFUSED for the following reasons:
1) The new building along West Arbour Street and Aylward Street would result in an unsatisfactory relationship with the retained Police Station due to inappropriate detailed design and would conflict with Policy DEV1 of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998. 2) The cumulative impact of the proposed development due to bulk, scale and mass would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Albert Gardens/Arbour Square Conservation Area contrary to policies DEV25, 26 and 28 of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 and Policies CP499 and CON2 of the emerging Tower Hamlets Local Development Framework (Core Strategy and Development Control Submission Document November 2006), Policy 4B of the London Plan 2004 and national advice in PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment. 3) The scheme would result in an overdevelopment of the site contrary to Policy $b.3 of the London Plan 2004 and Policies CP20, HSG1 and Planning Standard 4 of the emerging Tower Hamlets Local Development Framework (Core Strategy and Development Control Submission Document). 4) The proposed dwelling mix would fail to comply with Policy HSG7 of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998, the London Plan 2004, the London Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Housing’ November 2005 and Policies CP21 and HSG2 of the emerging Tower Hamlets Local Development Framework November 2006.
B The Director of Development and Renewal is instructed to advise the Planning Inspectorate that if the Inspector is minded to allow the appeals, planning permission should not be granted unless there is in place and agreement or unilateral undertaking under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure planning obligations under the following heads:
a) An affordable housing contribution of 39% of the residential floorspace to be provided at a ratio of 80:20 between rental and intermediate housing.
9 Page 9 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 10/01/2007 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)
b) A £98,736 contribution to the provision of education facilities in the area. c) A £283,248 contribution to the provision of Primary Health Care facilities. d) Car Free arrangements that prohibit residents of the development from purchasing on-street parking permits from the Council. e) Local labour in construction.
C That the Director of Development and Renewal be instructed to inform the Planning Inspectorate that had the Committee been empowered to make a decision on the application for conservation area consent it would have been REFUSED for the following reason:
1) In the absence of an acceptable scheme for redevelopment, the demolition proposed would be premature and contrary to Policy DEV28 of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998, Policies CP49, DEV2 and CON2 of the emerging Tower Hamlets Local Development Framework November 2006 and national advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment.
The meeting ended at 8.15 p.m.
Chair, Councillor Rofique U Ahmed Development Committee
10 Page 10 Agenda Item 5 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OLYMPICS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AT COMMITTEE MEETINGS
1) When a planning application is reported on the agenda as a Planning Application for Decision at one of the Council’s Development Committees, objectors and the applicant/supporters will be able to address that Committee on any planning issues raised by the application, provided that they follow the procedures set out below.
2) For each planning application up to two objectors can address the Committee for up to three minutes each. The applicant or his/her supporter can address the Committee for an equivalent time to that allocated for objectors (ie 3 or 6 minutes).
3) All requests to address a Committee meeting should be confirmed in writing or by e-mail to the Committee Clerk by 4pm on the Friday prior to the meeting. This communication should confirm the details of the intended spokesperson and include contact telephone numbers. The Clerk will not accept requests before the agenda has been published. For objectors, the allocation of slots will be on a first come, first served basis. For the applicant, the clerk will advise after 4pm on the Friday prior to the meeting whether his/her slot is 3 or 6 minutes long. This slot can be used for supporters or other persons that the applicant wishes to present the application to the Committee.
4) The order for addressing committee will be: a) Objector(s) b) The applicant or supporter(s) c) Non-committee Member(s) wishing to address the committee (limited to 3 minutes each)
5) These will all be verbal presentations only. The distribution of additional material or information to Members at the Committee is not permitted.
6) At the close of a speaker’s address the person must take no further part in the proceedings of the meeting, unless directed by the Chair of the Committee.
7) Committee members, at the discretion of the Chair, may ask questions of any spokesperson on points of clarification only.
8) Where a planning application has been recommended for approval by officers and the applicant or his/her supporter has requested to speak but there are no objectors or non-committee members registered to speak, the Chair will ask the Committee if any Member wishes to speak against the application. If no Member indicates that they wish to speak against the recommendation, then the applicant or their supporter(s) will not be expected to address the Committee.
9) The Chair has the ability, at his/her discretion, to vary these procedures where there are exceptional circumstances or in the interests of natural justice.
Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 12 Agenda Item 6
Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Development 18 th January 2007 Unrestricted 6
Report of: Title: Deferred, adjourned & outstanding items Corporate Director of Development and Renewal Ref No: See reports attached for each item Originating Officer: Michael Kiely Ward(s): See reports attached for each item
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This report is submitted to advise the Committee of planning applications that have been considered at previous meetings and currently stand deferred or are awaiting follow-up reports to be placed before the committee. The following cases are in that category:
1. On 20 th December 2006 the Committee considered a report relating to Porters Lodge, Regents Wharf and did not accept the recommendation for approval. In accordance with the council’s Constitution, that decision was deferred to allow officers to draft reasons for refusal. A report is attached at 6.1 along with the original Committee report.
2. RECOMMENDATION
2.1 It is recommended that the Committee:
a) Consider the attached report(s) as listed below below; and b) Consider the recommendations contained in those report(s).
Agenda Address of development Original Original committee decision item no committee date Porters Lodge, Regents 20 th December Recommendation for approval not 6.1 Wharf 2006 agreed
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT
Brief Description of background papers: Tick if copy supplied for register Name and telephone no. of holder:
Application, plans, adopted UDP. draft See reports attached for each item LDF and London Plan Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 14 Agenda Item 6.1
Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Development 31 st January 2007 Unrestricted 6.1
Report of: Title: Planning Application for Decision Corporate Director of Development and Renewal Ref No: PA/06/01087 Case Officer: Jerry Bell/Ila Robertson Ward(s): Bethnal Green North
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
Location: Porters Lodge, Regents Wharf, Wharf Place, London, E2 9BD Existing Use: Entrance, refuse store, sauna/ spa and grassed area. Proposal: Construction of new 3 storey building to form 3 flats over existing entrance and bin store (revised scheme). Drawing Nos: Site Survey, 2319/S/206, 2319/S/2062319P.303 Rev A, 2319.P.304A Rev A, 2319.P.305, Rev A, 2319.P.307 Rev A, 2319.P.308 Rev A,
Applicant: Albany Homes Ltd Historic Building: N/A Conservation Area: N/A
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 At its meeting of the 20 th December 2006, the Development committee considered the above application. The application had been submitted following a previous application which had been refused by the Council and that decision upheld at appeal. The Planning Inspector had been concerned over the original application’s affect on residential amenity. A copy of the case officer’s original report is attached at Appendix A, whilst a copy of the Inspectors decision letter is attached at Appendix B.
After hearing all the representations made, the Committee expressed concern over the impact of the development on the residents, the design and the loss of amenity space and light and indicated that it did not support the officer’s recommendation. Mr Michael Kiely, Head of Development Decisions, advised Members that the concerns of the Planning Inspector had been overcome and that a refusal on the grounds of the impact on residential amenity and overdevelopment would be difficult to defend. He reminded the Committee that it must take the Inspector’s decision into account, or the Committee may be acting unreasonably and exposing the Council to the risk of a cost award being made against it
After hearing representations from Mr Kiely, Members voted that the officer’s recommendation to grant planning permission for entrance, refuse store, sauna/spa and grassed area, construction of new 3 storey building to form 3 flats over existing entrance and bin store at Porters Lodge, Regents Wharf, Wharf Place, London E2 9BD be not supported on the grounds that the design of the development would have a negative impact on the adjacent conservation area.
In accordance with the Constitution, the application was deferred t o the next meeting of the Committee to allow officers to obtain legal advice and draft reasons for refusal. However,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT
Brief Description of background papers: Tick if copy supplied for register Name and telephone no. of holder:
Application, plans, adopted UDP. draft LDF and London Plan 020 7364 5338 Page 15 due to time constraints in preparation of a report, it was not possible to place a report on the agenda for 10 th January 2007 meeting.
In the interim, the applicant, on the 6th of January 2007 submitted a planning appeal under Section 78(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for non-determination of the application within the statutory 8 weeks period, therefore the Committee is no longer empowered to make a decision on the application.
Consequently, the Director of Development and Renewal seeks an ‘ in principle decision’ so that she can be instructed to inform the Planning Inspectorate of what the Committee’s decision would have been, had it been empowered to make one.
3. DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS IN LIGHT OF PREVIOUS APPEAL
3.1 Relevant planning history, description of development, policy considerations and planning assessments for the site are contained in the officers original report attached at Appendix A, however, material to this report is the Inspectors decision letter of the 26 th September attached at Appendix B, in relation to the previously refused planning permission, and how the current application seeks to address his concerns.
The Inspector, in paragraph 3 of his letter, considered that the main issues were:
• the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, • and secondly, the effect on neighbours living conditions with particular regards to outlook, daylight and sunlight, and amenity space.
Character and appearance of the area
The Inspector, in paragraph 7, of his report considered that housing in this area is consistent with both local and national policy, whilst in paragraph 8, he concluded that the proposal in terms of:
• its relationship to the adjacent Regents Wharf, • its contemporary design and strong identity, • its roof design in relation to surrounding buildings, • its scale, mass and materials
all serve to enhance the street frontage and therefore in this respect the proposal accords with Council’s own policies on design and appearance.
The Inspector has come to this conclusion based on the applicant’s response to the surrounding context in ensuring that the building is of a similar height as its neighbours, that architectural detailing such as the brick banding, fenestration details and the type and colour of brick match the neighbours, yet ensuring that the building is distinctive by introducing a vertical strip that names the building and gives it its own identity.
Given the above, it is recommended that Members re-consider their resolution to refuse planning permission on the grounds that the proposal would have a negative impact on the adjacent Conservation Area in light of the Inspectors decision.
Page 16 Effect on neighbours living conditions in relation to:
Outlook – The Inspector in paragraph 9 of his report, concluded that the projection of the development, some 10m beyond the elevation of London Wharf would have an unacc eptable impact on the outlook of the affected rooms, this is illustrated below at Figure 1
Figure 1
The applicant has sought to address this issue by chamfering the wall away from the properties in London Wharf as illustrated in Fig 2 below
Figure 2
This issue was the Inspectors primary reason for dismissing the application as he states in his conclusions “In my view, the proposed development would make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. However, this consideration is outweighed by the unacceptably adverse effect of the proposed building on the living conditions of residents of London Wharf. This issue cannot be satisfactorily addressed by the imposition of planning conditions….”.
The revised application has addressed the Inspectors concerns by ensuring that the flank
Page 17 wall of the development fronting London Wharf has been moved away from the occupants and there now remains no valid reason in relation to this issue that would substantiate a refusal of planning permission.
Daylight and Sunlight – The Inspector, in paragraph 10, concluded that due to the south-west orientation of the London Wharf building, the proposal would not affect sunlight to its windows other than in the latter part of the evening. He did not however consider that this minimal loss could support a refusal of planning permission. The applicant had previously submitted a daylight and sunlight report for a previously larger building, which had passed all the relevant tests.
Amenity space – The Inspector, in paragraph 12 concluded that there would be a loss of amenity space in terms of size and overshadowing that did not fully comply with Council policy. Whilst he did not consider that this would be sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal, he accepted that it added weight to his concerns in relation to the adverse effects on the living conditions of neighbours. Therefore, its stands to reason, t hat if the matter in relation to the flank wall had been resolved, then the likelihood is that the Inspector would have upheld the appeal.
4. ADVICE ON COSTS AWARDS The power given by to the Secretary of State (S.O.S.) to award costs for unreasonable behaviour in relation to a planning appeal inquiry or hearing, is given by the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by sec.322 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Ministerial advice related to costs awards is encompassed within Planning Circular 8/93. Annex 1 of the Circular reiterates the basic principle that parties to an appeal normally meet their own expenses, but that an award may be given for "unreasonable" behaviour by either party. The Circular quotes Manchester City Council v S.O.S. and Mercury Communications 1988 in support of the ordinary interpretation of "unreasonable". Advice is given, that whilst costs awards normally go to the successful side at appeal, it is possible for an award to be given to the losing party.
The Circular advises that "..planning authorities are not bound to adopt or include as part of their case, the professional or technical advice given by their own officers, or received from statutory bodies or consultees . But they will be expected to show that they had reasonable planning grounds for taking a decision contrary to such advice; and they were able to present relevant evidence to support their decision in all respects".
Circular 8/93 also advises that a planning authority may be considered to have acted unreasonably if it is clear from an earlier appeal decision that there would be no objection to a revised application, and there are no changed circumstances.
Given the above, it is considered that the Council could be considered to have acted unreasonably to refuse planning permission for this development given the details of the Inspector’s decision on the earlier application and the amendments to the scheme made by the applicant. Although the Council cannot now determine the application because of the appeal, the principle still applies and should be followed by the Committee.
5. ADVICE ON REASONS FOR REFUSAL
5.1 Officer’s advice to Members is that there are not clear planning grounds upon which to refuse planning permission given the conclusions of the Inspector. However, he did conclude that the loss of the amenity area caused harm to local residents (para 12) but that on its own this was not sufficient to dismiss the appeal. This therefore represents the only area where the Inspector has identified harm that is also present in the current application.
Page 18 On balance , he does not consider it sufficient to refuse planning permission. Such a ground carries the least risk of a failure at appeal leading to costs. However, the officers’ advice is that such an award is still likely.
If, given the above, Members are still minded to instruct the Director of Development and Renewal that it would have refused the application if empowered to do so, it is recommended that the reason for refusal should read:
Planning permission for entrance, refuse store, sauna/spa and grassed area, construction of new 3 storey building to form 3 flats over existing entrance and bin store at Porters Lodge, Regents Wharf, Wharf Place, London E2 9BD would have been refused on the grounds that the design of the development would have a negative impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring residents by reason of loss of amenity space contrary to Policies DEV2 (Residential Amenity) and HSG17 (loss of amenity land) of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998.
Page 19 Appendix A
Committee: Date: Classification: Report Agenda Item Development 20 th December Unrestricted Number: Number: 2006 7.2
Report of: Title: Planning Application for Decision Director of Development and Renewal Ward: Bethnal Green North Case Officer: Ila Robertson
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
Location: Porters Lodge, Regents Wharf, Wharf Place, London, E2 9BD Reference Number: PA/06/01087 Existing Use: Entrance, refuse store, sauna/ spa and grassed area. Proposal: Construction of new 3 storey building to form 3 flats over existing entrance and bin store (revised scheme). Drawing Nos/Documents: Site Survey, 2319/S/206, 2319/S/206
2319P.303 Rev A, 2319.P.304A Rev A, 2319.P.305 Rev A, 2319.P.307 Rev A, 2319.P.308 Rev A, Applicant: Albany Homes Ltd Ownership: As above, with various leaseholders (1-21 Regents Wharf) Historic Building: N/A Conservation Area: N/A
2. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 The local planning authority has considered the particular circumstances of this application against the Council’s approved planning policies contained in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan, associated supplementary p lanning guidance, the London Plan and Government Planning Policy Guidance and has found that:
a) The development will provide much needed additional housing for the borough.
b) In response to the previous refusal under PA/05/02129 the building has been designed to ensure that there is no sense of enclosure for the adjoining residents at London and Regents Wharf.
3. RECOMMENDATION
3.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:
3.2 Conditions
3.2.1 Full planning permission
3.2.2 Building works Hours of Operation
Page 20
3.2.3 External finishes to match existing
3.2.4 Refuse and Recycling
3.3 Informatives
3.3.1 London Wharf Balconies
4. PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
4.1 The p roposal seeks to construct a four storey building over the existing bin store, entrance and area of communal open space. The building will comprise of a sauna, jacuzzi and shower facilities within the basement, a new entrance, bin store and cycle storage a t ground floor level and a one bedroom residential units provided on each of the upper three levels.
Site and Surroundings
4.2 The application site is located on Wharf Place and forms part of a residential development known as Regent's Wharf which adjoins the site to the north-west. To the west is a residential wharf development conversion that is four storeys in height and is known as London Wharf. North of the site is Regent's Canal, with Wharf Place and associated parking to the south. The s ite does not contain a listed building and is not located within a conservation area. The area is predominately residential with much of the housing stock in the form of converted wharf buildings or residential apartment buildings. Some industrial and co mmercial units are also positioned in the vicinity of the site. The site at present forms an entry way, refuse area and single parking space to the Regent's Wharf development. The site steps up at the rear to allow access to the raised rear amenity space facing the canal. A basement parking area is positioned below the rear communal amenity area.
Planning History
4.3 The following planning decisions are relevant to the application:
BG/96/0001 – Granted Planning Permission on 6 th August 1996 - Consent was for the Construction of maisonette in car park ventilation void and provision of one extra car parking space in basement car park.
PA/04/160 is the most relevant planning proposal on the site. The proposal was granted for the partial demolition of existing two-storey residential unit, down to courtyard level, and construction of a three-storey building on North East corner of courtyard. The proposal also incorporated an existing basement space into a replacement maisonette and added three new flats.
The applicant lodged an appeal for non-determination. The start date of the appeal was 17 th May 2004. The appeal was dismissed on 27 th January 2005 on the grounds that the proposed development caused harm to the appearance and character of the area and would also have an adverse impact upon amenities of existing residents.
PA/04/00556 – Withdrawn on 4 th October 2005. This application duplicated the
Page 21 scheme PA/04/00160.
PA/01/01427 – Application withdrawn by applicant on 5 th February 2 004. The proposal was for the partial demolition of existing two storey residential unit, down to courtyard level, and construction of a three storey building on North East corner of courtyard, incorporating existing basement residential floor space and c reating one maisonette and two flats. It is noted that this was a revised scheme of reduced scale and amended design to replace proposal advertised in December 2001.
PA/05/2129 - This application was subject of an appeal by the applicant against the loc al planning authority’s failure to determine this application within the statutory period allowed. The application was however sent to the Development Committee for consideration on the 23rd August 2006. The Committee resolved that if it had the power to d ecide the application it would have refused it. The appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspector on the 26th September 2006 on the grounds that it would create a sense of enclosure.
5. POLICY FRAMEWORK
5.1 The following policies are relevant to the application:
Unitary Development Plan
Proposals: N/A Policies DEV1 General Design DEV2 Environmental Requirements DEV47 Riverside, Canalside, Docks and other water areas DEV50 Noise HSG1 Location for New Housing Development HSG2 Location of New Housing HSG7 Dwelling Mix and Type HSG15 Preservation of Residential Amenity HSG16 Housing Amenity Space HSG17 Loss of Amenity Space ART2 Retention of Existing Facilities T16 Location of New Development T17 Traffic Priorities for New Development
Emerging Local Development Framework
Proposals: N/A Core Strategies CP1 Creating Sustainable Communities CP4 Good Design CP19 New Housing Provision CP21 Dwelling Mix and Type CP25 Housing Amenity Space Policies: DEV1 Amenity DEV2 Character and Design DEV3 Accessibility and Inclusive Design DEV4 Safety and Security DEV6 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Page 22 DEV7 Water Quality and Conservation DEV10 Disturbance from Noise Pollution DEV19 Parking for Motor vehicles RT6 Loss of Public Houses HSG3 Affordable Housing Provisions HSG7 Housing Amenity Space HSG9 Accessible and Adaptable Homes
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
Residential Space Standards
Community Plan The following Community Plan objectives relate to the application: A better place for living safely A better place for living well
6. CONSULTATION RESPONSE The views of officers within the Directorate of Development and Renewal are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below. The following were consulted regarding the application:
6.1 LBTH Highways
No comments received. However, under the previous scheme PA/05/02129 Highways considered that sufficient parking was available and a s106 car free agreement would not be required.
6.2 LBTH Design and Conservation
No objection in principle, however all samples for external finishes should be conditioned.
6.3 LBTH Environmental Health
No comments received.
No comments received.
6.5 British Waterways
No objections.
6.6 Health and Safety Executive
No objection on safety grounds.
6.7 London Borough of Hackney
The development appears acce ptable in principle, however it is considered that in terms of design a pitched roof would be more appropriate than a flat roof.
7. LOCAL REPRESENTATION
7.1 A total of (60) neighbouring properties within the area shown on the map added
Page 23 to this rep ort were notified about the application and invited to comment. (The application has also been publicised in East End Life and on site.) The number of representations received from neighbours and local groups in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:
It is noted that the application was reconsulted following amendments to the design. The neighbouring properties were sent an additional letter, site notice and a newspaper advertisement were reissued.
No of individual Objecting: (36) Supporting: (0) responses: (36) No of petitions received: (0)
7.2 The following local groups/societies made representations:
Regents Wharf Residents Association
7.3 The following issues were raised in representations tha t are material to the determination of the application, and they are addressed in the next section of this report:
Design and appearance Sense of enclosure Loss of daylight and sunlight Loss of amenity area Parking
7.4 The following issues were raised in the representations, but they are not material to the determination of the application:
Ownership Certificates Individual Leases
8. MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The main planning issues raised by the application t hat the Committee must consider are:
Land use Design Amenity Highways
8.1 Land Use
8.1.1 The Adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998 policies HSG1 and HSG2 seek to encourage residential prop osals within localities which are adequately serviced and where an overall satisfactory residential environment can be assured. Given the surroundings, the existing nature of the buildings and residential use within the area it is considered that this test is met.
8.1.2 The proposed mix of units (3 x one bedroom units), in consideration of the urban context of the site and site restraints are in accordance with policy HSG7 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and would provide a satisfactory residential environment.
8.1.3 The proposed residential units each have a floor area of 44.3 sq.m which is slightly below Councils minimum floor area requirement for one bed room unit of
Page 24 44.5sq.m. The internal room sizes and layout also comply with Council’s minimum standar ds. The design of the residential units thereby generally accords with Council’s adopted Residential Space Standard SPG and are considered acceptable.
8.1.4 In addition, the proposed internal layouts and room sizes are considered acceptable.
8.1.5 The proposal is regarded as a small infill development and as such is not contrary to Councils adopted density policy, Policy HSG9 of adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998). Density is thereby considered acceptable.
8.2 Design
8.2.1 The building has been designed to replace the existing entrance area which makes no positive contribution to the existing street scene. The design features an identity of its own and the massing and scale are in context with th e two adjoining buildings. Furthermore, it is considered that the flat roof is acceptable, given there are a number of roof designs in the local area and the use of the building as a linkage to the existing buildings.
8.2.2 The main external finish will consi st of stripped red and yellow multistock brickwork to match the existing Regents Wharf building. Windows and doors will be power coated, aluminium and will be mid grey in colour. Pre-cast concrete bond of a natural finish will also be incorporated into the external finish and the external materials also include perforated steel sheets to the entrance and stairwell.
8.2.3 The appearance of the proposal with its use of steel and stripped brick work will create a contemporary structure with elements that respect the character of both Regents Wharf and the adjoining London Wharf. The proposed appearance of the building is consistent with both neighbouring buildings.
8.2.4 The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Design and Conservation officers and no objections have been raised.
8.2.5 It is noted that objectors have raised concerns regarding safety to the building given that some 3D images show the materials of the cycle store to be opaque in finish. However, when viewing the actual plans it is clear that perforated steel cladding is proposed which is a robust material. It is therefore not considered that the security of Regents Wharf would be compromised by the materials to the cycle store.
8.2.6 In light of the above it is considered that the proposal is in accordanc e with the UDP policies of DEV1 and DEV47 of the Unitary Development Plan.
8.3 Amenity
8.3.1 The building will be flush with t he front façade of Regent’s Wharf, however will project approximately 10.2 metres beyond the front façade of London Wharf to the east. The largely blank side wall with a height of 13 metres has been designed to stagger away from the London Wharf building. A small 1.5 metre section that is located within 0.5m of the window. However, this then tapers out quickly to 2.5 metres for the remainder of this elevation providing sufficient setback and outlook from the adjoining windows habitable rooms to the east.
Page 25 8.3.2 The development as proposed does not result in a material sense of enclosure to the adjoining occupiers of London Wharf such that it would warrant a refusal of permission. As such, the scheme as proposed will not adversely effect the amenity of adjacent occupiers and is in accordance with Council Policies DEV1, DEV2 and ST24 which aims to improve the quality of the residential environment and to ensure new developments have no adverse impact on residential amenity of neighbouring properties.
8.3.3 In addition , the windows of the units at London Wharf face a south westerly direction and are not overshadowed by surrounding buildings. It is not considered the proposal will not result in a significant loss of Daylight/sunlight to London Wharf.
8.3.4 The rear wall o f the proposal will project approximately 1.7 metres beyond the adjacent rear wall of regents Wharf. However, it is considered that this projection is minor and given the northern aspect of this elevation will not cause material harm to occupiers of Regen ts Wharf in terms of loss of daylight/sunlight or an increased sense of enclosure
8.3.5 The location of windows to habitable rooms face the front and rear of the site and do not face windows to habitable rooms of adjoining properties. Windows for the en-suites are proposed for the eastern side wall, however these face the car park to the front of London Wharf and are located at first floor level and above. No privacy issues are raised by the proposal.
8.3.6 A number of objectors have raised concerns regarding the balconies above flat 1C of London Wharf operating as a roof. However, this does not form part of this application and can only be considered for information purposes.
8.3.7 In relation to the impact upon amenity area, whilst the site will result in a reductio n in overall useable amenity space. The development will retain recreational facilities at basement level and an amenity area to the rear adjacent to the canal. Whilst we note this loss, as noted by the inspector in his assessment, the loss is not consider ed material enough to warrant a refusal in this instance.
8.3.8 The remaining amenity spaces adjacent to the canal together with the basement level recreational area are considered to be of a sufficient size to accommodate the needs of both existing residents and those future occupants of the new building. The proposal satisfies Policy HSG 17 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
8.3.9 Objectors have raised concern that the 3D images show the amenity areas to the rear of Regents Wharf as grass when they are in fact landscaped with plants. However, on the actual plans these areas are identified as flower beds not grass and from the site photos this is further confirmed. Therefore, no further regard will be given to this matter, given these areas can be changed from flower beds to grass without the need for planning permission.
8.3.10 The proposal includes a new entrance to the Regent’s Wharf complex and an enlarged refuse area which would provide sufficient storage to accommodate for both existing and proposed resident ial units. A 10 stand bicycle store will also be positioned to the rear of the refuse area. The new entrance way will improve access and security to the building with the enlarged refuse and new bicycle storage improving on-site facilities.
8.3.11 The devel opment is adjacent to the Regent’s Canal and conforms with the
Page 26 general scale and form of surrounding buildings facing the canal. The proposal is set back some distance from the canal and as such will preserve the overall character and appearance of the ar ea when viewed in relation to the canal. Access to the waterside/canal is preserved. The location and design of the proposal therefore meets with guidelines of Policy DEV47 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
8.4 Highways
8.4.1 The proposed development will not result in a loss of any on-site parking spaces. Comments received from the Council’s Highways department concerning the previously refused scheme stated that given existing parking provisions in the overall Regent’s Wharf and London Wharf development, a car free agreement would not be required for the current scheme.
8.5 Other Planning Issues
8.5.1 With respect to the submitted design statement making reference to Hackney Council’s housing standards, the proposed scheme, as demonstrated within the analysis section of this report does meet with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets housing standards. It is understood that this is a typographic mistake.
8.5.2 In terms of the description of the proposal the Council is aware of the age of both Regents Wharf and London Wharf. It is also noted that the London Wharf Building is not a Listed Building.
8.5.3 In terms of on-site parking facilities, the proposed development will not result in a loss of any parking space, and bicycle storage facilities are proposed that will benefit all of Regents Wharf residents.
8.5.4 The proposal includes the enlargement of the existing refuse facility, as such, the development would improve refuse facilities if the schem e was granted consent. The proposal is regarded as a small infill development and as such is not contrary to Councils adopted density policy, Policy HSG9 of adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998).
8.5.5 In addition, the applicant submitted a daylight/sunligh t report. However this relates to a previous scheme and does not relate to the proposal in question. However, no objections were received by Environmental Health and it is not considered that the proposal would result in a loss of daylight or sunlight giv en the orientation of the existing buildings and design of the new building.
8.6 Non-Planning Issues
8.6.1 Objectors have advised that the amenity areas are included in the lease agreements with the owners of Regents Wharf. This is a civil matter between the leaseholders and the freeholders and is not a matter for consideration by Council.
8.6.2 In addition, objectors have raised that the ownership certificates served in July prior the proposal being lodged were not served on the correct ow ners. Council does not have the ability to confirm that this is correct and it is not a material consideration for the determination of the application. However, it is assumed that the applicant has served them on the correct parties. If this is found to b e incorrect then the permission is 'void'.
Page 27 8.7 Conclusions
8.7.1 All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report.
Page 28 Site Map
a El o r 3 1 Sub Sta B TCBs
3 Broadway House 1 Ps P 0
1 t 9 T o
0 1 E 4
1 K
R A
M 8 Y
A 6 ADA STR
W EET
D 4 a
8 2
1 1 t R o
E A 4 GE 1
NT' O S 2 RO R W B
Bollard Bol BM 18.19m Works PC 1 Def CC 15.8m Cat and Mutton Bollards 2 Works Bridge 8 Bo Bol ro al Bri C dge W on harf st 9 R , G 2 e L El Su 1 0 g El Sub Sta 2 e A n o Re t s t gen s C ly ts C 17.2m ddddddddd3 Wharf W C 1 h o ar n
f st
2 A
D 1 o N
t
A & D dddddd 7
O WH L R
A 6
to 30 R B
1 R F o E P t
LAC B W S E 1 ' d ' ouse D y S
dale H R R Council Depot
1 ddddddd 1
A 1 O 4 H 2 A 1 C C D to G T PH I 1 R d 2 ddddddddddddd ra P B n o
r d o L R W C Posts o e U n 1 15.1m Whiston House o H t B g n n d o Posts A e s R o 1 io t n 2 n
, n
F
G W t
1
o
t ' 1 P 2 15.7m L s C L h dddddddddddd A Posts A a C a s C r n l 3 f a y E
5 a
1 n C Ada A
o t a l t o o D 1 n l
1 House 2 s TCBs e
t
f LB & ddddddddddddd
W L B
O B A R le d use x y W a 'S Ho n da h d H A ar r a 1 T f 5 I ddddddddddddddddd 1 M S dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd CE 1 D LA T A P D o L TCB AD A w
O R in
G 3 d g 1 W PLACE ta P ADA ub S E a
El S N th
2 I Library dddddd 1 P m C L pe
ou A W r
rta h i ul 11 a
d H C a l
ous Pritchard House E rf 0 d
2 e
o t
1 o 4 2
t
1 d 2 d 1 t d o 20 ddddddddddddddddddddddddd dd dddddddddddddddddd
B Pritchard M
4 2 d
Courtauld House
1 o t
House 5 d 1 . 5 6 1 d 15.1m m d 6
0 e 3 s d Pr u 6 it d o 2 ch H 1 a d t rd o C s d d e 1:1250 Atkinson 1 n R 5 t o B re a House o d r d o d Legend Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area d Land Parcel Address
This Site Map displays the Planning Application Site Boundary and the neighbouring Occupiers / Owners who were consulted as part of the Planning Application process. The Site Map was reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Tower Hamlets LA086568
Page 29 Appendix B
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34 Agenda Item 7
Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Development 31 st January 2007 Unrestricted 7
Report of: Title: Planning Applications for Decision Corporate Director of Development and Renewal Ref No: See reports attached for each item Originating Officer: Michael Kiely Ward(s): See reports attached for each item
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 In this part of the agenda are reports on planning applications for determination by the Committee. The following information and advice applies to all those reports.
2. FURTHER INFORMATION
2.1 Members are informed that all letters of representation and petitions received in relation to the items on this part of the agenda are available for inspection at the meeting.
2.2 Members are informed that any further letters of representation, petitions or other matters received since the publication of this part of the agenda, concerning items on it, will be reported to the committee in an update report.
3. ADVICE OF ASSISTANT CHIEF EXECUTIVE (LEGAL SERVICES)
3.1 The relevant policy framework against which the Committee is required to consider planning applications includes the adopted Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 (UDP), the adopted London Plan 2004, the Council's Community Plan, the Draft Local Development Framework and Interim Planning Guidance Notes.
3.2 Decisions must be taken in accordance with sections 54A and 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is particularly relevant, as it requires the Committee to have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and any other material considerations.
3.3 Under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects listed buildings or their settings, the local planning authority must have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest it possesses.
3.4 Under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a conservation area, the local planning authority must pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.
3.5 Whilst the adopted UDP 1998 is the statutory development plan for the borough (along with the London Plan), it will be replaced by a more up to date set of plan documents which will make up the Local Development Framework (LDF). As the replacement plan documents
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT
Brief Description of background papers: Tick if copy supplied for register Name and telephone no. of holder:
Application, plans, adopted UDP. draft See reports attached for each item LDF and London Plan Page 35 progress towards adoption, they will gain increasing status as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.
3.6 The reports take account not only of the policies in the statutory UDP 1998 but also the emerging plan, which reflect more closely current Council and London-wide policy and guidance.
3.7 In accordance with Article 22 of the General Development Procedure Order 1995, Members are invited to agree the recommendations set out in the reports, which have been made on the basis of the analysis of the scheme set out in each report. This analysis has been undertaken on the balance of the policies and any other material considerations set out in the individual reports.
Page 36 Agenda Item 7.1
Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Development 31 st January 2007 Unrestricted 7.1
Report of: Title: Planning Application for Decision Corporate Director of Development and Renewal Ref No: PA/04/00774 Case Officer: Richard Humphreys Ward(s): East India and Lansbury
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
Location: Devons Wharf, Leven Road, London, E14 OLL Existing Use: Transport yard Proposal: Erection of a mixed use building to provide 869 square metres of B1 (Business) floorspace and 37 residential flats and associated car parking. Drawing Nos: N/A Applicant: Dixon Del Pozzo Ltd Owner: Chilton Transport Ltd Historic Building: N/A Conservation Area: N/A
2. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 The local plann ing authority has considered the particular circumstances of this application against the Council's approved planning policies contained in the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998 , associated supplementary planning guidance, the London Plan 2004 and Government Planning Policy Guidance and has found that:
a) There is insufficient reason to refuse planning permission on safety grounds; b) The development i s a suitable land use for the site and satisfies environmental and safety criteria adopted by the Council; and c) The development w ould not result in material harm to the amenity of residents or to the character and environment of the adjacent area.
3. RECOMMENDATION
3.1 That the Committee resolves to reaffirm its decision 29th June 2005 to GRANT planning permission subject to:
1. The same conditions and terms of a legal agreement as determined by the Development Committee on 29 th June 2005; and 2. The provision to the Health and Safety Executive of 21 days advanced notice of the Council’s intention to grant planning permission to allow the Executive to consider whether it wishes to request the Secretary of State to ‘call-in’ the application for her determination.
4. INTRODUCTION
4.1 A report on this application for planning permission (Appendix 1), was considered by the
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT
Brief Description of background papers: Tick if copy supplied for register Name and telephone no. of holder:
Application, plans, adopted UDP. draft Richard Humphreys LDF and London Plan 020 7364 5349 Page 37 Development Committee at its meeting of 29 th June 2005, when the recommendation to grant permission, subject to a legal agreement and conditions, was adopted. On checking the Council’s safeguarding records it became apparent that the application was subject to statutory consultation with the Health and Safety Executive (H&SE) due to the site’s proximity to National Grid Plc’s Gas Holder Station on Leven Road. Such consultation had not been undertaken. Consequently, the legal agr eement has not been executed and the planning permission has not been issued.
4.2 The Health and Safety Executive have now been consulted on the application as has National Grid Plc. The H&SE has advised;
“assessment indicates that risk of harm to peop le at the proposed development is such that H&SE’s advice is that there is sufficient reason on safety grounds for advising against the grant of planning permission.”
4.3 National Grid advise:
“On the basis that all parts of this development are 18 metr es from the nearest gas holder, we have no specific comments ”
And,
National Grid works to the provisions of the Institute of Gas Engineers document SR4, which states that potential sources of ignition should be avoided within 18 metres of a gas holder.”
5. ANALYSIS
5.1 The proposed new building would be a minimum of 77 metres from closest of the three gas holders on National Grid’s Leven Road site. All the gas holders are operational and National Grid has said that there is no intention to decom mission any of them in the foreseeable future.
5.2 The H&SE is concerned about serious incidents such as an ignited leak or an explosion of a cylinder. However, there is no historical record of any gas holder explosions in the country.
5.3 A decision o n this application centres on the balance between the risks associated with the gas holder installation and the loss of the development. This has to be considered in the context of the H&SE’s recently introduced criteria with respect to consultation on pl anning applications. This means that the Executive is now routinely objecting to planning applications within a 200 metres radius of any gas works, without taking into account local conditions. This could have a significant impact on development in the Borough and prevent approximately 1,000 to 2,000 new homes from being built in each such installation in Tower Hamlets. On the other hand, National Grid, that has the responsibility for the management of the gas works, has no objection.
5.4 Policy DEV5 4 of the Tower Hamlets 1998 UDP requires consultation with the H&SE on any significant development likely to be affected by hazardous substances. In this instance, in accordance with the National Grid’s advice, it is considered that at a minimum of 77 metres, the development is sufficiently distant from the closest gas holder that if an incident did occur, the occupants would be adequately protected. It is noted that on the south side of Leven Road there is existing residential accommodation in closer pro ximity to the gas holder than the application site, the nearest dwelling being some 30 metres distant.
5.5 If the Committee reaffirms that planning permission should be granted, the Council is obliged to give the H&SE 21 days notice to enable it to decide whether it wishes to request
Page 38 the Secretary of State to ‘call-in’ the application for her determination.
5.6 The Development Committee has previously determined that the proposal is acceptable in land use, design, amenity and highways terms subject to conditions and the execution of a Section 106/278 agreement.
5.7 Due to the site’s distance from the closest gas holder and National Grid’s advice, it is not considered that that decision should be reversed, there being no adequate reason on safety ground s to refuse planning permission. It is therefore recommended that the Health and Safety Executive be advised accordingly and given 21 days to decide whether it wishes to request the Secretary of State to ‘call-in’ the application for her determination.
6.0 CONCLUSION
All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report.
Page 39
APPENDIX 1
Committee: Date: Classification: Report Agenda Item Development 29 th June 2005 Unrestricted Number: No: Committee DC009/056 6.4
Report of: Title: Town Planning Application Corporate Director of Development and Renewal Location: DEVONS WHARF, LEVEN ROAD, E14.
Case Officer: Scott Hudson Ward: East India and Lansbury
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Registration Details Reference No: PA/04/00774 Date Received: 26/05/2004 Last Amended 22/06/2004 Date: 1.2 Application Details
Existing Use: Transport yard. Proposal Erection of a mixed use building to provide 869 sq. metres of Class B1 (Business) floorspace and 37 residential flats and associated car parking. Applicant: Dixon Del Pozzo Limited Ownership: Chilton Transport Ltd Historic Building: N/A Conservation Area: N/A 2. RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 That the Development Committee grants planning permission subject to the conditions outlined below: (1) Time Limit (2) Hours of Construction (8am-6pm Mon to Fri, 8am-1pm Sat & no working Sun or Public Holidays) (3) Contaminated Land Survey required. (4) The following details to be required: - samples of external materials (including windows), - noise insulation between units and the existing industrial uses, - hard and soft landscaping, - landscaping of terraces, - fences, gates and /or railings (5) Archaeological survey. (6) Air Quality report. (7) Maintain flood defence systems. (8) Ecological surveys and mitigation and enhancement scheme required. (9) A landscape management plan (including long term design objectives) is required (10) No storage of materials with 8 metres of the River Lee. (11) Disposing of foul and surface water. (12) Site drainage works. (13) Off site drainage works outside the application site.
Page 40 (14) Surface water drainage.
2.2 That the Development Committee grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 and 278 legal agreement to secure the following planning obligations: (1) Provision of 35% affordable housing (based on floor area). (2) Securing public access to River Lea. (3) Securing the provision of a riverside walkway. (4) Car free agreement. (5) Highway works.
3. BACKGROUND
Site Description and Location. 3.1 The site is bounded by Leven Road to the south and a tidal stretch of the River Lea, known as Bow Creek, to the north. The general character of the area is predominantly industrial, however recent develo pments opposite side of Bow Road is scheme of traditional style 2 and three storey houses.
3.2 Occupying the site is a haulage depot. The existing buildings are mainly single-storey. To Leven Road are pair of semi-detached ‘cottages’, which are curre ntly used as offices in connection with the existing use on site.
3.3 Located to the east of the site is a similar industrial site, with the visible gas works beyond. To the west is a large brick building, which was previously used by the London Trans port bus depot.
3.4 To the north of the site is the River Lea, where the river ‘bends’ at the site, providing views along the river. On the opposite bank to the north is an undeveloped marshland with industrial areas beyond, located in the London Borough of Newham.
Proposed Development 3.5 The application was amended on the 5 May 2005 following consultation with the Environment Agency and planning officers. The amendments incorporate the reduction in the number of units, an increase in affordable housing and reduction in height.
3.6 The amended scheme now provides a total of 37 flats and commercial workspaces. More specifically, this comprises of the following: • 869 sq. metre commercial/work space (B1 class use). • 19 x one bedroom flats. • 13 x two bedroom flats. • 3 x three bedroom flats. • 2 x four bedroom flats.
3.7 Included in the above is the following affordable housing provisions: • 2 x 1 bedroom (18%); • 4 x 2 bedroom (36%); • 3 x 3 bedroom (27%); • 2 x 4 Bedroom (18%); Which would equate to 34.4% based on floor area (852.2 sq.m.) in floor space terms.
3.8 The scheme is awaiting the completion of a S.106 agreement for the following matters: • Provision of 35% affordable housing. • Securing public access to River Lea. • Riverside walkway. • Car free agreement. • Highway works.
Page 41
History 3.9 The original application was lodged on the 22 June 2004, which incorporated the erection of an 8108 sq. metre building to provide 869 sq. metres of industrial floorspace and 71 residential flats (33 x 1 bedroom, 37 x 2 bedroom, 1 x 3 bedroom). More specifically this included a basement car park and the construction of a four-storey building to Leven Road and an 8-storey building fronting the River Lea. A central courtyard was proposed at first floor level between the two buildings.
3.10 No previous planning history exists for the site.
4. PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
Comments of Chief Legal Officer 4.1 The relevant policy framework against which the Committee is required to consider planning applications includes the adopted London Plan 2004, the Council's Community Plan, the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 1998, the Draft UDP and Interim Planning Guidance Notes.
4.2 Decisions must be taken in accordance with sections 54A and 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 39(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is particularly relevant, as it requires the Committee to have regard to the provisions of the Develo pment Plan, so far as material to the application and any other material considerations.
4.3 Whilst the adopted UDP 1998 is the statutory development plan for the Borough, it will be replaced by a more up to date set of plan documents which will make u p the Local Development Framework (LDF). The emerging policies in the Draft UDP and the Interim Planning Guidance will inform the LDF and, as the replacement plan documents progress towards adoption, they will gain increasing status as a material consider ation in the determination of planning applications.
4.4 The report takes account not only of the policies in statutory UDP 1998 but also the emerging plan which reflect more closely current Council and London-wide policy and guidance.
4.5 In accor dance with Article 22 of the General Development Order 1995 members are invited to agree the recommendations set out above which have been made on the basis of the analysis of the scheme set out in this report. This analysis has been undertaken on the bala nce of the policies set out below and any other material considerations set out in the report.
4.6 The following Unitary Development Plan proposals are applicable to this application:
(1) Archaeological importance or potential (2) Flood Protection Areas (3) Green Chains (4) Industrial Employment Areas (5) Sites of Nature Conservation Importance
4.7 The following Unitary Development Plan policies are applicable to this application:
DEV1: Design Requirements DEV2: Environment Requirements. DEV3: Mixed Use Developments. DEV4: Planning Obligations.
Page 42 DEV12: Provision of Landscaping in Development. DEV13 Design of Landscaping Scheme. DEV45: Development in Areas of Archaeological Interest. DEV46: Protection of Waterway Corridors. DEV47: Development Affecting Water Areas. DEV48: Strategic Riverside Walkways and New Development. DEV57: Development Affecting Nature Conservation Areas. DEV63: Designation of Green Chains. DEV64: Strategic Riverside Walkway Designation. DEV66: Creation of New Walkways.
EMP11: Industrial Employment Areas. EMP12: Business Use in Industrial Employment Areas. EMP13: Residential Development in Industrial Employment Areas.
4.8 The following New Unitary Development Plan 1 st Deposit Draft proposals are applicable to this application: 1. Areas of Archaeological Importance or Potential. 2. LBTH Sites of Nature Conservation Importance. 3. Green Chains. 4. Flood Protection Areas. 5. Mixed Use Site 141.
4.9 The following New Unitary Development Plan 1 st Deposit Draft policies are applicabl e to this application: EMP2: Mixed Use Developments. EMP: New Build Residential/Employment Mixed Use Proposals.
HSG2: New Housing Developments. HSG5: Affordable Housing Ratio and Mix. HSG8: Dwelling Mix and Type. HSG9: Housing Density. HSG10: Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair/Mobility Housing. HSG12: Amenity Space.
TRN6: Parking and Servicing. TRN10: Pedestrian Permeability. TRN11: Bicycle Facilities.
UD1: Urban Design. UD2: Architectural Quality. UD3: Ease of Movement and Access Through Design. UD4: Design and Access Statements. UD5: Safety and Security. UD11: Landscaping. UD16: Areas of Archaeological Importance or Potential.
ENV1: Amenity. ENV5: Disturbance from Demolition and Construction. ENV6: Sustainable Construction Materials. ENV8: Energy Efficiency. ENV12: Waste Disposal and Recycling Facilities. ENV19 Protection of the Water Environment. ENV20: Flood Protection. ENV22: Waterside Walkways.
Leaside Area Action Framework:
Page 43 LS6: Townscape Quality and Character. LS8: Access. LS9: Open Space and Leisure.
4.10 The following Community Plan objectives are applicable to this application: • Living safely. • Living well.
5. CONSULTATION
5.1 The following were consulted regarding this application:
(1) Head of Highways Development No objections subject to the following: • The basement parking needs an AIP "Approval in Principal" from our structural engineers, in which needs to check the basement design for highway loading. • A contribution towards cycling and pedestrian strategy in the area will be required. • S278 agreement to reinstate footpath and any necessary off site highway work. • A ‘car free’ S.106 agreement is required.
(2) Environmental Health Original Scheme: In a letter dated 15 October 2004, the Environmental Health Unit indicated no objection subject to the recommended conditions in Section 2. Revised Scheme: In an email dated 24 May 2005, Environmental Health concluded that the revised shadow plan for the 21 March equinox for the reduced 6 storeys scheme has cast a shadow wh ich is reduced by 60% from the original scheme. Environmental Health has no more concerns and is considered appropriate to grant planning consent.
(3) Cleansing Officer Advised no objection subject to conditions relating to bulk refuse, storage requirements, and prior approvals for collections and considerations relating to recycling facilities.
(4) Conservation & Urban Design Team Original Scheme: In an email dated 30 September 2004, the following comments were made: The design is not qualified for good design at this stage because: • The setting of the building on the site does not give way for a pleasant private open space for the residences. • The access to the site from both the Leven Road and the Riverfront have to be reviewed in order to create more security for the residences. • The location of the refuse storage at the ground level should be reviewed for more suitable location. • The treatment of the side elevation is poor, the gable end is not the answer. • The strategy for the river fr ont development has to be reviewed and worked out to relate to the development and create more of a clear and safe link with the Leven Road with out interfering with the residence privacy. • The relationship of the building with the buildings on the adjoinin g sites must be studied and it must show the impact of the building on the immediate neighbourhood. • The notion of public and private spaces has to be clarified in the design.
Page 44 Revised Scheme: No response.
(5) Head of Planning Policy No object ion on policy grounds subject to recommended conditions outlined in Section 2 of this report.
(6) Housing Strategy Group Original Scheme: The developer has identified 25% of the units being made available for affordable housing. It is understoo d that planning applications received after the 27 May 2004 should be considered as falling within the requirements of the new draft UDP of 35%.
The applicant will need to find a suitable RSL as a partner for providing social housing. Appropriate rental and nominations agreements will need to be entered into. Revised Scheme: In an email response sent on the 2 June 2005, comments made stated that the application appears to have met the policy requirements regarding affordable housing.
(7) Environment Agency Original Scheme: In a letter dated 20 August 2004, the Environment Agency objects to the development for the following reasons: • The proposed development lies within an area of land at risk from flooding. The developer has not provided a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) in line with the requirements of Planning Policy Guidance 25 – Development and Flood Risk (PPG25), which may enable the Environment Agency to accept the proposal. The development may be at risk from flooding and may increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
Revised Scheme: Through amendments to the scheme and further negotiations, the Environment Agency withdrew their objection on the 2 December 2004 and recommended the above mentioned conditions in Section 2 of this report.
(8) London Fire & Civil Defence Authority No objection to the proposal in principle. Technical matters related to water supply and hydrants will be assessed by the Building Regulations.
(9) GLA Ecology Unit In a letter dated 24 July 2004 the GLA commented – …the application could have significant adverse impacts on biodiversity, through damage to the ecology of a Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation and potential disturbance to a protected species. The applicant sh ould be required to produce an ecological impact assessment to determine the scale of these impacts, and provide proposals for their minimisation and mitigation.
The impacts on the ecology of the creek could be reduced or eliminated by reducing the height of the building adjacent to the creek and/or moving it further from the creek, and by removing the balconies from the design.
(10) Thames Water Authority In a letter dated 23 July 2004, Thames Water offered no objection to the proposal subject to the following recommended conditions:
Page 45 • Disposing of foul and surface water. • Site drainage works. • Off site drainage works outside the application site. • Surface water drainage.
(12) English Heritage Archaeology No objection, subject to standard plan ning conditions as recommended in Section 2.
(13) British Waterways Original Scheme: Comments received on the 5 October 2004 offered that British Waterways objects to the proposed development for the following reasons: • British Waterways conside r that the proposed development would result in unacceptable shadowing of this part of the Bow Creek. The additional shadowing is particularly pronounced from midday onwards on 21 March (vernal equinox). Such shadowing can cause significant harm to the l ocal ecology. British Waterways is therefore of the opinion that the proposed development fails to protect, or enhance, the ecology interests of the canal. It is also considered that the proposed development will restrict sunlight/daylight to the detriment of boat and other canal users. Revised Scheme: No response received. Refer to Environmental Health comments.
5.2 Responses from neighbours were as follows:
No. Responses: 1 In Favour: 0 Against: 1 Petition: 0
5.3 One representation w as received from an agent on behalf of Poplar Works, which adjoins the subject site to the east. The comments received are summarised as follows. • No objection to the proposal in principle. • Concern about how the development would interact with adjoining sites. • In light of the proposal, discussions maybe held concerning a similar proposal on their client’s site.
6. ANALYSIS
Principle of Development 6.1 The southern side of Leven Road is predominantly residential use. In addition, the draft UDP indicates the whole existing industrial land uses as a mixed-use development. Therefore, the principle of residential use on this site is considered acceptable.
6.2 The previous use of the site had been for Class B2 manufacturing / industrial purposes, a use that had proved incompatible with the opposite residential uses. As such, it makes the existing industrial use of this site problematic.
6.3 Additionally, the proposed commercial/work could create a greater number of jobs on this site than the pre vious industry use did. The existing use currently creates a total of 6 full time jobs. However, it is considered that the proposal would have the potential to generate approximately 22-25 jobs on site. Furthermore, the proposal provides a significant am ount of ‘for sale’ and ‘affordable’ housing, accommodation that goes some way to meeting the Councils 2016 housing target for 41,280 additional homes.
6.4 Overall, the loss of employment floorspace on this site is considered acceptable and compliant wi th Unitary Development Plan Policy EMP2 (Retaining existing employment
Page 46 uses) when the facts of this matter are considered.
6.5 The subject site falls within the Leaside Area Action Framework (SP27), as identified within the Draft UDP. The strategic policy for the Leaside area is for the potential for sustainable mixed use communities to be created that provides more accessible housing and new job opportunities in the area. More specifically, the site has been identified as part of a development site (L S15) which hopes to incorporate mixed use, predominately residential development (4-6 storeys) to enable the provision of open space, riverside walkways and green links. Some commercial use at ground floors, with local retail and community facilities.
6.6 It is considered that the proposal is broadly in accordance with the strategic vision for the Leaside Area Action Framework. The development would also see the provision of a riverside walkway and public access to the river from the site, both secure d by a S.106 agreement.
6.7 Furthermore, the principle of development is considered appropriate under the GLA’s Draft East London Sub Regional Development Framework. This draft policy document identifies this area along the River Lea for appropriate mixed-use development. In addition, the site is not identified as an area of Strategic Employment Location, which seeks the retention of strategic industrial/commercial employment land. As a result the loss of the industrial land is considered appropriate in this instance.
Housing Provision 6.8 The proposal would provide approximately 35% affordable based on floor area. Officers consider that amended proposal far exceeds the required 25% in accordance with Policy HSG 3 of the Adopted UDP. In additio n, the proposal is also compliant with the Draft Deposit UDP Policy HSG4 that requires 35% of floorspace to be used for Affordable Housing purposes. This provision will be secured by way of a Section 106 legal agreement.
6.9 Policy HSG7 requires a suit able mix of unit sizes and the amended scheme provides a good mix of one, two, three and four bedroom flats. The scheme as a whole will provide a total of 19 one- bedroom, 11 two-bedroom, 3 three-bedroom and 3 four-bedroom units. The affordable housing element of the total provides 4 two-bedroom, 3 three-bedroom and 2 four-bedroom units (the later two providing a total of 45.45% of the affordable housing). This is in line with the requirements of the Council’s Housing Needs Study, November 2004 that requires that 45% of the affordable housing produced on-site is family sized (3-bedroom or larger).
6.10 Policy HSG16 states that new housing development should provide an adequate amount of amenity space. The amended proposal provides for a number of balconi es, terraces and a centrally located communal courtyard (at first floor level). As a result the development exceeds the required amenity spaces in accordance with the Council’s SPG Residential Space.
Design and Amenity 6.11 UDP Policies DEV1 and DEV 2 require that all developments take into account the surrounding area in terms of its bulk, design and materials and seeks to protect the amenity of adjoining occupiers.
6.12 The amended proposal features a three-storey (plus attic) building to Leven Road and five-storey (plus attic/mansard) building to the River Lea. The building fronting the river also features an 8- metre setback from the property boundaries. Through extensive negotiations with the Environment Agency, British Waterways and Council officers, it is considered that the proposed massing, scale and urban design of the amended proposal appropriate. The impact to the river has been minimal and the addition of a riverside walkway with public access is also provided (and to be secured by a S.106 agreement).
6.13 There are no adjacent residential properties that would be affected by the loss of daylight/sunlight. The overshadowing to the river has been reduced by 60% through design amendments and has been given approval by Environmental Health unit, Environment Agency and British Waterways. There is no loss of privacy or overlooking issues created by this application as the site is abutted by commercial uses to either side boundary.
Page 47
6.14 Comments were received from adjoining landowner were predominately concerned with how the development would interact with the existing surrounding uses. It is considered that suitable measures under the building and health codes require suitable sound insulation from such uses. However it is also con sidered that the site is appropriate for residential use, given the evidence of the existing residential use opposite the site. In addition, the draft UDP had identified this site, along with the adjacent site as a mixed-use development, given its location adjacent to the river.
6.15 The design of the proposal is considered to be satisfactory, featuring a range of high quality materials which would include aluminium glazing, stone facing brick work, coloured bull-nose brickwork, London stock facing bri cks, steel balconies and slate roofing. The overall appearance of the development (particularly facing the River Lea) is similar to the existing warehouse/wharf buildings within the borough.
6.16 The demolition of the existing building is considered uncontroversial, since they are of little architectural merit and cannot practically be re-used for mixed-use purposes.
6.17 The development would be predominantly car-free and future residents would not be able to apply for a parking permit. It is the refore impossible to sustain a reason for refusal on parking grounds. Planning powers do not allow the Council to control the amount of construction traffic. However, hours of building construction are limited to the standard hours (as set out in Paragraph 2 of this report) to ensure late night and Sunday activity is excluded.
Highways 6.18 The proposed development provides a total of 23 car parking spaces, 5 of which will be solely dedicated to the commercial units. Car parking will be underground at basement level and will be accessed from Leven Road. In addition, 3 disabled/visitor car-parking spaces will be provided at the ground floor plan, adjacent to the basement ramp entrance/exit. The remainder of the residential units will be the subject o f a Section 106 ‘car free’ legal agreement. Overall, the Councils Highways Engineer considers this scheme to be acceptable in Highways terms.
6.19 The Councils’ Highways officer has also recommended that a Section 278 agreement is entered into for the public highway works to Leven Road.
Planning Obligations 6.20 Government Policy requires that Planning Obligations should only be sought where they meet the following tests:
i) it is necessary, ii) relevant to planning, iii) directly related to the proposed development, iv) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development, v) reasonable in all other respects.
6.21 The following items are considered justifiable for inclusion in a Section 106 and 278 legal agreement:
i) Provision of 35% affordable housing (based on floor area). ii) Securing public access to River Lea. iii) Securing the provision of a riverside walkway. iv) Car free agreement. v) Highway works.
7. SUMMARY
Page 48 7.1 The proposal is considered acceptable in land use, design, and amenity and hi ghways terms, subject to conditions and a Section 106/278 agreement. As such, the planning application is recommended for approval.
Page 49
Site Map
4.3m d Islay Wharf Crane
Mud
r e t a
W
h g i
H
n a
e Bromley Hall M d Scho ol
BM
4.34 m R
i
f
l
e
R
a
n
g
e
5
2
o
t
1 Depot
N
A
I L
R E
N V
E S
N
T
R
R 3 E
O
6 E
A
o
t T D
7 Fa ctory ddddddddddddddddddd 2 d 3.7m
dddddddddd
5
8
o
t
k 5
n 6 a T
Dev on
W ha rf Tank BM 1 1.7 3m
8 7
t o
1
0
7 C 0 o
1 dddddddddddddddd rn
w P
1 De v C a um
2 o o t ll p 1 n t a 1 C g d Ho o tta e us
ddddddddddd ge e
8 d 1 1 d Valv e Valv e
Well
5
5
2
4
o 2
t 1
6
2
9
1 2.7m 2
2 d 1 Gas Holder 22 3
Y
D 8 dddddddddddd 2 L T 1
d E
F E
d 2
E 3 Gas R d 1
A d R d L B E
57 to 283 B O E T 2.3m VE
d 4
2 2 B N dddddddddddddd 3 T 0 R T d9 S 1 O W ork s R d A AD
D ddddddddddddd
a 8
d d 3 d 1 Y 1
O TT RO AD 0 2 D B Ga s Ho lde r
BB 2 0 1 L M
A T 2
d 4 2
1 .3
E E 2
d1 4 4 m
9 F 7 1
d E
R 6 G R 4 E 1 El Sub Sta T B S 19 A 5 D R OA T T D BBO A 18 A 7 O R
18 1 1 N 1 7 7 E 7 9 V E L 38 39 35 Games Court 29
23 1:1800
E 2
LO S 3 C 1 T a re a RE REE 17 MO N ST Leg end Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area d Land Parcel Address
This Site Map displays the Planning Application Site Boundary and the neighbouring Occupiers / Owners who were consulted as part of the Planning Applica tion process. The Site Map was reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permis sion of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Tower Hamlets LA086568
Page 50 Agenda Item 7.2
Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Development 31 st January 2006 Unrestricted 7.2
Report of: Title: Planning Application for Decision Corporate Director of Development and Renewal Ref No: PA/06/01012 Case Officer: Renee Goodwin Ward(s): Mile End East
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
Location: British Street Estate, Merchant Street, London, Existing Use: Mixed use development including residential, retail and community uses. Proposal: • Refurbishment of existing buildings, demolition of four 4-bed flats and shops on Merchant Street; • Erection of 185 residential units (161 new build flats in six blocks up to 6-storeys high containing 1,2 & 3 bedroom units); • The conversion of pram store to provide 19 one bedroom affordable units and five new build 3 and 5 bed affordable town houses on infill sites; • A community centre and cultural / education facility of 546sqm; • 6 retail units providing 494sqm of floorspace; and • Reconfiguration of existing car parking, associated servicing and landscaping. Drawing Nos: 5177/1101 (Rev. A), 5177/1150 (Rev. A), 5177/1151, 5177/1200 (Rev. A), 5177/1201 (Rev. B), 5177/1202 (Rev. B), 5177/1203, 5177/1210 (Rev. B), 5177/1211 (Rev. B), 5177/1212 (Rev. C), 5177/1213 (Rev. A), 5177/1214 (Rev A), 5177/1215 (Rev A), 5177/1220 (Rev A), 5177/1221 (Rev A), 5177/1222 (Rev B), 5177/1223 (Rev B) 5177/1224, 5177/1230 (Rev B), 5177/1231 (Rev A), 5177/1232 (Rev A), 5177/1233, 5177/1240 (Rev B), 5177/1241 (Rev A), 5177/1242 (Rev A), 5177/1243 (Rev B), 5177/1244 (Rev B), 5177/1245 (Rev A), 5177/1290 (Rev. D), 5177/1291 (Rev. E), 5177/1292 (Rev. E), 5177/1294 (Rev E), 5177/1298 (Rev D), 5177/1260 (Rev A) , 5177/1261 (Rev B), 5177/1265 (Rev. B), 5177/1266 (Rev. A), 5177/1267 (Rev. A), 5177/1270 (Rev A), 5177/1271, 5177/1272, 5177/1273 (Rev A), 5177/1275, 5177/1276, 5177/1280 (Rev B), 5177/1281 (Rev A), 5177/1300 (Rev D), 5177/1301 (Rev D), 5177/1302 (Rev. E), 5177/1303 (Rev. D), 5177/1800, 5177/1801 (Rev A); and D(2-)11 (Rev. B), D(2-)13 (Rev. B), D(2-)14 (Rev. B), D(2-)15 (Rev. B), D(2- )17 (Rev. C), D(2-)18 (Rev. C), D(20)01 (Rev. B), D(20)03 (Rev. C), D(20)04 (Rev. C), D(20)05 (Rev. B), D(20)06 (Rev A), D(20)07, D(90)01 (Rev. H), D(90)02 (Rev. A), D(90)03 (Rev E); Applicant: Eastend Homes Owner: Eastend Homes Historic Building: N/A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT
Brief Description of background papers: Tick if copy supplied for register Name and telephone no. of holder:
Application, plans, adopted UDP. draft Xxxx Xxxx LDF and London Plan 020 7364 xxxx Page 51 Conservation N/A Area:
2. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 The local planning authority has considered the particular circumstances of this application against the Council’s approved planning policies contained in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan, associated supplementary planning guidance, the London Plan and Government Planning Policy Guidance and has found that:
a) In principle, the refurbishment of existing buildings, demolition of four 4-bed flats and shops on Merchant Street, erection of 185 residential units, a community centre and cultural / education facility of 546sqm and 6 retail units providing 494sqm, reconfiguration of existing car parking, associated servicing and landscaping is acceptable, subject to appropriate planning obligations agreement and conditions to mitigate against the impact of the development; b) It is considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of the surrounding properties. A number of conditions are recommended to secure submission of details of materials, landscaping, external lighting, and plant, and to control noise and hours of construction; c) The scheme would bring the benefits of regeneration, enhancement of existing housing stock to Decent Homes plus standard and the introduction of new housing to the Borough d) The scheme would enhance the public realm.
3. RECOMMENDATION
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:
A. The prior completion of a legal agreement, to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, to secure the following:
a) Affordable Housing b) Car Free Agreement c) Preparation of a Green Travel Plan d) Agreement to secure improvement works to British Street estate e) Local labour in construction f) Construction of a Community Facility
B. That the Head of Development Decisions be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the following:
Conditions
1) Time limit for Full Planning Permission 2) Details of the following are required: • Elevational treatment including samples of materials for external fascia of building; • Ground floor public realm (detailed landscape plan and ground floor public realm improvements); • Plans showing location and amount of cycle parking 3) Landscape Management Plan required 4) Management Plan for Community Centre 5) Hours of construction limits (0800 – 1800, Mon-Fri, 0800 – 1300 Sat) 6) Details of insulation of the ventilation system and any associated plant required 7) Hours of operation limits – hammer driven piling (10am – 4pm, Mon –Fri) 8) Details required for on site drainage works 9) Full particulars of the refuse/ recycling storage required
Page 52 10) Code of Construction Practice, including a Construction Traffic Management Assessment required 11) Details of finished floor levels required 12) Details of surface water source control measures required 13) Renewable energy measures to be implemented 14) Black redstart habitat provision required 15) Land contamination study required to be undertaken 16) Details and location of units designated for lifetime homes 16) Any other condition(s) considered necessary by the Head of Development Decisions
Informatives
1) Environment Agency advice 2) Site notice specifying the details of the contractor required 3) Standard of fitness for human habitation, means of fire escape and relevant Building Regulations
C. That, if by 31 st July 2007 the legal agreement has not been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, the Head of Development Decisions be delegated power to refuse planning permission.
4. PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
4.1 The proposed development is for the following: • New residential development including: • 161 market residential units in a total of 6, five to six-storey blocks comprising 85 one bedroom, 60 two bedroom and 16 three bedroom units; • 20 new affordable infill units comprising 19 one bedroom and 1 three bedroom flats including: • The conversion of the pram stores/booster pumps located in the existing low rise buildings to provide 19 one-bedroom units. • The undercroft of Winchester House will be infilled to form a new 2- storey, 3-bedroom maisonette. • Demolition of four, 4-bedroom affordable housing units to be replaced by 4, three-storey five-bedroom affordable units on infill sites throughout the estate; • A community centre and cultural/education facility totalling 546 sqm; • Six retail units totalling 494sqm to replace the existing units to be demolished; and • A new linear park and children’s play space; • Refurbishment works to the estate.
4.2 Tower Hamlets Council effected the transfer of the British Street estate to Eastend Homes in April 2005.
4.3 The applicant has advised that the introduction of market for sale units is necessary to provide cross subsidy to bring all existing units on the British Street Estate to ‘Decent Homes Plus’ standard. In order to bring all units on the British Street Estate to ‘Decent Homes Plus’ standard, the following refurbishment works to the estate are proposed as a result of public consultation with residents of the estate:
• Improved refuse stores for low rise and high rise blocks; • Refurbished lifts and new door entry systems; • New lightweight staircases to low rise blocks; • Traffic calming and introduction of Home zones; • Improvement of the thermal insulation, through over-cladding and double glazing of
Page 53 existing blocks; • Extensive upgrading of bathrooms and kitchens to flats; • Introduction of private communal gardens and courtyards; • Improvements to the security and convenience of building entrances; • Enhancement to the external appearance of the estates buildings. • Improved lighting throughout the estate.
4.4 The improvements listed above will be secured through a section 106 agreement
Site and Surroundings
4.5 The site is approximately 3.7ha in area, and is bounded by Bow Road to the north, Wellington Way to the east, Tower Hamlets Cemetery to the south and the St. Clements Hospital to the west. There are two vehicular entrances into the estate, one from Bow Road and one from Wellington Way. 4.6 The British Street estate was developed between 1969 and 1976 and today contains a total of 500 dwellings. It has two 22-storey tower blocks and eight low rise (predominantly 4- storey) blocks of flats and maisonettes. A separate block, located on Merchant Street accommodates 6 small shop units on the ground level and 4 residential, 4-bedroom units above. There is also a community centre adjacent the retail cluster.
4.7 The area surrounding the estate mainly comprises residential accommodation with some commercial (office, light industry and retail) facilities on Bow Road and Wellington Way. Much of the neighbourhood to the west, south and east of the estate lies within the Tower Hamlets Cemetery Conservation area, which contains the listed St. Clements Hospital anticipated for redevelopment. The area to the north of Bow Road is within the Tredegar Square Conservation area. There is also a doctors surgery, a church and a small community centre along Merchant Street. Along Wellington Way is a primary school and the recently constructed Metropolitan Police Communications Centre.
Planning History
4.8 Few changes have been made to the estate since it was first granted permission, apart from the following:
• PA/03/1640 – Permission was granted for a change of use from take-away shop (A3) to an office for use by Housing Association/ Local Community Groups (B1).
5. POLICY FRAMEWORK
5.1 For details of the status of relevant policies see the front sheet for “Planning Applications for Decision” agenda items. The following policies are relevant to the application:
Unitary Development Plan 5.2 Proposals: N/A
Policies: DEV1 Design Requirements DEV2 Environmental Requirements DEV3 Mixed Use Development DEV4 Planning Obligations DEV12 Landscaping DEV18 Art and Development Proposals DEV29 Development Adjacent Conservation Areas DEV50 Noise DEV55 Waste
Page 54 EMP6 Employing Local People HSG1 Housing Targets HSG2 New Housing Development HSG3 Affordable Housing HSG7 Dwelling Mix HSG8 Access for People with Disabilities HSG9 Density HSG13 Internal Standards for Residential Developments HSG16 Amenity Space HSG17 Loss of Housing Amenity Land HSG18 & 19 Residential Improvements T16 Impact of Traffic T17 Parking Standards T18 & 21 Pedestrians T23 Cyclists S6 New Retail Development S10 Shop Fronts OS7 Loss of Open Space OS9 Children’s Play Space U9 Sewerage Network
Emerging Local Development Framework 5.3 Proposals: N/A
Core Strategies: IMP1 Planning Obligations CP1 Creating Sustainable Communities CP2 Equal Opportunity CP3 Sustainable Environment CP4 Good Design CP5 Supporting Infrastructure CP7 Job Creation and Growth CP11 Sites in Employment Use CP15 Range of Shops and Services CP19 New Housing Provision CP20 Sustainable Residential Density CP21 Dwelling Mix and Type CP22 Affordable Housing CP23 Use and Retention of Existing Housing CP25 Housing Amenity Space CP27 Social and Community Facilities CP30 Improving the Quality and Quantity of Open Space CP31 Biodiversity CP32 Local Nature Reserves CP33 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation CP38 Energy Efficiency and Production of Renewable Energy CP40 A Sustainable Transport Network CP41 Integrating Development with Transport CP42 Streets for People CP46 Accessible and Inclusive Environments CP47 Community Safety
Policies: DEV1 Amenity DEV2 Character & Design DEV3 Accessibility & Inclusive Design DEV4 Safety & Security DEV5 Sustainable Design DEV6 Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
Page 55 DEV10 Disturbance from Noise Pollution DEV11 Air Pollution and Air Quality DEV12 Management of Demolition and Construction DEV13 Landscaping DEV14 Public Art DEV15 Waste and Recyclables Storage DEV16 Walking and Cycling Routes and Facilities DEV17 Transport Assessments DEV19 Parking for Motor Vehicles DEV20 Capacity of Utility Infrastructure DEV22 Contaminated Land DEV24 Accessible Amenities and Services EE2 Redevelopment /Change of Use of Employment Sites RT4 Retail Development HSG1 Determining Residential Density HSG2 Housing Mix HSG3 Affordable Housing HSG4 Social and Intermediate Housing ratio HSG5 Estate Regeneration Schemes HSG7 Housing Amenity Space HSG9 Accessible and Adaptable Homes HSG10 Calculating Affordable Housing SCF1 Social and Community Facilities OSN2 Open Space CON2 Conservation Areas
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents
5.4 Designing Out Crime Residential Space Landscape Requirements
Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (London Plan)
5.5 3A.4 Housing 3B.4 Mixed Use Development 3D.12 Biodiversity 4A.7 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 4A.8 Energy Assessment 4A.9 Providing for Renewable Energy 4A.10 Supporting the provision of renewable energy 4A.14 Reducing Noise 4B.1 Design Principles for a compact city 4B.2 Promoting world class architecture and design 4B.3 Maximising the potential of sites 4B.4 Enhancing the Quality of the Public realm 4B.5 Creating an inclusive environment 4B.6 Sustainable Design and construction 4B.7 Respect Local context and communities
Government Planning Policy Guidance/Statements
PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG3 Housing PPS22 Renewable Energy PPG24 Planning & Noise
Page 56 Community Plan The following Community Plan objectives relate to the application: A better place for living safely A better place for living well A better place for creating and sharing prosperity
6. CONSULTATION RESPONSE
6.1 The views of officers within the Directorate of Development and Renewal are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below. The following were consulted regarding the application:
Housing Strategy Group
6.2 This proposal achieves the objectives of the Council’s Housing Choice Programme through the development of vacant sites on the British Street estate for 145 units of private sale. Income generated from the s ale of the sites to a developer will be used to cross subsidise the £22 million cost of improvements to the existing 500 homes on the estate in accordance with the Council’s commitment to residents outlined in the Offer Document drawn up as part of the transfer ballot process.
The affordable housing requirement of the application is met through the provision of
• 19 new one bed flats for affordable rent • 1 new three bed house with garden for affordable rent • 4 new five bed houses with gardens which replace 4 four bed flats which will be demolished as part of the proposal • a contribution of £9,828,000 to assist in funding the Decent Homes plus works
The scheme will also provide a new community facility and 4 new retail units on Bow Road to replace shops on Merchant Street which are to be demolished.
Policy HSG5 of the LDF allows flexibility in the contributions towards additional affordable housing where estate regeneration schemes can demonstrate that the provision of market housing on the site is necessary to cross subsidise the Decent Homes plus works to existing homes.
In this case, the financial viability has been assessed by officers from the Housing and Planning departments using a method closely based on the DCLG’s own financial viability model for calculating the gap funding requirement for transfer estates. Officers agree that the cross subsidy is required to meet the Council’s commitments to Decent Homes plus works, and that the amount of new affordable housing proposed (46 habitable rooms, or 10%) is therefore reasonable.
Highways Department
6.3 No objections, subject to the following • Section 106 car free agreement for the additional units proposed. • The applicant will be required to fund the total cost for upgrading the existing public footpath of Hamlets Way and the street lighting as appropriate.
Environmental Health
6.4 Contaminated Land Officer Recommended that a condition be imposed requiring an investigation to assess the nature and extent of contamination (or otherwise) an d consider the most appropriate mitigation measures (if any).
Page 57 6.5 Air Quality • The background data used does not correlate with the data contained in our latest Updating and Screening Assessment. Clarification is needed on concentrations used for NO2 and PM10 • In terms of the sensitive receptors used, why was the hospital adjacent to the development site omitted from the assessments; and • In terms of the Code of Construction Practice, the assessment does not sufficiently address the impact of emissions f rom construction plant and vehicles. A schedule must be submitted of all on-road and off-road vehicles (including non-road mobile machinery); including details of any retro-fitting and after-treatment technology.
Subject to specifically point three being complied with, there are no objections to the application.
6.6 Noise and Vibration A survey and assessment in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance 24 “Planning and Noise” (PPG24) along with proposed mitigation measures must be submitted for approv al by the Environmental Health department before planning permission is granted.
6.7 Micro-climate (Sunlight/ Daylight and Wind Assessment) Concerns in respect of the impact from the scheme are as follows: • The impact of the towers on site 2 could leave the development in shadow for most of the year. • The impact of Site 3 and Site 1 (west) on Matching Court. At the moment, Matching Court in its present/existing conditions is experiencing limited/low Daylight/Sunlight. • The report does not establish the use of the assessed rooms as either kitchen, bedroom or living rooms in line with BRE requirement. • The impact of Site 1 east on the lower levels of the residential part of the Tower. • The impact of site 4 on St. Clair House shows low ADF values.
A third report is needed to address these concerns, especially the impact of the two tower blocks on site 2, in terms of Daylight/Sunlight.
OFFICER COMMENT: It is to be noted that the applicant has submitted further information to address these issues. This additiona l information has satisfied Environmental Health requests and conditions will be added to address the abovementioned concerns.
Education
6.8 The mix of 203 units shown derives a need for 14 additional primary school places @ £12,342 = £172,788. This sum is sought at 100%.
OFFICER COMMENT: This is noted but will not form part of the 106 agreement. Alternative priorities in the form of channelling funding into the regeneration of the estate are of a higher priority in this case.
Cleansing
6.9 No response received
Access
6.10 Satisfied subject to a number of design changes.
Landscape
6.11 • Aspects of this proposal that will transform the landscaping of this estate are welcomed .
Page 58 The quality of landscaping and definition o f a hierarchy of spaces will do much to improve the look of the estate and the way residents and visitors feel about it. • The master plan proposes 2 small play areas, which is unlikely to satisfy the need on the estate. The development has not gone far eno ugh to provide for the needs of the existing children and young people (let alone the large increase). It would be better to design the whole of the public realm for the use and enjoyment of children and young people (indeed people in general). • The estate is not technically deficient in Public Open Space given the proximity of Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park and Archibald Open Space. However, the Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park does not appeal to or provide for many people’s open space needs, least of all parents with young children. The estate lies within the catchment area of Mile End Park, although it would be a long walk to the Children’s Park from the site. • The applicant has included some of the footpaths within the quantum of open space for the purposes of their calculations of gains and losses of open space. This is not acceptable, as the primary purpose of footpaths is the passage of pedestrians, not recreation or visual amenity.
OFFICER COMMENT: See discussion below in Paras 8.46-8.59. open space prov ision is acceptable.
Tower Hamlet Primary Care Trust
6.12 No response received
Crime Prevention
6.13 Made a number of comments with regard to access, safety, lighting and design.
English Heritage
6.14 • The proposed linear park is very limited in extent and the loss of open space within the estate is a concern. • The estate will be required to show how it is capable of accommodating any future opening up of the St.Clements Hospital site. • Improvement in access to the adjoining Tower Hamlets Cemetery is required through clearly legible entrances into the cemetery. • Detailed design of the block fronting onto Bow Road will be critical.
Transport for London (Statutory Consultee)
6.15 Levels of cycle parking provision have not been identified. Minimum cycle parking provision should be consistent with the TfL Cycle Parking Standards. Any damage to the footway must be reinstated by the developer. A s278 agreement will be required to secure this. Part of the structure appears to over hang the Bow Road frontage. If this is the case an overhang license from TfL is required. TFL request a contribution of £250k toward the current TfL schemes outlined below: • The provision of a new pelican crossing east of Southern Grove (£150k). • Improvement works on the adjacent footways and pelican crossing (as mentioned above), including improvement work on the new pedestrian crossing near to junction Mornington Grove (£100k).
Thames Water (Statutory Consultee)
6.16 Recommended a number of conditions to ensure that foul and/ or surface water discharge from the site does not prejudice the existing sewerage system and to ensure that the water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with the additional demand.
Page 59 7. LOCAL REPRESENTATION
7.1 A total of 650 neighbouring properties within the area shown on the map appended to this report were notified about the application and invited to comment. [The application has also been publicised in East End Life and on site.] The number of representations received from neighbours and local groups in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:
7.2 No of individual responses: 76 Objecting:66 Supporting: 10 Petitions in objection: • 1 containing 62 signatories (British Street Residents) • 1 containing 4 signatories (Wellington Way Action Group) Petition of Support • 1 containing 170 signatories (Mile End Community Housing Trust)
7.3 The following local groups/societies made representations:
• Wellington Way Action Group • Springboard Housing Association • British Street Residents
7.4 The following issues were raised in representations that are material to the determination of the application, and they are addressed in the next section of this report:
Transport • There is inadequate provision of car parking spaces to accommodate all t he cars currently on the estate. Further erosion of facilities, combined with the impact of 180 plus additional dwellings will have a detrimental impact upon the residents and the surrounding streets.
Social Issues
• A reduction in safety and security where the Estate is currently open. The new blocks would close in the area and increase the likelihood of crime such as vandalism, graffiti, anti-social behaviour etc. • The relocation of the retail units from the centre of the site will have a negative impact on social integration. There will be no community focal point which is currently enjoyed. • Accessibility to the re-located retail shops will be difficult for elderly residents. • Security a nd safety concerns arise from the lack of overlooking to newly located car parking spaces on the perimeter of the site.
Amenity
• Overdevelopment / overcrowding of the site will result in loss of quality of life • Loss of light and privacy • Loss of visual amenity • Lack of recreational facilities • The use of the community centre for late night functions will result in noise disturbance. A restricted time limit should be put in place. • The proposed buildings are too high and situated too close to adjoining and proposed dwellings. • Matching Court would experience a considerable loss of natural light and privacy due to the height and proximity of the proposed buildings to the south and west of the site. • Noise and disruption during the construction stage will be unacceptable. • The new buildings will obstruction views. • There will be a reduction of net open space area. • Building right up to the pavement edge along Wellington Way and Bow Road would be
Page 60 out of character with the other buildings in the street. Site 1 east and Site 4 will damage the setting of buildings in the Wellington Way Conservation Area and Tredegar Square Conservation Area respectively. • There will be a loss of play spaces and mature and semi-mature trees. • The proposed changes will further isolate the site from surroundings. • The development along Bow Road is out of context in both line and height, and out of architectural character with the surrounding environment? The assertions that the development is in scale with the surroundings, has a high standard of design, and will have a positive impact on the local area is untrue. There is not a single saving grace in any of the attributes of the design, belt elevation, contextual massing, or the basic principles of architectural planning. Fundamentally, the desig n is ugly, retrograde, and exhibits a thinking which is out of date by approximately 40 years. • Site 4 will result in the loss of sunlight and privacy to dwellings north of site 4 along Bow Road and will reflect noise from the busy Highway. • The proposals raise the density, without providing the external improvements/infrastucture necessary for successful high density, family living. • The proposals do not give sufficient information to allow the alterations affecting the low rise blocks to be accurately assessed by occupants or approved by LBTH. • Site 1 east and west will result in the loss of privacy to the Metroploitan Policy Authority facility to the north and the implications of this on security and operational flexibility will be detrimental. There are also added security concerns with regard to the close proximity to the boundary.
Infrastructure • The development will have an impact on the existing water and sewerage services • Impact upon existing medical and educational services • Lack of additional facilities to support an additional population
7.5 The following issues were raised in support of the scheme:
• British Street estate has suffered from years of neglect. The proposed development represents an opportunity to not only transform the estate but also to regenerate the entire neighbourhood. • The scheme will lever in vital investment much of it produced by cross subsidy from sales resulting in a mixed and balanced community. • Improvements to the outside of all the homes will keep them drier and warmer , keeping down heating costs, and making them safer to live in. • The new communal facilities and play areas are much needed • The relocation of the new shops to Bow Road will minimise anti-social behaviour which now happens around the shops in the middle of the estate. • The new secure courtyards • Better quality open space with landscaping improvements and new tree planting
7.6 The following issues were raised in representations, but they are not material to the determination of the application:
• The plans should be altered to locate the pharmacy onto Bow Road • We believe the reasons for these residential units being built are due to political pressures with regards to housing lists. Our concern is that not enough existing resi dents from the British Street estate will be able to benefit from these new developments yet we will be paying for this via our rents and service charges. • There are concerns that the plans had changed considerably since the Eastend Homes ballot was held • There has been a lack of meanin gful consultation. Residents outside the estate had not been involved in any consultation at all. • Should the current submissions be given planning permission, the Methodist church site
Page 61 will be significantly prejudiced and restricted in terms of its overall development.
8. MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the Committee must consider are:
1. Land Use 2. Impact on Local Context 3. Housing 4. Open Space 5. Amenity 6. Access and Transport 7. Access and Inclusive Design 8. Sustainable Development/ Renewable Energy
Issue 1 – Land Use
8.2 The site is unallocated on the Proposals Maps of both the UDP and the emerging LDF. The proposed mixed use, comprising retail, community uses and residential above, is in line with the existing land uses on site.
8.3 The proposed new development will be built upon existing under utilised housing amenity land. In accordance with policy HSG17, the Council will not permit the loss of housing amenity space, except in exceptional circumstances. This issue is discussed in detail later in this report.
8.4 The proposed community centre is to be relocated to the south side of Merchant Street and will double the size of the existing centre. The development will also include a new educational facility which responds to the needs of the local community and subsequently policy CP5 of the emerging LDF.
8.5 There are concerns with the potential conflict between the proposed community uses and the residential. These concerns relate to the noise disturbance generated by such uses to potential residents on site. However, this concern could be overcome through the inclusion of noise conditions.
8.6 The existing retail on Merchant Street, apart from the pharmacy, is to be relocated to the north of the site along Bow Road. The site is considered to be an appropriate location for the retail uses where the loss of housing amenity space is considered acceptable. The relocation will ensure there is no loss of employment generating land from the site. Residential development above is also considered appropriate subject to the application of environmental conditions.
Issue 2 – Impact on Local Context
Design, Scale, Bulk
8.7 Policy UD1 of the Draft LDF Core Strategy specifies that the bulk, height, and density of development must consider the surrounding building plots, scale of the street, building lines, roof lines, street patterns and the streetscape. The development must also respond in a sustainable manner to the availab ility of public transport, community facilities and environmental quality
8.9 Whilst British Street E state is currently of poor quality, the estate is well setback from the street frontage by a landscaped amenity space. The proposed development would b e built upon this landscaped area and extend beyond the established building line. However, there is no consistent building line in this part of Bow Road. Nevertheless, the proposal would be
Page 62 prominent with in the local context.
8.10 It is acknowledged that the applicant has sought to address Council concerns and has submitted a number of amendments. The submitted application included an eight storey building along Bow Road which has since been reduced to 5 and 6 stories.
8.11 Comments received from Design and Conservation officers, for the amendments received in October 2006, considered that the proposal lacked character and failed to enhance the surrounding conservation areas. Apart from the reduction in height, the design efforts were cosmetic in nature. Whilst there were positive aspects to the amendments , the design principles of the block raised concerns. The following opinions were suggested:
• The Eastern corner has been poorly designed. Where the development is to be built beyond the established building line of the street, it should be supported with design of “outstanding” quality. • A re-alignment of the building footprint for this block • The Bow Road facing elevation or glass screen needs revision • Breaking the block into two segments may also help towards reducing its impact.
8.12 Final revisions were received in November 2006 in an attempt to address the concerns raised above. However, the Bow Road elevation did not show significant attempts to address these concerns. Nevertheless, the application was subsequently taken to the Conservation Area Advisory Group (CAG) for review. The CAG Design Officer advised that the Bow Road – Mile End corridor is one of the most important streets for Tower Hamlets, and has some of the best built heritage. CAG did not raise any objection in principle to the proposal along Bow Road.
8.13 CAG advised that Site 1 East was large and close to the perimeter of the estate where the 5 to 6-storey building projects beyond the established building line. Whilst the development was not considered to be of the highest quality design , it is not of such a poor design quality that a refusal could be justified on design alone. On this basis, the proposal was supported.
8.14 In accordance with DEV1 of the emerging L DF, the development is required to protect, and where possible seek to improve, the amenity of surrounding existing and future residents and building occupants, as well as the amenity of the surrounding public realm.
8.15 On balance the scheme provide s an important vehicle through which the improvement of existing substandard housing can be effected. Although concerns remain as to the proposed scale and form of development and its impacts, it is supportable in consideration of other planning objectives.
Density
8.16 As a result of the changes to the form of the development, the revised layout has led to a reduction in the number of residential units in the scheme from 203 to 185 (of which four are replacement units for the 4 affordable housing units to be demolished).
8.17 The British Street Estate was built at a relatively low density of 400hrph. The proposed development will add 161 new units (414hr) for sale and 20 new affordable units (50hr), an increase of 24% on a habitable room basis. This will achieve a total density of 526hrph.
8.18 This exceeds the guidance of 247 hrph provided by policy HSG9 of the UDP 1998. However, policy HSG9 has largely been superseded by the density policies of the London Plan 2004. Policy HSG1 of the emerging LDF reflects the densities outlined in the London Plan . These both include the implementation of a density, location and parking matrix, which links density to public transport availability as defined by PTAL (Public Transport Accessibility Leve l) scores which are measured on a scale of 1 (low) – 6 (high). Policy HSG1 of the LDF Core
Page 63 Strategy requires the local context and character to be taken into account.
8.19 The site is well served by public transport with a PTAL of 5. For ‘urban site’s with a PTAL range of 4 to 6, the recommended density of 450-750 hr/ph. The proposed density is thus within the advised range in the London Plan ‘Density Location and Parking Matrix’ and given the site’s location and accessibility levels, the application c an not be recommended for refusal on density grounds.
Issue 3 – Housing
Affordable Housing
8.20 Policy HSG3 of the UDP states that the Council will seek a reasonable provision of affordable housing consistent with the merits of each case and with the strategic target of 25%.
8.21 The London Plan set out a strategic target that 50% of the new housing provision should be in the form of affordable housing. Policy CP22 of the emerging LDF Core Strategy document states that the Council will seek to maximise all opportunities for affordable housing on each site, in order to achieve a 50% affordable housing target across the Borough, with a minimum of 35% affordable housing provision. Policy HSG9 of the Draft LDF Core Strategy document states that the amount of affordable housing will be calculated using habitable rooms as the primary measure.
8.22 Both the London Plan and emerging LDF seek an increase in the provision of affordable housing from new development. However, the proposed development produces less than 35% affordable housing over and above that intended for the purposes of replacement but also makes a contribution towards improvements of existing homes . The new affordable housing would comprise the following: • 19 one bedroom flats to be created from the conversion of the existing pram stores/booster pump locations in the existing low rise buildings. • A two-storey, three-bed maisonette located within the undercroft of the existing Winchester House. • 4 three-storey five-bed townhouses to replace the 4, four-bed houses to be demolished. The townhouses would be built on the blank gable ends of the following blocks: • St Clair House • Icarus House • Hamilton House • Winchester House
8.23 Affordable housing represents only 10% of the net uplift of units on site. T he application relies on the emerging LDF Policy HSG5 to justify under-provision of affordable housing in the new development. This policy allows the Council to consider varying its requirement for affordable housing in estate regene ration schemes where it can be sufficiently demonstrated that the provision of extra market housing is necessary in order to cross subsidise the works required to bring the estate up to a Decent Homes Plus standard. In addition, It is the Governments aim t hat by 2010, all social housing is brought into decent condition and increase the proportion of private housing in decent condition occupied by vulnerable groups. A home is decent if it: • Meets the current statutory minimum standard • Is in reasonable repair • Has reasonable modern facilities and services; and • Provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
8.24 In support of the applicant’s affordable housing provision, a business plan was submitted as part of the original application. The Housing Department has undertaken a financial analysis to help determine the levels of affordable housing this particular site can produce.
Page 64
8.2 5 Although the affordable provision does not meet the 35% affordable housing as required by the emerging LDF, a commuted sum towards the Decent Homes Plus works to meet the shortfall of affordable housing has been offered in accordance with Policy HSG5. If an appropriate amount of funding can be secured to upgrade the estate, the shortfall in the amount of affordable housing will be acceptable in principle.
8.26 The applicant has provided the GLA affordable housing Toolkit as a guideline for ascertaining an appropriate level of affordable housing on the uplift. The Toolkit also gives an indication as to an appropriate amount of money to be spent on the upgrade of the estate, in lieu of affordable housing. The amount noted above under paragraph 3 of this report is appropriate and will be secured via a s106 agreement.
Housing Mix
8.27 Policy HSG7 of the UDP states tha t new housing development should provide a mix of unit sizes where appropriate including a substantial proportion of family dwellings of between 3 and 6 bedrooms. Policy CP19 of the emerging LDF, states that the Council requires all new housing development to contribute to the Borough’s housing need, including family housing. Policies CP21, CP22 and HSG2 of the LDF seek to create mixed communities. The f ollowing table outlines the proposed scheme against Policy HSG2 of the emerging LDF:
8.28 affordable housing market housing
social rented intermediate private sale
Unit Total units target target target size in scheme units % % units % % units % %
1 bed 104 (57.5%) 19 95 20 0 0 37.5 85 53 37.5 2 bed 60 (33%) 0 0 35 0 0 37.5 60 37 37.5 0 25 10 25 3 bed 17 (9.5%) 1 5 30 0 16
4 bed 0 0 0 10 0 0
5 bed 0 0 0 5 0 0
6 bed 0 0 0 0 0 TOT AL 181 20 100 100 0 100 100 161 100 100
8.29 Note: Whilst four, 5-bedroom affordable units are proposed, they are proposed to replace the existing 4 bedroom affordable units that are to be demolished. In accordance with Policy HSG5 of the emerging LDF, there is to be no net loss of affordable housing. Accordingly these units have not been included within the calculation above.
8.30 Currently the British Street Estate is dominated by public rented housing which comprises 78% of all accommodation on site. The proposed market housing will alter the tenure mix to create an estate with 59% social rented accommodation and 41% in terim and market housing units. Whilst the tenure composition will be more diverse, the scheme does not provide adequate family housing.
8.31 The British Street Estate currently accommodates the following mix of units:
Page 65 8.32 Social Rented Lease Hold (Private)
Total units in target target Unit size scheme Total % units % % units % %
1 bed 153 30.6 137 35 20 16 15 37.5 2 bed 268 53.6 210 53.7 35 58 53 37.5 15.8 32 25 3 bed 41 25 6.3 30 16
4 bed 38 19 5 10 19
5 bed 0 0 0 5 0
6 bed 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 500 391 100 100 109 100 100
8.33 The following table outlines the total unit mix that would be provided on the site incorporating the existing and proposed residential mix:
8.34 Units Total % of Total 1 Bed 257 37.7 2 Bed 328 48.2 Family 96 14.1
TOTAL 681 100%
8.35 The proposed development is contrary to Policy HSG7 of the UDP and Policy HSG2 of the emerging LDF as it fails to provide a sufficient provision for family housing. The scheme provides 4 0% of the minimum family housing requirement for market housing, provides no intermediate family housing and 11% of the minimum requirement for social rented. The scheme does not provide any intermediate housing.
8.36 Policy 3A.4 of the London Plan and CP1 of the emerging LDF identifies the need to provide housing choice, including homes for families with children. The scheme maintains an appropriate level of family housing on site. However, the mix of units is still of concern.
8.37 The applicant has indicated that due to tight constraints on the developable site area and the difficulty of achieving private amenity space for larger units, the inclusion of further 3 bed units would endanger the viability of the proposed regeneration, refurbishment a nd environmental improvements on the entire estate.
8.38 The emerging LDF Policy HSG5 permits an under-provision of affordable housing in the new development to cross subsidise the works required to bring the estate up to a decent homes plus standard. When combined with the acceptability of the Toolkit analysis discussed above, the proposal is acceptable.
Issue 4 – Open Space
8.39 Policy HSG16 of the UDP requires that new developments should include adequate provision of amenity space, and th ey should not increase pressure on existing open space areas and playgrounds. The Council’s Residential Space SPG includes a number of requirements to ensure that adequate provision of open space is provided.
8.40 SPG Requirement
• 50sqm of private space per family unit
Page 66 • 50sqm plus an additional 5sqm per 5 non-family units;
8.41 Proposal Generates
• 20 family units (20 x 50) = 1000sqm • 165 non-family units (165 + 50) = 215sqm This equates to a total requirement for 1215sqm in accordance with the SPG
8.42 The following table is an assessment against the residential amenity space requirements under policy HSG7 of the emerging LDF.
8.43 Units Total Minimum Standard (sq.m) Required Provision (sq.m) 1 Bed 94 6 564 2 Bed 56 10 560 3 Bed 14 10 140
Ground Floor Units
1 Bed 10 25 250 2 Bed 4 25 100 3 Bed 3 50 150
Ground Floor Replacement Affordable Units
5 Bed 4 50 200
Total 185 1964
Communal amenity 50sqm for the first 10 units, 225sq.m (50sq.m plus 175qm). plus a further 1sqm for every additional unit Total Housing Amenity 2189sqm Space Requirement
8.44 The proposal provides the following housing and communal amenity space:
• 1288.58sqm of private amenity space • 400.38sqm of communal amenity space at ground level and roof terraces. Total: 1689 sq.m .
8.45 Open space is provided in the form of private and communal gardens, and balconies and roof terraces. The ground floor space includes a mix of hard and soft landscaping.
Private Amenity Space
8.46 The provision of private amenity space complies with the SPG but fails to provide the minimum area required in accordance with the emerging LDF Policy HSG7. All of the private balconies proposed have an average size of 3. 9sqm, which is well below the minimum standard. However, the applicant has indicated that the private amenity spaces will be large enough to accommodate a table and chairs for it to be used as outdoor living space. These spaces are therefore considered to comply with Policy CP25 of the emerging LDF, where housing amenity space is required to be useable. Accordingly, where the provision of private amenity space meets the requirements of the SPG and is useable, the provision of private amenity space is acceptable.
8.47 The nineteen, 1-bedroom affordable units do not have access to private amenity space. They
Page 67 will however have access to the proposed semi -private communal court yard spaces. The new 3 bedroom infill unit will have a 50sqm garden space. The proposed four, 5-bedroom townhouses will have on average gardens of approximately 50sqm and a terrace of 11.3sqm. Overall, the provision for these affordable units has been maximised wherever possible and is considered to be provided in accordance with polic y CP25 of the emerging LDF which permits a relaxation of amenity space provision for conversion or subdivisions of existing buildings on constrained sites.
Communal Amenity Space
8.48 Pursuant to Policy OS7 and HSG17 of the UDP, planning permissio n will not be given for developments which result in the loss of public or private open space or housing amenity space. In exceptional circumstances where an equivalent or better recreational facility is provided as replacement open space, the application may be permitted.
8.49 The applicant has calculated that the loss of housing amenity space to be developed upon totals 2,386.42sqm. The applicant has advised that t he removal and landscaping of the existing road way, car parking and hardstanding, has resulted in a gain of 2,610.95sqm of housing amenity space. The applicant has advised that the calculation includes all footpaths and pavements, all green open space and all hard landscaped areas. The Council landscaping department advised that the inclusi on of footpaths within the quantum of open space is not acceptable, as the primary purpose of footpaths is the passage of pedestrians, not recreation or visual amenity. Accordingly, it appears that the development will result in a marginal loss of open spa ce. Notwithstanding, the quality of the open space to be lost is not high quality, and the scheme includes improved amenity space for future and existing residents.
8.50 According to Policy CP25 of the emerging LDF, housing amenity space is required to be of high quality, useable amenity space for all residents. It is acknowledged that g iven the height, scale, form and layout of the proposed development the proposed open space areas for site 1(east and west), 2 and 3 (north and south) would be in shadow for most of the day. The space between sites 1 (east and west) appears to be more of a landscaped area than a high quality, useable amenity space for all residents. Accordingly, a portion of the additional communal open space that would be provided is less than satisfactory.
8.51 Notwithstanding this, in accordance with policy CP30 of the emerging LDF, new development must seek to increase and improve the provision of open space. This policy seeks to maintain and improve upon an open space provision st andard of 1.2 hectares per 1000 population.
8.52 There are a number of public open spaces within close proximity the site, including:
• Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park, (11.5ha) • The estate is within 400m of Mile End Park (30.66 ha). This park provides spor ts and leisure facilities. • Archibald public open space which has recently been redesigned and equipped with children’s play facilities and ball courts for use by young people.
Using ward data, the applicant has indicated that the British Street estate cu rrently has an open space provision of between 2.4ha and 2.8ha per 1000 population.
8.53 Further, the applicant is proposing to regenerate the existing pedestrian areas to provide a ‘linear park’ on site. Surface textures will vary in this area and wi ll include seating, selective planting and avenues of trees. Introduction of fencing and planting around the edge of the park and adjacent to the ground floor flats is proposed to provide security and improve privacy
Page 68 8.54 Also, in and around the base o f each tower will be enclosed to form a shared garden for the use of the residents of that block. This will include paths, seating areas, soft landscaping and a small children’s play area. Access to this area will be controlled by a new door entry system.
8.55 In accordance with policy HSG7 of the emerging LDF variation to the provision of adequate communal amenity space will be considered where high quality, useable and publicly accessible open space in the immediate area of the site (including a prov ision on site) would justify a reduction on site.
8.56 In summary, the re are deficiencies with the quality of open space proposed around the base of the new build developments. However, the provision of a linear park and further landscaping through out the site, proximity to a number of large open spaces, and compliance with the SPG, the proposed communal open space strategy is considered acceptable.
Child Play Space
8.57 The applicant has established that the scheme will generate 161 children (3sqm per child in accordance with the SPG and HSG7 of the emerging LDF ) therefore a requirement of 483sqm of child play space is generated. The applicant has advised that the existing scheme generates 876 children and a requirement of 2628sq.m.
8.58 Paragraph 12.33 of the emerging LDF states that child play space should be separate from the remainder of the communal space. The applicant is proposing t wo new children’s play spaces within the communal linear park, totalling 245sqm, which will be access ible to the residents of the new residential units and all of the existing residents of the British Street estate. Two smaller children’s play spaces have been introduced within the communal gardens at the base of each of the towers. These will be fenced of for the u se by the tower residents. T he proposed child play space would provide recreational space that is not currently provided for on site and is supported.
8.59 The applicant has indicated that with the inclusion of the 881sqm of play space that the Council provides at Archibald Park, they would significantly exceed the Council’s policy requirement for child play space for the entire site combined.
Issue 5 – Amenity
Sunlight/ Daylight
8.60 In support of the application, the applicant has undertaken a daylight/sunlight assessment to determine the impact of the development to surrounding properties . The study has been carried out in accordance with the methodology and advice set out in the ‘Building Research Establishment’s’ (BRE) guidance report, “Site Layout Planning For Daylight and Sunlight”.
8.61 The guidelines provide different methods for daylight assessments. The method that officers have generally accepted as the most detailed and most meaningful tool, is the Average Day light Factor (ADF) method, as this takes into account internal room layouts and sizes, window positions and sizes, and also makes an allowance for reflectance of internal room surfaces. Windows which overlook the site and are north facing are not required to be assessed, as noted within the BRE guidelines.
8.62 There are some failings in daylight and sunlight. Of particular concern is the impact of the two tower blocks on Site 2 and the future development on the adjacent Matching Court.
8.63 On bal ance, it is acknowledged that there will a loss of daylight and sunlight to both proposed buildings on Site 2 and existing buildings in Matching Court, as a result of the
Page 69 proposal. It is also acknowledged that the site is urban in nature of the site and so me impact on daylight and sunlight will always occur in such locations. Indeed, it can be argued that the amount and quality of light received by Matching Court and the future development is not untypical in an urban environment and therefore difficult to refuse on these grounds. Given the relatively small loss of Daylight/Sunlight across the remainder of the scheme , it is unlikely that the loss of daylight and sunlight would justify refusal of this scheme and its noted benefits. On this basis, the proposal can be supported.
Noise
8.64 Policy DEV10 of the Local Development Framework – Core Strategy and Development Control Submission Document states that attenuation measures will be required for development sensitive to noise and vibration pollution.
8.65 Concerns have been raised about the possible noise impacts associated with the community uses. Whilst the applicant did not submit an acoustics assessment as part of the proposal , the planning application should be conditioned if the scheme is considered to be acceptable, to ensure potential noise and/ or vibration impacts from this use will be mitigated.
8.66 Whilst the development is located adjacent to Bow Road, the internal layout has been designed to minimise potential sensitivity to this noise and/ or vibration source. Similarly, if the scheme was considered to be acceptable, the application should be conditioned appropriately.
Overlooking
8.67 A number of the objections raised concerns with reference to the potential overloo king from the development and the resulting loss of privacy. The particular sites that may be impacted upon are addressed below. The assessment of overlooking is to be considered in line with Policy DEV2 of the UDP where a separation distance of 18 m between opposite habitable rooms is considered to reduce inter-visibility to an acceptable degree.
8.68 • Wellington Way Listed Cottages
The windows in Site 1 East, facing the cottages, are setback approximately 19 m.
8.69 • Metropolitan Police Authority Call Centre
Whilst there is a separation distance of approximately 4m between these buildings, there are no windows to habitable rooms in this elevation given that it is a commercial building.
8.70 • Matching Court
Again, whilst there is a separation distance of approximately 4 to 6 metres between these buildings, the applicant has advised that there are no habitable rooms to windows in the south facing façade of Matching Court. Beyond this part of Matching Court, the distance between opposing habitable rooms is beyond 18 metres.
8.71 • Dwellings to the North of Bow Road
There is a separation distance of approximately 35 metres between adjacent habitable windows.
8.72 It is the officer’s assessment that the proposal would have an acceptable impact upon the privacy of adjacent residential buildings in accordance with Council policy.
Issue 6 – Access and Transport
Page 70
Access
8.73 The proposed design moves car parking to the perimeter of the estate and rationalises vehicle movements to p ermit the provision of a landscaped linear park and improve pedestrian safety.
8.74 The spaces will be located generally along British Street and Merchant Street. Speed tables and rumble strips will be introduced as traffic calming measures, and where the parking and service roads go into the heart of the estate, these will be shared surfaces.
8.75 Servicing of the retail units will take place from British Street. As this is within the estate and in the control of the landlord, the applicant has a dvised that the loading location and times will be strictly enforced. The Council Traffic Department raised no objection to this. However, if the application is considered appropriate, a suitable condition should be imposed to enforce this matter.
Parking
8.76 There will be no additional car parking provision for the new developments on the estate for which a s106 car free agreement is proposed. The intention is that parking will be by permit only, and will be managed by Eastend Homes.
8.77 Bicycle stores have been incorporated into the design of all new build blocks and on the ground floor of the refurbished units. The proposed new buildings for market sale will offer one cycle space for every two homes. The emerging LDF standard is 1 cycle p arking space per unit. TfL have also advised that their standard is 1 cycle parking space per unit. The proposed cycle parking spaces therefore does not comply with relevant policies. Consequently, an amending condition will be applied to ensure details of acceptable cycle parking is provided.
8.78 On the remainder of the estate, the number of car parking spaces has been reduced from 252 to 212 spaces. This equates to 0.31 spaces per unit, or 28.3 % of the Council’s adopted maximum standard of 1.1 spaces per unit (or 62.3% of the emerging LDF maximum standard). It is recommended that the S106 agreement include a clause to ensure that the development is ‘car free’, ensuring that no controlled parking permits are issued to the new residents of the developme nt and thus alleviating additional pressure on the surrounding streets. Overall, the car parking provisions support current Government guidance on encouraging trips by other means.
8.79 TfL supports car-free development and the total reduction of 40 ca r parking spaces on the estate.
Public Transport
8.80 The site is located within an area of very good public transport accessibility. The site is located between two London Underground stations and a Docklands Light Railway (DLR) stations, all of which are within 5 to 10 minute walking distance. In addition, regular bus routes into Stratford, central London and the City adjacent to the site along Bow Road.
8.81 TfL expects the developer to make a contribution towards the implementation of the accessibility improvements works in the surrounding area. In the event that the development is approved TfL would require this to be secured by the S106 agreement. Notwithstanding this, in accordance with the ODPM Circular 05/2005, planning obligations mus t meet a number of tests, particularly they must be directly related to the proposed development.
8.82 A significant portion of the justification for this proposal is reliant upon the contributions made
Page 71 to upgrade the remainder of the British Street Estate. It is the Council’s wish that the majority of funds raised through s106 contributions in this case are directed to the estate and any additional contribution to TfL will reduce the amount available for the estate upgrade. In addition, proposed works identified by TfL are not considered to be directly related to the development.
Issue 7 – Access and Inclusive Design
8.83 Policy HSG8 of the UDP requires the Council to negotiate some provision of dwellings to wheelchair standards and a substa ntial provision of dwellings to mobility standards. Emerging LDF Policy HSG9 of the Draft Core Strategy Document requires all new residential development to meet the Lifetime Homes Standard and that 10% of the proposed new housing is designed to wheelchair/ mobility standards. The applicant has advised that this standard can be achieved and will be secured by way of condition.
Issue 8 – Sustainable Development/ Renewable Energy
8.84 The Local Development Framework – Core Strategy and Development Control Submission Document contains a number of policies to ensure the environmental sustainability of new development. Policy DEV6 requires major development to incorporate renewable energy production to provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirements on site. In addition all new development is required include a variety of measures to maximise water conservation (Policy DEV7) incorporate sustainable drainage systems (Policy DEV8) and construction materials (Policy DEV9). In addition all new development is required to make sufficient provision for waste disposal and recycling facilities (Policy DEV15).
8.85 The applicant has submitted a statement which outlines how the development would be environmentally, economically and socially sustain able. The development achieves an ecohomes rating of “very good”. However, the applicant has not identified if they can incorporate renewable energy production to provide at least 10% of the predicted energy requirements on site.
8.86 With an appropr iate condition requiring submission of details relating to energy efficiency, the application would be acceptable and would comply with the energy principles as detailed in the London plan and policy DEV6 of the Local Development Framework – Core Strategy and Development Control Submission Document.
9.0 Conclusions
9.1 All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report.
Page 72
British Street Estate, Merchant Street, London, E3
Site Map lm 2
S 12. 6m a 2 M T R E E d 1 H d T
A o 4 7 t Harris
2 R ot ddddddd8 d House 1 L 24 6 E dddddddd rt d Y 1 1 ou d d a C G n ar i 0 R M d to 2 d ry 1 d O a l d nd oo V o h
E ec Sc 101
5
x S ry 9
i a o 9 d
1 n t
3 e rim dddddddddddddddddddd d o 1 h P d 97 P nd 5 a 1 9 C d 1 7 O d 8 d d School Surgery B House 2 O 1 2 1 d 5 2
9 R 87 2 d 1 2 9 4 d d N d ddd 2 3 2 S 5 2 d 2 2 0 T d 9 6 2 ddddd d 7 2 R dd dd8 9 7 E ddd E 2 dd 8 T d d 49 d Electr ic H ouse 69 d The C entral Foundation
d 9m 67 dd
d 13.1 Girls School 9 t
o M 6
d B d 1
l
t
E 1
d ta o b S 8 dddddddddd65 u d d S lan 3 t 6 TCP d Kir e 61
G
4 he ntr 3 e 9 2 T d e 5 0 C d o d 7
r 5 12.1m
5 g
3 12.6m ddddddd 6 H e 5 o d d L u a 3 s 5 n
dd e
s
d 4
6 b MP
dddddddddddddd 1
3
4 u 8
o r t
d y 1
1 7 d d 2
d 6 3 dddd
7 7 dddd 1
to 4 ddddd
d d y a
1 1 a ilw
4 d R
dt ddddd Regal Place nd
o ou d rgr
d 5 nde PH U 3 Bow d 9 Ro to 12.5m ad Stat 4 TCB ion 4 39 (London Tr anspo d C ddddddddddd rt) o
b 12.8m d
4
o 5 7 4 3 0 r to n 4 5 4 8 d3 El Sub Sta M 4 Memor ial Stone e 9 2 to d w 5
s dddd2 Chy BM 13.34m 2
d2 3
c
3
dddd 0 21 t
o 3 a 1
d 3 1 0
2
dddd 3 2 dddd
b to 31 to 4 o d 3 0 3
7 ddddd t dddddddddd 0 d 2 41 to 2 50
a ddd 1 dddddddddd d d 5 12.8m dddddddd dddddddddd
2 ddddddd Wellington Buildings
2
d 8 d
5 2
1 5
d d 0
D 2
d A
3 5
ddddddddddddddd 5 O
R o 2 6
t
OW 5
3 4
d B 1 2
2 4 d ne 1 thor dddddddd dddddddddd dd d g
on se d
d L ou
12.9m 3 1
H t dd o dd 1 ddd13 1 d d Clinic M 1 d B a d 3 e o d t 1 d h w 9 d o 4 R 7 d
2 i o
d5 y s a a d ddddddddddd 2 d t B d BS a rd C 1 W d t & h 7 d ns u Co 1m r d o ro 13.6 c d B M h 1 B dddddddddddddd d 1 ddddd 7
t o 3 Depot dy ger 1 r ddddddddd 4 u d ay S 1 ailw F 5 to R B 6 und F T dddddd o B E Matching Court r gr s RE e B T M nd TC S U 5 T a 4 AN t to H c LB 5 13.2m 1 RC h E i
ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd M n
B
a
2 F g
1 5
t
C o
0
2 dddddddddddd
6 BP 4 o d 8 Wellington se u
u r
St Clair H ouse o t Primary School 6 4 H 2 ty 2 er i 1 W FB V d24 E L S F T E L u B B RE r F I d d d ST N g dddddd de 2 T G r N
y d HA
Hall C
4 R T
1
B 1 d E
o
t d O
R
3 M 3 d N I T d B M d I F W S B
1 H A 3 8 F Y . 1 B Whippingham House 6 S 2 m T R ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd d 1 E t 1 BM 12. E o 2
T 1 3
Winchester House 0 2 d al El Sub Sta it
sp B
Ho F 1 1
t
B n ) o
1
d do ts 0
dd R n n 0 1 W ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd 1
3 5 o e o o t
1
O L em 8 t
Cl 1 7 i he St n K T ( FB d H c Grafton d E B h ddddddddddF o Playgr ound e S u House 1 F 5 d d Icarus House s s L B e t E B e 1 F 4 r Y 7 d d S F dddddddddddddddddd d
B
T d
1 1 1
t R 5
d 1 o
2
7
E 1
E
d T 1 o t
3
d F 3 d B Berkeley F FB B
se 4 House
d d u 1
Ho 0
to n 3
il 1
d m
a
o
1
H t
o t
6
2
d ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd 2
1 Columbia House ddddddddddd 1
F d 6 B d 6 d d dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd 7 m T .8 e 1 n dddddddddddddddddddddd 1 d
d n Columbia y M B a i F B
d s s W d
1 House t C o
t le
d 3 o 2 am u H r d
d d t
Esk House
1 d
o
B FB t El Sub sta 3
1 F
2
d 2
6
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd 8
2 F
2 3 Tower Hamlets Cemetery 2 d
B d
o
d t
01 1 2 d d d C 2 o
3
9 l u
e d 2
5 s m u 9 1 3 T o 19 1 20 H b 0 h sk 2
d 2 i a
4 e
E 2
d S
B H
d FB 3 dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd Y
1
A E
o
d L R t
o 3
W R
d o
2 u
o I t S d C
T s T d n 1 e E N ddd I L d S M d O A S d o H H d IM n S D
H T d R R d o e s E FB
b p E d 3
Chy T 5 d e i t 12 d B c a d to le R c l 2 1 t 1 e n O a ( B s S u
K o 4 Y
d ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd H A d H
t
E 3 W S
o C ET
S o
t L
u M d 0 A d
L l H
1 e 5 E s e m
Y d 9 d
4 e S n W
T d t d 0 E
R s 6 L D ddd E ) L E I 1 to 16 N 3 T 1 d d G Fairmont T BM 11.77m House O N
5 d 4 dddddddddddddddd W A d Y 3 1 to l 3 9 E d S ta b d ddddddddd Su Resource Centre
d 1 to 12
0
0 7
4 Healydddddddddddd d dd 1:2499 House 11.7m
1 to 1dddddddddddd2 Legend Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area d Land Parcel Address
This Site Map displays the Planning Application Site Boundary and the neighbouring Occupiers / Owners who were consulted as part of the Planning Application process. The Site Map was reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Tower Hamlets LA086568
Page 73 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 74 Agenda Item 7.3
Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Development 31 st January 2007 Unrestricted 7.3
Report of: Title: Planning Application for Decision Corporate Director of Development and Renewal Ref No: PA/ 06/01791 Case Officer: Terry Natt Ward(s): Millwall
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
Location: Mary Jones House, 8 Garford Street, London E14 Existing Use: Residential Hostel Proposal: Demolition of existing building and erection of two, two storey houses and 58 flats in a three to six storey building plus four car parking spaces and associated landscaping Drawing Nos: P(0)0001F, P(0)0002G, P(0)0003F, P(0)0004F, P(0)0005E, P(0)0006F, P(0)0007F, P(0)0008C, P(0)0010G, P(0)0011G, P(0)0012G, P(0)0013F, P(0)001F 4F Applicant: Planning Perspectives Owner: George Wimpey East London Historic Building: N/A Conservation Area: West India Dock
2. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 The local planning authority has considered the particular circumstances of this application against the Council’s approved planning policies contained in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan, associated supplementary planning guidance, the London Plan and Government Planning Policy Guidance and has found that:
a) In principle, the demolition of existing building and erection of two, two storey houses and 58 flats in a three to six storey building plus four car parking spaces and associated landscaping is acceptable, subject to appropriate planning obligations agreement and conditions to mitigate against the impact of the development; b) It is considered that the proposed use would not have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of the surrounding properties. A number of conditions are recommended to secure submission of details of materials, landscaping, external lighting, and plant, and to control noise and hours of construction; c) The design of the scheme is appropriate taking into consideration the nearby listed buildings and conservation area; and d) The proposal incorporates a number of sustainability measures.
3. RECOMMENDATION
3.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:
A. The prior completion of a legal agreement , to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, to secure the following:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT
Brief Description of background papers: Tick if copy supplied for register Name and telephone no. of holder:
Application, plans, adopted UDP. draft Xxxx Xxxx LDF and London Plan 020 7364 xxxx Page 75 a) Affordable Housing – 21 Specialist housing units to be used in perpetuity b) Health contribution on uplift: £10,000 c) Car Free agreement
3.2 That the Head of Development Decisions be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the following:
Conditions
1) Time limit for Full Planning Permission 2) Details of the following are required: • Elevational treatment including samples of materials for external fascia of building; • Ground floor public realm (detailed landscape plan for ground floor public realm improvements) 3) Landscape Management Plan required 4) 278 agreement to be entered into for Highway works surrounding the site 5) Environment Agency conditions 6) Hours of construction limits (0800 – 1800, Mon-Fri) 7) Details of insulation of the ventilation system and any associated plant required 8) Hours of operation limits – hammer driven piling (10am – 4pm) 9) Details required for on site drainage works 10) Full particulars of the refuse/ recycling storage required 11) Code of Construction Practice, including a Construction Traffic Management Assessment required 12) Details of finished floor levels required 13) Details of surface water source control measures required 14) Renewable energy measures to be implemented 15) Black redstart habitat provision required 16) Land contamination study required to be undertaken 17) Any other condition(s) considered necessary by the Head of Development Decisions
Informatives
1) Environment Agency advice 2) Site notice specifying the details of the contractor required 3) Standard of fitness for human habitation, means of fire escape and relevant Building Regulations
3.3 That, if by 10 th July 2007 the legal agreement has not been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, the Head of Development Decisions be delegated power to refuse planning permission.
4. PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
4.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing building and erection of two, two storey houses and 58 flats in a three to six storey building plus four car parking spaces and associated landscaping The residential element of the proposals comprises 51 one bedroom apartments, 5 two bedroom apartments and 2 three bedroom houses. The two bedroom apartmen ts and the three bedroom houses are proposed for private sale with 22 One bedroom apartments of affordable tenure.
Site and Surroundings
4.2 Located on site is an L-shaped four-storey building containing 46 studios of residential accommodation. T he site itself is located on the southern side of Garford Street and is 0.14
Page 76 hectares in area. Located within the West India Dock conservation area, the site is also adjacent to the Grade II listed buildings at Nos. 10 to 18 Garford Street. To the west and north of the site lie a mix of 5 to 8 storey contemporary residential blocks.
Planning History
4.3 The following planning decisions are relevant to the application:
PA/05/01985 Construction of part four/six-storey residential building comprising 62 self- contained flats (55 x 1-bed, 7 x 2-bed) with total demolition of existing building. Withdrawn 13 th February 2006.
5. POLICY FRAMEWORK
5.1 For details of the status of relevant policies see the front sheet for “Planning Applications for Decision” agenda items. The following policies are relevant to the application:
Unitary Development Plan Proposals Flood Protection Area Crossrail Policies DEV1 General design and environmental requirements DEV2 Development requirements DEV4 Planning obligations HSG2 New housing development HSG3 Affordable Housing HSG7 Housing Mix and Type HSG8 Provision of wheelchair units in housing schemes HSG9 Housing Density HSG13 Internal residential space within residential developments HSG14 Special Needs Accommodation HSG15 Development affecting residential amenity HSG16 Amenity space T17 Parking and vehicular movement standards T21 Improvement of pedestrian routes
Emerging Local Development Framework Proposals Flood Risk Area Central Area Zones Core Strategies: CP20 Sustainable residential density CP21 Dwelling Mix and Type CP22 Affordable Housing CP41 Integrating development with transport Policies: DEV1 Amenity DEV2 Character and design DEV3 Accessibility and inclusive design DEV4 Safety and security DEV5 Sustainable design DEV6 Energy efficiency DEV12 Management of demolition and construction DEV1 Amenity DEV2 Character and design DEV3 Accessibility and inclusive design DEV4 Safety and security DEV5 Sustainable design DEV12 Management of Demolition and Construction
Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (London Plan)
Page 77 Policy 4b.1 Density Matrix
Community Plan The following Community Plan objectives relate to the application: A better place for living safely A better place for living well A better place for creating and sharing prosperity A better place for learning, achievement and leisure A better place for excellent public services
6. CONSULTATION RESPONSE
6.1 The views of officers within the Directorate of Development and Renewal are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below. The following were consulted regarding the application:
Tower Hamlets Housing
6.2 The housing development team supports the proposal to redevelop Mary Jones house to create supported housing units which reflect contemporary requirements. Housing has facilitated the decanting of the present development and is keen to see the site redeveloped.
Tower Hamlets Environmental Health
6.4 Compliance with the relevant building regulations is required and informatives should be applied to this effect.
Tower Hamlets Highways
6.5 The development will be subject to a S106 car free agreement. The site is well located for public transport with 3 bus routes on Westferry Road together with the DLR.
There will be a requirement for a S278 agreement to reconstruct the cross-overs to these areas. The works will be carried out by the Council at the developer's cost.
Adequate coverered cycle parking has been indicated within the development
Tower Hamlets Parks/Landscaping
6.6 The proposed development is located in an area of the Borough that is relatively deficient in open space. The Council's open space strategy includes targets for maintaining and where possible increasing open space provision against head of population.
This development provides for an increase in accommodation units which will support an increased population density in the West India Dock area. Opportunities to increase open space provision in this area are extremely limited, and this development will not provide any additional open space. The proposal includes removal of trees, with some replanting.
The proposed flat roof building design presents an opportunity for the use of green or brown roof construction techniques. Whilst this will not provide additional open space, it does support biodiversity and sustainability targets, reducing rainwater run off and providing habitat for target species within the Tower Habitats Biodiversity Action Plan. This opportunity should be explored further with the applicant.
Consideration should be given to Planning Obligations in relation to provision of street tree planting and associated planting improvements in the vicinity of the development.
Environment Agency (Statutory Consultee)
Page 78
6.7 Originally objected to the application as it was not accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment. Stated that the objection may be withdrawn if the applicant was to undertake an appropriate FRA which satisfies the concerns of the Environment Agency.
OFFICER COMMENT: The applicant has since submitted an appropriate Flood Risk Assessment that has been examined and deemed satisfactory by the Environment Agency. Conditions have also been applied as per the Environment Agency’s request.
English Heritage (Statutory Consultee)
6.8 The design of the two proposed houses is particularly poor, contrasting cruelly with the adjacent early nineteenth century listed houses. It is essential that the design of the proposed houses is reconsidered. I do not consider that the second floor structure is desirable or necessary.
The proposed off street parking, particularly that in front of the two houses is not in keeping with the remainder of the street where parking is between the houses thereby retaining garden space in front of the houses.
The large piers abutting the road at the east and west end of the site may well be surviving boundary features of the church which originally occupied the site. Both should be retained if at all possible.
OFFICER COMMENT: The scheme has been amended to incorporate a number of design changes as recommended by English Heritage. The current scheme is now acceptable to both English heritage and the Council’s design officers.
DLR
6.9 DLRL has no comment on this application
Metropolitan Police
6.10 No comments received
Crossrail (Statutory Consultee)
6.11 Crossrail has no comment on this application.
7. LOCAL REPRESENTATION
7.1 A total of 152 neighbouring properties within the area shown on the map appended to this report were notified about the application and invited to comment. [The application has also been publicised in East End Life and on site.] The number of representations received from neighbours and local groups in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:
No of individual responses: 2 Objecting: 2 Supporting: 0
7.5 The following issues were raised in representations that are material to the determination of the application, and they are addressed in the next section of this report:
• Bulk and massing of proposal is excessive • Increased sense of enclosure • Loss of privacy • Parking stress on Garford Street
Page 79 • Bins store provision is inadequate • Inappropriate materials proposed • Vehicular and pedestrian access is limited in Garford Street • Clarification as to landscaping is required • Further details regarding lighting is required • Onward management and maintenance of proposed building needs to be undertaken • Issues regarding design and its impacts on the street/neighbouring properties and conservation area • Construction and management plan required and must be enforceable
8. MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 The main planning issues raised by the application that the Committee must consider are:
1. Affordable housing/Housing mix 2. Design/Scale of proposed scheme and impact on nearby listed buildings and conservation area 3. Parking /transport 4. Amenity impacts
Housing
8.2 Core Strategy Policy CP23 states that the Council will ensure the efficient use and retention of existing housing by resisting the loss of all residential dwellings and affordable housing unless there are acceptable plans for its full replacement.
8.3 The existing vacant hostel on site contains 48 single bedroom bedsits with shared facilities used primarily for temporary accommodation. This building is proposed to be demolished to make way for the new development. Discussion undertaken between Council’s Housing department, Look Ahead Housing Association and George Wimpey Homes has resulted in the current scheme. In addition to the private housing, the scheme proposes 21 supported, but independent, residential units that will accommodate residents relocated from poor- quality supported Council housing in Whitechapel.
8.4 It is important to note that although the actual unit numbers of affordable housing are reduced, the habitable calculation rema ins similar. (48 existing; 42 proposed). In addition, the quality of accommodation has increased with additional facilities for supervisors. Given the Council’s policies of bringing under-used and empty properties back into effective use in accordance with the priorities of the Community Plan and the presumption towards special needs housing, the loss of bedsits on this site is acceptable.
8.5 Affordable Housing UDP Policy HSG3 seeks an affordable housing provision on sites capable of providing 15 or more units in accordance with the Plan’s strategic target of 25%. Policy 3A.8 of the London Plan states that Borough’s should seek the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing taking into account the Mayor’s strategic target that 50% of all new housing in London should be affordable and Borough’s own affordable housing targets.
8.6 The Local Development Framework – Core Strategy and Development Control Submission Document Policy CP22 seek 50% affordable housing provision from all sources across th e Borough with a minimum of 35% affordable housing provision on sites capable of pr oviding 10 or more dwellings. Policy HSG10 confirms that affordable housing will be calculated in terms of habitable rooms with the exception of where this yields a disparit y of 5% or more compared to calculation in terms of gross floor space.
8.7 A total of 21 affordable housing units out of the total 58 units is proposed, representing 36 %
Page 80 provision as calculated by units or 34% on a habitable rooms. This scheme satisfies the Council’s minimum target of 35% and can be supported on this basis.
8.8 All units within the a ffordable housing provision are supported housing. Policy CP 24 of the Draft Core Strategy states that the Council will promote special needs and spe cialist housing by allowing good quality supported housing which meets an identified Borough housing need. The Council will seek the retention of reasonable supported housing and where special needs housing has been provided to meet an identified Borough h ousing need, the Council may choose not to seek planning contributions for affordable housing.
8.9 The proposal does not meet the requirements of Policy HSG5 of the Local Development Framework – Core Strategy and Development Control Submission Document that requires a social rented to intermediate ratio of 80:20 for grant free affordable housing. However, the circumstances of the case allow for a relaxation of this policy. The proposal will provide much improved quality accommodation for the relocated residents of the Whitechapel hostel.
8.10 Dwelling Mix On appropriate sites, UDP Policy HSG7 requires new housing schemes to provide a mix of unit sizes including a “substantial proportion” of family dwellings of between 3 and 6 bedrooms.
8.11 Local Development Framework – Core Strategy and Development Control Submission Document HSG6 specifies the appropriate mix of units to reflect local need and provide balanced and sustainable communities. Although f amily accommodation is again identified as a priority reflecting the findings of the Borough’s Housing Needs Survey as well as the draft East London SRDF , this is to be applied in consideration of other policies, which in this case includes the strong need for specialist/supported housing. The Counci l Housing Department and Housing Association have identified a particular need for 1 bedroom apartments in this location, which explains why all the 21 affordable apartments are proposed as 1-bedrooms.
8.12 The proposal would provide for 58 private residential units in the following mix:
Total No of private % of private units HSG2 policy units requirement 1 bed 30 81% 2 bed 5 13.5% 3 bed 2 5.5% 25% TOTAL 37 100%
8.13 The mix of both the affordable and private components of this scheme do not comply with the requirements outlined in either the adopted of emerging policies. However, this is a result of an identified need by both the Housing Association and the Council and a need to provide enabling development in partnership with a house bu ilder, and therefore the requirement for private housing on site.
8.14 To justify the mix within the private component on site, the applicant has prepared a toolkit analysis which shows an overall loss on investment. Upon close criticism of the viabil ity of the scheme it has been established that the proposal would not progress without concessions made by the Council in regard to unit mix policies. Ac ross all tenures, there is an imbalance in the mix of unit sizes across the scheme that would not norma lly be acceptable. However, the circumstances of the case provide a justifiable reason for departure from the established planning policy and the proposal can be supported. On the basis that this scheme would satisfy other planning and Community Plan polic ies, it can be supported.
Page 81 Density
8.15 The proposal will result in a density of 907 HRH, which exceeds the existing UDP density requirements. However, the density is acceptable in light of Table 4B.1 of the London Plan which indicates that densities of 650-1100 HRH are appropriate in Central/Urban sites with a PTAL of between 4-6 with good transport links.
Design
8.16 Policy Dev 2 of the UDP states that all development proposals should: 1. Take into account and be sensitive to the character of the surrounding area in terms of design, bulk, scale and the use of materials; 2. Be sensitive to the development capabilities of the site, not result in over-development or poor space standards; be visually appropriate to the site and its setting; 3. Normally maintain the continuity of street frontages, and take account of existing building lines, roof lines and street patterns; and 6. Include proposals for the design of external treatments and landscaping.
8.17 Policy Dev 2 of the Core Strategy and Development Control DPD requires that all new development is required to be designed to the highest quality standards, incorporating principles of good design, including (amongst others): a) taking into account and respecting the local character and setting of the development site, including the surrounding: i. scale, height, mass, bulk and form of development; ii. building lines and setbacks, roof lines, streetscape rhythm and other streetscape elements; iii. building plot sizes, plot coverage and street patterns; iv. design details and elements; v. building materials and external finishes; and i) creating visual interest in the urban environment, including building articulation; k) ensuring the use of high quality building materials and finishes; l) ensuring development is designed to be easily adaptable to different uses and the changing needs of users; and m)ensuring the internal design and layout of development maximises comfort and usability for occupants and maximises sustainability of the development, including through the provision of adequately sized rooms and spaces.
8.18 The proposal has been assessed by the Council’s Conservation and Design team and English Heritage who note that the design proposal has been negotiated after number of revisions and the current proposal will provide high quality supported and private accommodation.
8.19 To this end, the proposal takes into account and respects the local character and setting of the development site, through: • the provision of a scale and form of development that is appropriate for this area; • a building form within the streetscape that provides definition to the site upon which it is located; • consideration for the nearby listed buildings and conservation area; • an appropriate density for this location; • conditions requiring details of building materials and external finishes; and • the replacement of an existing poor-quality building with well-designed, functional accommodation.
8.20 On the basis of the above, the proposal satisfies the requirements of both the adopted UDP and emerging LDF and is acceptable.
Page 82 Amenity
8.21 With regard to the proposed scale and design of the scheme, the resulting scheme has evolved with continual dialogue and input from the Council’s urban design officers. Further, the proposal has been redesigned to overcome some of the amenity issues originally identified relating to outlook, privacy, daylighting and sunlighting of adjoining dwellings. The resulting scheme is considered appropriate in terms of mass, scale and design to the application site.
Parking
8.22 No car parking spaces are proposed on site. This is supported in light of Planning Standard 3 contained in the Core Strategy and the London Plan that specifies a maximum car parking provision of 0.5:1 for residential units. Provision of cycle parking will be required by way of condition and a car free agreement will be required for future residents.
Sustainable Development/ Renewable Energy
8.23 Policy SEN3 of the Draft Core Stra tegy Document requires that all new development should incorporate energy efficiency measures. The proposal is generally consistent with the London Plan energy policies and an appropriate condition will be included to ensure the implementation of the proposed renewable energy measures.
Access
8.24 The scheme will yield much needed accommodation including specialist/supported accommodation. The access statement submitted highlighted the developer’s commitment to provide all accommodation to lifetime home standards to be adaptable for mobility housing. Most of the units have relative ease of access to the four disabled parking bays. The statement confirms that 10% of the resulting accommodation will be accessible by wheelchair. The applicant has also amended the scheme to address concerns raised by the access officer.
Conclusions
8.25 All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report.
Page 83
Mary Jones House, 8 Garford Street, London
Site Map S SE T AU C IN SE OU D EH I IM A L D
1 O 4 C 0 1 K 6 t o D 2 R ddddddddddd A O O A d R D
Y R R El E Sub F T 1 to 26
Sta S
1 Post
0 E
6 3a 12a 12b 23a
d W t
o
el
1 k 3 c c
dddddddddddddddddddddddddddd Fonda y
8 9 a
1 0 r
0 dddddddddddd C
Court T 4 1 to 11 t o 3.3m 3a dddddddd 1 to 21 1 to 11dddddddddddd Post 3a 12a 12b Welles V Court 3a iad 3.8m ddddddddddddddddd Boddddddddddddddddddddddddgart uc E Rogers t Court C Court A l) L ne P n tu sts E ( Po NK
R LI d
8 E d
I
t 8 E 9
o 1 7 S
M U 2 d 2 O 0 E EH d 2.6m R IM P L d 1 to 21 dd Grieg House
d 3a 12a 12b
ET 1 d E 8 SA Hostel) d d STR ( Garland ORD d ARF
Court d G d
0 1 1 d
dddddddddddddddddddddddd 2.5m dd d
t
o 6
ddd2 8
48 1 to dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd 1 Flynndddddddddddd Court ddddddddddddddddddd 1 to 10 Mary Jones d Kelly Court se 1 to 15 House ou H l) de ste si Ho Premiere Place er A iv (S d 6 R 11 d 119 d d d d d d d d 128
3 1 d 1 d 21
0 1 Cannon d 1 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd House 4 to d 19 151
d 154 WB 4 155 d d 136
6 23 to 0 61 d1 1 13
d 5 ddddddddd
d 1
7
t o 3 dd
167 6 165 d 149 4.6m Statue d West Ind 2
BM 3.26m 0 d 1 0 dddd d 0 1 d d d d6 1:1250 9 d d 2 d 9 17 1 to 182 Legend Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area d Land Parcel Address
This Site Map displays the Planning Application Site Boundary and the neighbouring Occupiers / Owners who were consulted as part of the Planning Application process. The Site Map was reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Tower Hamlets LA086568
Page 84 Agenda Item 7.4
Committee: Date: Classification: Report Agenda Item Development 31 st January 2007 Unrestricted Number: Number: Committee 7.4 Report of: Title: Town Planning Application Director of Development and Renewal Ward: Bromley by Bow Case Officer: Richard Humphreys
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
Location: Land south of Rainhill Way, Site 11, Crossways Estate. Reference Number: PA/06/01865 Existing Use: Two houses and eight flats partially completed. Proposal: Construction of one 2 storey house, one 3 storey house and eight flats in a 4 storey block. Drawing Nos/Documents: A2669/2. 3/11-101, 3/11-102A, 1/08, 1/11-109A, 1/11- 110A, 1/11-111A, 1/11-112A, A2669/3.1/43. Design and Access Statement and Daylight Study. Applicant: Swan Housing Group Ownership: Swan Housing Group Historic Building: N/A Conservation Area: N/A
2. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 The Local Planning Authority has considered the particular circumstances of this application against the Council's app roved planning policies contained in the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan 1998, associated supplementary planning guidance, the emerging Local Development Framework and Government Planning Policy Guidance particularly the Building Research Establishment’s publication: ‘Sunlight and Daylight: A Guide to Good Practice’ and British Standard 8206 and has found that:
a) The amount of natural light reaching Nos.1-9 Rainhill Way accords with both the Council’s and Government guidelines; b) There is insuffic ient reason to refuse planning permission on grounds of inadequate outlook from Nos.1-9 Rainhill Way; c) It has previously determined that the development, including the rear access to Nos. 1-9 Rainhill Way, is a suitable land use for the site; and d) The development would not result in material harm to the character and environment of the surrounding area particularly with regard to overlooking.
3. RECOMMENDATION
3.1 That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT
Brief Description of background paper: Tick if copy supplied for register Name and telephone no. of holder Application case file, plans and Development Control 020 7364 5338 & UDP
Page 85
The prior completion of a legal agreement, to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, to secure the following:
a) A variation to the section 106 agreement dated 5th August 2005 between Swan Housing Association Limited and the Council to ensure that the pl anning obligations therein apply to this planning permission PA/06/1865.
3.2 That the Head of Development Decisions be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the following:
Conditions
1. No windows shall be installed in the eastern elevation of the building. 2. Unless any variation is approved in writing by the local planning authority, the materials to be use for the external finishes of the building shall only be as shown on the plans hereby approved. 3. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the landscaping scheme shown on the drawings hereby approved shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the developm ent, whichever is the sooner, and trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local P lanning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Informatives
1. You are advised that this permission does not grant or convey any approval other than under Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 2. This permission is subject to a planning obligation agreement made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
3.3 That, if by 1st February 2007, the variation to the legal agreement has not been completed to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, the Head of Development Decisions be delegated powe r to refuse planning permission and instigate enforcement action to remedy the breach of planning control.
4. PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
4.1 Application is made for full planning permission for the erection of one 2 storey, two bedroom house, one 3 storey, 3 bedroom house and eight one bedroom flats in a 4 storey block. The scheme concerns the retention of a partially constructed building erected in non-compliance with the siting shown on previously approved plans. The current proposal involves the removal of the top floor of the house sited closest to Nos.1-9 Rainhill Way resulting in a 2 storey dwellinghouse.
Site and Surroundings
4.2 Crossways Estate lies south of Bow Road, to the east of Bow Church DLR station. It is 3.62 hectares in area and is currently being redeveloped. The
Page 86 redevelopment includes the refurbishment of three existing tower blocks, the erection of a number of buildings ranging from 3 to 6 storeys in height on previously open land and the provision of recreational space.
4.3 The site the subject of this application is the plot known as ‘Site 11’ Crossways Estate. It is located at the south-eastern corner of the estate and is bounde d by the railway line to the south and the rear gardens of existing terraced houses (Nos. 1-9 Rainhill Way) to the east. The plot fronts Rainhill Way to the north, which is being upgraded as part of the estate project. The neighbouring houses to the east are 3 storeys in height.
Planning History
4.4 The following planning decisions are relevant to the application:
4.5 Outline planning permission for the redevelopment and refurbishment of Crossways Estate was granted on 5 th August 2005 (PA/03/1683). Details were subsequently approved (PA/05/1264) but the block of two houses and eight flats constructed at Site 11 does not accord with the siting approved by the outline permission, the building having been erected some 3.2 metres closer to the eastern boundary with Nos.1-9 Rainhill Way. The applicant has explained that this occurred because a 6 metre exclusion zone was required alongside the District Line viaduct and a wider street zone became necessary. The result was that to fit the approved bui lding on the site, it was moved 3.2 metres closer to Nos.1-9 Rainhill Way.
4.6 Following complaints from local residents, on 20th July 2006 a temporary stop notice was served that required building works to cease on Site 11 for a period of 28 days.
4.7 On 6 th September 2006, following a Members site visit, the Development Committee decide to refuse retrospective planning permission for the retention of the residential block on Site 11 on grounds of loss of light and overbearing effect on the adjoining properties (PA/006/886) . The Refusal Reason was ratified by the Committee on 27 th September 2006 to read:
“The development on Site 11 causes an unacceptable loss of light to the neighbouring properties 1-9 Rainhill Way and appears overbearing by reason o f its height and proximity to the site boundary. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies ST4, DEV1 and DEV2 of the adopted London Borough of Tower Hamlets UDP 1998 and Policy UD1 of the draft LBTH Local Development Framework 2005.”
4.8 The Committee was advised that by letter dated 15th September 2006 that Swan Housing Association had offered to reduce the height of the nearest house to the existing properties in Rainhill Way by one storey thereby resulting in a 2-storey end house closest to these neighbouring properties. The Association also undertook to submit a new planning application to regularise the development on Site 11 with a 2-storey end house.
4.9 The Committee was also advised that the service of an enforcement notice should be delayed to enable it to consider Swan Housing Associations suggested proposals. This was because of Government advice in PPG18 that enforcement action is the last resort. An informative was therefore added to the refusal of planning permission reading:
Page 87
“In v iew of the above decision you are advised that the development of Site 11 as constructed is unauthorised. Your attention is drawn to the Council’s powers of enforcement to remedy breaches of planning control and the removal of unauthorised buildings. Following the letter of 15 th September 2006 from Swan Housing, you are invited to submit a fresh application for planning permission for a revised building in order that the Council may consider whether any alternative form of development would overcome the reason set out above.”
5. POLICY FRAMEWORK
5.1 For details of the status of relevant policies see the front sheet for “Planning Applications for Decision ” agenda items. The following policies are relevant to the application:
Unitary Development Plan
Proposals: None Policies Policy DEV1 Design requirements Policy DEV2 Environmental requirements
Emerging Local Development Framework
Proposals: None Core Strategies CP4 Good Design Policies: DEV1 Amenity
Community Plan
The following Community Plan objectives relate to the application: A better place for living safely A better place for living well
6. CONSULTATION RESPONSE
6.1 The views of officers within the Directorate of Development and Renewal are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below.
6.2 Environmental Health: Advises that the Sunlight and Daylight Report submitted by the applicant has been reviewed. The reduction in height by one st orey of the building closest to Rainhill Way results in a higher level of daylight penetration to the adjacent dwellings. Both the Vertical Sky Component and the Average Daylight Factor resulting from the revised scheme are higher than those recommended b y the Building Research Establishment’s standard. The application can therefore be recommended.
7. LOCAL REPRESENTATION
7.1 A total of 179 neighbouring properties within the area shown on the map appended to this report were notified about the app lication and invited to comment. This number includes all those that were consulted on the original application to retain the unauthorised building and all those who made representation on that application. The number of representations received from nei ghbours and local groups in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:
Page 88
No of individual Objecting: (3) Supporting: (0) responses: (3) No of petitions received: (1) Objecting containing (111) signatories
7.2 The objections have been made by two residents within the terrace Nos.1-9 Rainhill Way. One letter has been received from an individual resident and t wo letters are from a second resident on behalf of all the occupiers of Nos.1-9 Rainhill Way. Copies of objections made on the refused application PA/06/886 have also been resubmitted. On behalf of the residents of Nos.1-9 Rainhill Way, two additional letters have been received from Planning Aid for London and a firm of Chartered Building Surveyors.
7.3 The following issues were raised in representati ons that are material to the determination of the application and they are add ressed in the next section of this report:
1. The building has been built too close to Nos.1-9 Rainhill Way. 2. The development blocks sunlight. Daylight inside Nos.1-9 Rainhill Way has not been considered by the applicant and breaches Building Research Establishment guidelines. Artificial light now required. 3. The removal of one storey does not overcome the previous objection. The a pplication does nothing to address the issue of proximity and unacceptably little to address loss of light. 4. The taller parts of the development are overbearing and create a sense of closure. 5. A dangerous alleyway has been created. 6. Loss of privacy due to overlooking from windows and balconies. Separation distance between habitable rooms breaches the Council’s UDP standard. 7. Loss of green open space resulting in children having to play in the road. 8. Creation of a new road with increased through traffic that will result in traffic accidents to children. 9. Overdevelopment and loss of amenity space for the new dwellings.
7.4 The following issues were raised in representations, but they are not material to the determination of the application:
1. Alleged breach of a private covenant. The building has been erected on land over which the residents of Nos.1-9 Rainhill Way claim a right of way. 2. Alleged breach of the Party Wall Act. 3. Interference with drains and the causing of a gas leak. 4. Building work might affect the structure of Nos.1-9 Rainhill Way.
7.5 The petition, signed by 111 residents of Crossways Estate, objects to the application on the following grounds:
• Proximity to homes. • The creation of an alleyway. • The application does nothing to address the original reasons for refusal. • If the development is allowed Crossways Estate will become a crime ridden destroyed community.
Page 89
7.6 The following procedural issues were raised in representations and are addressed below:
• Objection letters have not been scanned on the Council’s web site.
OFFICER COMMENT: Following concerns over the publication of personal details on planning web sites, the Council no longer publishes consultation responses on its web site as these letters contain personal deta ils that could be used for identity theft. This is not a material planning consideration .
• The ownership certificate supporting the application fails to acknowledge that that the occupiers of Nos.1-9 Rainhill Way have an interest in the land due to a right of way. The application is therefore invalid.
OFFICER COMMENT : An applicant is required by section 66 of the Planning Act to notify all owners of the land that a planning application is being made. The Act defines an owner as freeholder or leaseholder /tenant with not less than a 7-year lease/tenancy. Someone who has a right of way over land does not come within the definition of an owner and does not therefore need to be notified about the application by the applicant. This is not a material planning consideration .
8. MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 Although an entirely fresh planning permission is applied for, t he principle of the redevelopment of the Crossways Estate was agreed when the outline plannin g permission was granted on 5 th August 2005. The siting of a block of two houses and eight flats on Site 11 was approved at the time. The principle of the development of Site 11 is not therefore an issue for consideration in this case.
8.2 At its meeting of 6th September 2006, the Committ ee raised no objection to access to the rear gardens to Nos.1-9 Rainhill Way that has been created (the rear alley). The main planning issues raised by the current application that the Committee must consider are therefore:
(1) whether the removal of the top floor of the house closest to Nos.1-9 Rainhill Way has overcome the previous objection concerning unacceptable loss of light to those properties and overbearing impact, or
(2) whether the revised siting of the block of buildings still results in an unaccepta ble impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of the Nos. 1-9 Rainhill Way.
Issue 1. Natural light
8.3 The original scheme submitted for retrospective planning permission produced marginal failures assessed against the BRE’s guidelines as follows:
Vertical Sky Component (VSC) Nos. 1 and 3 Rainhill Way No Sky Line No. 3 Rainhill Way Average Daylight Factor (ADF) No. 3 Rainhill Way
8.4 All the other houses i n Rainhill Way passed the BRE’s guidelines and the proposal to remove the top floor of the closest new house would only improve
Page 90 conditions affecting those dwellings . Consequently, only conditions at Nos. 1 and 3 Rainhill Way require re-examination.
8.5 The BRE provides an initial test modelled on 2-storey suburban housing. In a section drawn perpendicular to an existing window, if new development subtends an angle greater than 25 degrees to the horizontal measured 2 metres above ground, daylight level s in existing buildings may be adversely affected and a detailed analysis should be undertaken. Such circumstances apply at Nos.1 and 3 Rainhill Way.
8.6 The detailed analysis involves calculating the Vertical Sky Component (VSC). If the VSC is less than 27% and 0.8 times its former value, then the no sky line should be analysed. If the no sky line is less than 0.8 its former area the effect may be noticeable.
8.7 The ground floor level rooms affected at Rainhill Hill Way are kitchens and the VSC and no sky areas are as follows:
VSC No-sky ratio Compliance 1 Rainhill Way 28.75% 0.94 Pass 3 Rainhill Way 28.5% 0.93 Pass
The kitchen windows to both houses have a VSC exceeding 27%, a no sky ratio over 0.8 and therefore meet the BRE guidelines.
8.8 Average Daylight Factors (ADF) based on British Standards is ano ther method of measuring daylight with a lower recommended standard than those of the BRE. The recommended ADF for kitchens is 2%. On the previously refused scheme only the kitchen in No. 3 was below BS recommendation and Swan Housing Association underto ok to fit a fully glazed kitchen door to that house. With the removal of the upper floor of the development closest to No.3, the kitchen would receive an ADF of 2.46 which exceeds BS guidance. The proposed solution would therefore result in acceptable da ylight conditions to all the houses in Rainhill Way and the development would not conflict with policy DEV2 of the Council’s 1998 UDP or policy DEV1 of the emerging LDF.
Issue 2. Overbearing due to height and proximity.
8.9 The Council has no stand ards for separation distances for buildings constructed at right angles to existing residential property. Acceptability is a concomitant of daylight conditions (above). The 1998 UDP provides a guideline ‘back to back’ separation distance of 18 metres between habitable rooms (see below).
8.10 The distances between Nos. 1, 3 and 5 Rainhill Way and the development on Site 11, with the top floor of the closest house removed, would be as follows:
Distance to 2 storey element: 9.25 metres Distance to 3 storey element: 14.6 metres Distance to 4 storey element: 19.6 metres
Given compliance with daylight criteria, it is considered such distances are satisfactory and the development would not conflict with policy DEV2 of the Council’s 1998 UDP or policy DEV1 of the emerging LDF.
Page 91 Other Planning Issues
Overlooking
8.11 Neighbours in Rainhill Way have reiterated objections due to overlooking from rear widows and balconies in the new block and allege that the Committee was previously misled on this point.
8.12 As mentioned, the 1998 UDP provides a guideline ‘back to back’ separation distance of 18 metres between habitable rooms.
8.13 In this case, there are no windows in the flank walls of the new building and no direct overlooking would be possible. Only very oblique views from the 1 st floor rear windows of the most easterly new house would be available to Nos. 7 and 9 Rainhill Way, the closest distance to No. 7 being 11.5 metres. From the 1 st and 2 nd floors of the second new house, obliq ue views would be 16 metres distant. Balconies of the new flats would be 20.2 metres from No. 7 Rainhill Way. Given only oblique views would be possible, which are not unusual in urban areas, and the fact that the distance from balconies to the nearest existing house in Rainhill Way exceed the Council’s guideline for direct views; it considered that adequate privacy would ensure no conflict with UDP or emerging LDF policy.
Amenity space for the new development.
8.14 Each new house would be provided with a private garden . One garden area at approximately 41.25 sq m falls below the Council’s Supplementary Guidance of 50 sq m. The other garden exceeds that area significantly. Each flat would be provided with a patio and / or a private balcony. Ther e would also be some 200 sq m of communal amenity space which exceeds the Council’s Supplementary Guidance of 60 sq m for a development of this type. On balance, it is considered that open space provision would be adequate.
Design and external appearance
8.15. The design of the building and facing materials to be used accord with the details previously approved and is considered satisfactory.
9 CONCLUSIONS
9.1 It is considered that the proposed modifications would result in sufficient levels of natural light reaching the adjoining properties with a resultant satisfactory outlook. All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account. It is considered that p lanning permission should be granted for the reasons set out in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the details of the decision set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report.
Page 92 Site Map
s p o H e u
r 7 to 12 o s 2 1
s 4 b
u e 6 s 4 2 s a e 48 6 dd
s ddd d 5 ester
2 5 d ddd Ldddddddddddd 5 4 8
3 ddd 9 Court 3
6 8 d
6
1
3 3 d 0
3 ddd
3 7 d
3
3 5 ddd ddd 6
9 6 d d3 3 P 3 dd
d 1 O Kings 6 4 1 W
Regent Square 1 d
6 6
0 d d I 2 3 S
0
3 D
d 6 d
5
4 6 A 6 O R 4 7
d d d R O
6 E d 6 d ad UC A d 0 R
d8 B D
7 d c
d 9 d d 0
4 d d8
5
8 6
1 4 8
1
0 3
8 o e
1 d 9 t 8 s 8
1 4 1 3 u dd 2 d d 9
3 d Ho 1 5
ge 8 t
d 4 t
7
ri 1 d
Su rgery co
B 1 d
ot 8 s
o d 8 m F d 3 d i ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd d d d4 L B F d N o r
2 t h
4 N ddddddddddddddddddddddddd d6 u l e
S r 1 c s i g
h e h El Sub Sta 5
3 o ry 2
5 o
d H
l o
t o
u d 1 2 s d 0 e 1 0d Hackworth D d 1 E L Point T 7 a h V U 7 d n e O p g
bl N c d m
9 2 o
o
r
t S 1 i t e d t
N g R H a
dddddddddddddddddddddddd e 5 d
4
e O o 2
d
t 2 H A u H o
ddddddddddddddddddddddddd
h s t
o
e t d o
o D
r u e 1 u
4
c 1 s 1 o s e
e 1
1 t 3
6 t
2 3
1
2 H
ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd dd d
o 1
t o
4 d d
u d 1 d s se
d e 1
1 8 ou
2 d W 2
1 o H 3 d d t
e i 1 be g d1 n ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd r id d m t B g d co d oo a sh
F te A
6
4 H 1
3
o dddddddddddddddd
o 1
ddddddddddddddddt
u 1 s e a St ub T
d l S C 6 E B
d 5 1 dddddddddddddddddddd d B
R H d 4 u
4 d U n C Playg round
S d 1 C t h dddddddddddddddddddddddd s d E o a d u h g t a
R h w f o
d d O c 0
r 2
d 4 o d
H 0
A o
Priestman 2 t t 3
D t o H d d o
o
t H u 1 t
Point d
s o
K 1 o u d 1
e u e s d 4
r s e
5
2
9
o d s
t e 1
d 1 d c dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd 1 Pla yg round
3 2 o 7 t
t d d1
H
d 6
1 o d d
o u t
d s
e d 1 9.8m dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd d B o w d 2 d BM d d e dddddddddddddddd
n 10.37m a
C 6 t
5 S
d 1
P H b
2 d u
o o S t e 9 l g
id u E r 1 B 1 d o t d dddddddddddddddds o F d e W d d a Pla yg round
r d 0 d n
1 e
9 d D B
d 1 d d
C y
W 8 2 d9 0
1 10
0
2 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
P d0
4
l 0 d
a 2 0 dddddddd d 2 y
g Pla yg round d2 H r d dd o 3 9 dddddddddddddddddd o d u o ddddddddddddddddddd 1 n l d 1 t t s o d d w d 2 2
0 o 8 d
r
C d1
t
R h 0 d
2 1 d2 y 5 5
d 2 H d F o 1 o o u
t
Birchdown House s d B 3 e r d i d d 9.4m g 1 3
e d d3
dddddddddddd 7 d d 9 ry d d e 1 g d r 1 d u RAINHILL WAY dddddd d S d1 d
R O MP 3 SP A D
SL CR SPs SP Ward Bdy C A M R P B O SP B M A E D
L 8 L BM 10.18m . 5 Allo tment Gardens 4
BROMLEY m
TCB 4 d9 56
1d5 d17 2 8 d d 1 7 d d d 8 t d o
1 d d LB 0 d D
5 d d d A
CB 9 1
d d O T 6 d d 9 d R
d S 8.7m dddddddddd d d d E d V d E dddd
7 d d E d 1 0 5 d R 7 d
t d d
o d 4
1 4 d d 4
2 2 d d
5 6 1 1 d d 1 31 7 15 d dddddddddd d6 dd d d d d d d
17 d 9.2m TIBBATT'S ROAD 21 to
P dddd d
U 1 5
2 R 2
5 5 1:2000 7 d
d D 1
t d d
o Y Shelt er
4
d 2
4
o t
2 4 1 6
8 1 3 4 d S 1 d
5 T d3
R d 4 Legend Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area d Land Parcel Address
This Site Map displays the Planning Application Site Boundary and the neighbouring Occupiers / Owners who were consulted as part of the Planning Application process. The Site Map was reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Tower Hamlets LA086568
Page 93 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 94 Agenda Item 7.5
Committee: Date: Classification: Report Agenda Item Development 31 st January 2007 Unrestricted Number: Number: 7.5 Report of: Title: Town Planning Application Director of Development and Renewal Ward: Bethnal Green North Case Officer: Ila Robertson
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
Location: Sebright Arms Public House, 31-35 Coate Street, London, E2 9AG Reference Number: PA/06/02020 Existing Use: Public House Proposal: Demolition of existing public house and construction of a new 4 storey and ba sement residential building, to provide 14 Affordable Housing units, 11 x 1 bed and 3 x 2 bed flats. Drawing Nos/Documents: Existing floor plans, existing topographical survey, existing elevations plan, existing elevations, 2818.P.01, 2818.P.02, 2818.P03 and 2818.P.04 Applicant: Mr D Knight Ownership: S & D Land Historic Building: N/A Conservation Area: N/A
2. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 The Local Planning Authority has considered the particular circumstances of this application against the Council’s approved planning policies contained in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan, associated supplementary planning guidance, the London Plan and Government Planning Policy Guidance and has found that:
2.1.1 It is considered that the marketing details that have been submitted in respect of the loss of the existing public house are insufficient to prove that there is no demand for a public house or an appropriate A class use in this location. In ligh t of this it is considered that the proposed demolition and loss of the public house is an unacceptable loss of an important community and social function for local residents. As, such the proposal is contrary to Policy ART2 of the adopted London Borough of Tower Hamlets UDP (1998) and Policy RT6 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Submission Document 2006 which requires Council to oppose any development that results in a loss of public house/ entertai nment facility unless sufficient marketing evidence has been provided and there are additional public houses within easy walking distance.
2.1.2 The height of the proposed building is inappropriate and out of keeping with the predominant form of exist ing surrounding buildings, and would have an adverse
Page 95 impact on the appearance of the streetscape. As such the proposal is contrary to policy DEV1 of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets adopted (1998) Unitary Development Plan and DEV2 of the Local Developme nt Framework: Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Submission Document 2006 which seek to ensure new developments are designed to take account and respect the local character and setting of adjacent buildings.
2.1.3 The dwelling mix and type of the proposed housing mix, by reason of the provision of 79% one bedroom (11 units) and 21% two bedroom flats (3 units) does not accord with the housing types and sizes identified to meet local needs, which require 45% family size accommodation (three bedroom units and above). The proposal is thus contrary to Policy HSG7 of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) and Core Strategy CP21 and Policy HSG2 of the Local Development Framework: London Borough of Tower Hamlets Developme nt Plan Document Core Strategy and Development Control Submission Document, which seek to ensure that housing accommodation in new residential developments include those housing types and sizes to meet local needs and promote balanced communities in accord ance with the Government’s sustainable community objectives.
2.1.4 The proposed development would result in an unacceptable sense of enclosure and loss of outlook to the proposed occupiers of the basement level by reason of the proximity and orientatio n of their windows to the adjacent retaining wall and boundary fence. It would therefore cause a material loss of residential amenity, contrary to Council Policy DEV1 and DEV2 of both the London Borough of Tower Hamlets adopted (1998) Unitary Development P lan and Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Submission Document 2006. These policies seek to protect the amenity of prospective occupiers and ensure that development does not result in an inappropriate sense of enclosure.
2.1.5 The scheme provides an inadequate amount of private open space for use by the proposed residential units, to the detriment of the amenity of the prospective occupiers. It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to the Unitary Development Plan Policy HSG16 and HSG7 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Submission Document 2006 which seeks to ensure the provision of adequate amenity space for future residents.
2.1.6 The proximity between the proposed living and bedroom areas of the one and two bedrooms at the rear of the building results in an unacceptable loss of privacy. It is therefore considered that the proposal is contrary to the Unitary Development Plan Polic y DEV2 and DEV1 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Submission Document 2006 which seek to ensure that sufficient privacy and amenity is provided for residents.
3. RECOMMENDATION
3.1 That the C ommittee resolve to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons outlined in section 2 of the report.
Page 96
4. PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
4.1 Demolition of existing public house and construction of a new 4 storey and basement residential building, to provide 14 Affordable Housing units, 11 x 1 bed and 3 x 2 bed flats.
Site and Surroundings
4.2 The site comprises 413sqm and currently has a public house known as the Sebright Arms operating from the site. The site is bound t o the north by Coate Street and to the west by Sebright Lane.
4.3 To the north of the site is a large five storey housing estate building known as Cheverell House which forms part of a larger estate. To the west and east of the site are a set of two to three storey buildings of both a residential and commercial nature. To the south of the site are a set of Victorian terraces that affront Hackney Road.
Planning History
4.4 The following planning decisions are relevant to the application:
4.5 No relevant applications. However, it is noted that several pre-application comments were provided on the site and concerns were raised regarding the design of the scheme, mix of units and suitability of the basement accommodation.
5. POLICY FRAMEWORK
5.1 The following policies are relevant to the application:
Unitary Development Plan
Proposals: SVCA Strategic Views Consultation Area Policies DEV1 General Design DEV2 Environmental Requirements DEV50 Noise HSG1 Provision for Housing Development HSG2 Location of New Housing HSG7 Dwelling Mix and Type HSG10 Density of New Housing Development HSG13 Standard of Internal Spaces HSG15 Preservation of Residential Amenity HSG16 Housing Amenity Space T15 Location of New Development T16 Traffic Priorities for New Development ART2 Retention of Existing Entertainment Facilities.
Page 97
Emerging Local Development Framework
Proposals: SVCA Strategic Views Consultation Area Core Strategies CP1 Creating Sustainable Communities CP4 Good Design CP19 New Housing Provision CP20 Sustainable Residential Density CP21 Dwelling Mix and Type CP25 Housing Amenity Space CP40 Sustainable Travel Network Policies: DEV1 Amenity DEV2 Character and Design DEV3 Accessibility and Inclusive Design DEV4 Safety and Security DEV10 Disturbance from Noise Pollution DEV15 Waste and Recyclables Storage DEV16 Walking and Cycling Routes and Facilities RT6 Loss of Public Houses HSG1 Determining Residential Density HSG2 Housing Mix HSG7 Housing Amenity Spaces HSG9 Accessible and Adaptable Homes
The following Community Plan objectives relate to the application: A better place for living well
6. CONSULTATION RESPONSE The views of officers within the Directorate of Development and Renewal are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below. The following were consulted regarding the application:
6.1 LBTH Design and Conservation
The overall massing, bulk and design is out of context and unacceptable.
6.2 LBTH Highways Department
No comments received. (Officer Comment: Given the accessibility of the site and amount of on street parking would recommend that a s106 car free agreement be entered into).
6.3 LBTH Environmental Health
No comments received.
6.4 LBTH Housing Officer
The proposed mix is unacceptable. T he emerging LDF requires 25% of private units to be three beds or larger in any private and intermediate housing mix, or 45% three beds or larger where affordable rented housing is proposed. On any
Page 98 other schemes we are insisting that the 3 bed targets are recognised.
6.5 LBTH Building Control Officer
No comments received.
7. LOCAL REPRESENTATION
7.1 A total of (98) ne ighbouring properties within the area shown on the map added to this report were notified about the application and invited to comment. (The application has also been publicised on site and in the East End Life. The number of representations received from neighbours and local groups in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:
No of individual Objecting: (5) Supporting: (0) responses: (5) No of petitions received: (1) Objecting containing (173) signatories
7.2 The following local groups/societies made representations:
N/A
7.3 The following issues were raised in representations that are material to the determination of the application, and they are addressed in the next section of this report:
Loss of the Public House Waste/ refuse arrangements Privacy /overlooking Loss of daylight Loss of employment Construction effects Design and appearance of the building Quality of basement accommodation Bicycle Storage
7.4 The following issues were raised in representations, but they are not material to the determination of the application:
Affect of foundations on the stability of adjoining buildings Future planning application for adjoining site Misleading drawings
7.5 The following procedural issues were raised in representations, and are addressed below:
N/A
Page 99 8. MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The main planning issues raised by the application that the committee must consider are:
Land use Housing Mix Design Amenity Highways
Land use
8.1 The existing building at 31-35 Coate Street is a public house known as the ‘Sebright Arms’. The public house is still in operation, howev er, the proposal seeks to demolish the existing building and to not retain the use in the proposed scheme.
8.2 Council Unitary Development Policy (UDP) ART2 and Policy RT6 of the Emerging Core Strategy and Local Development Framework (LDF) 2006 requires Coun cil to oppose any development that results in a loss of public house or entertainment facility unless there are additional public houses within easy walking distance and there is marketing evidence illustrating no reasonable prospect of reuse or the extens ion or alteration will preserve the architectural quality of the public house.
8.3 There is provision of other public houses in the local vicinity (within 300m walking distance) along Hackney Road, Cambridge Heath Road and Broadway Market. Therefore in terms of the first test of the policy it is considered that this is met.
8.4 In respect to the second part of the policy marketing evidence for the re-use of the public house it is not considered that sufficient marketing information has been provided to confirm that the public house could not be re-used. It is considered that the proposal is therefore contrary to policy RT6 of the LDF and ART2 of the UDP.
8.5 A substantial number of objections have been received by local residents and users of the public house in r espect to the proposed loss of the pub and employment opportunities. As noted above it is considered that insufficient marketing information has been provided to substantiate the loss of the public house, especially given it is still in operation.
8.6 The s ite has not been identified on either 1998 UDP or LDF proposals maps for specific purposes. However it is located within a strategic view consultation area.
Housing Mix
8.7 The UDP 1998 policies HSG1 and HSG2 see k to encourage residential proposals within localities which are adequately serviced and where an overall satisfactory residential environment can be assured. Given the location of the
Page 100 site and level of residential use within the area it is considered that the test is met in terms of the location and accessibility of the site. However, in terms of a satisfactory environment it is not considered that a number of the proposed residential units will have acceptable privacy and outlook.
8.8 In addition, Council U DP policies HSG7 and HSG8 require that the proposed unit mix in developments provides a balance in both housing choice and size. This is further emphasised by local and regional studies which indicate the need for family housing. Accordingly, policies HSG 7 and HSG8 of the UDP and policy HSG2 of the LDF seek to ensure that there is adequate housing choice available for the Borough.
8.9 The proposal seeks to provide 14 100% affordable residential units with a mix of 79% one bedroom (11 units) and 21% two bedro om flats (3 units) which does not accord with the housing types and sizes identified to meet local needs. The Council seeks to ensure that housing accommodation in new residential developments includes housing types and sizes to meet local needs and promot e balanced communities in accordance with the Government’s sustainable community objectives and our Housing Needs Survey.
8.10 Whilst it is commended that the scheme proposes 100% affordable housing Council policies still requires that the proposed housing mi x provides an adequate provision of housing types and sizes. Therefore, the proposed mix is unacceptable and contrary to Council policies HSG7 and HSG8 of the UDP and policy HSG2 of the emerging LDF.
Design
8.11 The UDP policy DEV1 and the emerging LDF policy DEV2 seek to ensure that developments including new buildings are designed to take account and respect the local character and setting of adjacent buildings. The building should contribute to a sense of place, be well articulated and of a human scale.
8.12 The proposed height, massing and design of the proposed building is not considered to be sensitive to the surrounding buildings or the streetscape appearance of Coate Street. In particular, it is considered that the building appears unsympathetic to the directly adjoining buildings which are only two and three storeys respectively.
8.13 Furthermore, the entrance location is small and impractical given the number of residents proposed. The entrance sho uld make a statement and be clearly identifiable given the importance of the Sebright alleyway that borders the western boundary of the site.
8.14 The design has been reviewed by Council Design Officers who have advised that they consider the building to be unacceptable in terms of context of the adjoining buildings and the surrounding area.
8.15 In terms of the demolition of the existing public house building, the structure is not statutorily or locally listed and the site is not located within a Conservation Area. Consequently, whilst a number of objectors have raised concerns about
Page 101 the loss of the building to the local area this building can be demolished as of right.
8.16 Overall it is considered that the proposed building is contrary to both DEV1 of the UDP and DEV2 of the emerging LDF. The building does not respond to or respect the existing character of the Coate St street scene or the adjoining buildings.
Amenity
8.17 The Cou ncil UDP policies HSG15, DEV2 and DEV50 place a particular emphasis on protecting the amenity of existing and prospective surrounding residential occupiers. It is considered that the level of amenity, privacy and outlook afforded to a number of the propose d units is unacceptable and contrary to Council policy.
8.18 The proposed basement level would comprise of two one bedroom units. These units are orientated around a small courtyard that is buffered by a 2.9m retaining wall and then 1.7m high boundary wall. T he windows are set back appropriately 5.5m reducing to 0.2m from the wall. This results in poor outlook and sense of enclosure to these windows and the future occupiers.
8.19 Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that these basement units would comply with BRE day lighting or sun lighting standards. Not withstanding this it is considered that the design and orientation of these units results in an unacceptable sense of enclosure and poor outlook for future occupants.
8.20 On the upper levels o f the buildings the layout respects this basement courtyard and features windows and juliette balconies on each of the upper levels. The positioning of these windows results in the occupants of one unit being able to look directly from their lounge room in to the adjacent living room and vice versa. It is considered that this does not accord with the Council’s Unitary Development policy DEV2 or the emerging DEV1 policy of the Local Development Framework.
8.20 Furthermore, the scheme is contrary to policy HSG1 6 of the UDP (1998) and HSG7 of the LDF (2006) which seek the provision of exclusive/ communal amenity space for new developments. The proposal does not provide any such space for the six one bedroom units resulting in a poor level of overall amenity space for the occupiers in an area where these is a low level of open space provision already, well below national and London normal levels.
8.21 Objections have been raised from adjoining properties regarding potential loss of privacy. In particular, a commercial property to the west of the site has raised concerns regarding views through their existing roof lights from the upper levels of the proposed building. However, given the commercial use of this adjoining property and separation distances it is not consider ed that there would be any adverse privacy effects.
8.22 Furthermore, objections have also been received from occupiers of the
Page 102 adjoining property to the north being Cheverell House regarding potential loss of daylight. However, given the wide separation dist ance provided by both Coate Street and the grassed set back to Cheverell House it is not considered that there would be any adverse daylight or sunlight effects on this property.
8.23 Overall, whilst it is recognised that there is significant housing demand w ithin the Borough, this does not mean that schemes of poor quality will receive support by Council. As such, in this instance, it is not considered that the scheme can be supported by Council policies.
Highways
8.24 The applicat ion site is well serviced by public transport links. The site is located within 5-10 minutes walk of Cambridge Heath Overland Station and Bethnal Green Tube Station. The site is located in close proximity to Hackney Road which is served by numerous bus routes.
8.25 The proposal has not received comments from the Council’s Highways department. However, given the accessibility of the site and lack of off-street parking availability in the area that the scheme would be subject to a ‘car free’ agreement and s278 undertaking for the upgrade of local footways.
8.26 In addition, it is noted that all proposed cycle storage is located within the basement area. It is not considered that this location would allow for easy movement of cycles by occupiers and may not comply w ith accessibility by design policies.
Other Planning Matters
8.27 The adjoining property to the west has advised in their objection that they may seek to construct a roof extension in the future. They seek to have assurances that any potential privacy effects that may result given the proximity of the subject site would have an exemption. This is not an issue that the Council can give any weight to given no planning application has been lodged for this adjoining property and no existing unimplemented planning permission exists for such an extension. As such no further regard will be given to this matter.
8.28 Objectors have also raised concerns that the proposal may have effects on the foundations of adjoining properties. However , this is not a material planning consideration and is an issue that is adequately dealt with by the Building Consent process.
8.29 In addition, concerns have been raised regarding the accuracy of 3D elevations included proposed plans as these plans illustrat ed that an adjoining property being 27 Coate Street features a three storey building. However, this is incorrect this particular site is largely clear with just a single storey structure and no unimplemented consents exist for a three storey building on th e site. The site directly to the east of this site being 25 Coate Street does have an outline planning permission for the construction of a 2/3 family dwelling. Care should therefore be given when viewing these particular plans in respect to the height of adjoining buildings.
Page 103
Conclusions
8.30 All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account. Planning permission should be granted for the reasons set out in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the detai ls of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report.
Page 104 Planning Application Site Boundary
Site Map
t fts H D 1 o ro 9 C T 14.6m 39 3 E 6 E STRE TEAL 15.18m Besford 2 4 House t o
59 14.8m 2 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd 1 to 8 9m 9 E
o 5 l
1 t S
P u
H
o b
u R s
e Besford
I S G
Playground i T l l t
m a a House 1 n C 6 H t o A R 2 D S' R
Dinmont O
1 A o t
House 7 1 1 D t El Sub Sta o
7 1
B Dinmont
e
1 House e P c t o l S a h 4 e y w 8 g dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd b o ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd r r
o
o
i
1
g dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
u
d H
t o
h u
o n s
e
d H C
t h
4
e v
H 4 e
o r e l u l o s T u EE e TR s E S e T
COA
1
t o
6
0 ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
D
1 I t
o N 1
2 M
O
ET use N d
E o T
3 h
R 1 t o e
ST 3 ar S TE 5 W 4 A T
O 2
C R 4 3 9 7 S 2 E P a e 9 a E
b
s r T 3 9 d s i g ddd a h g t ces e PH Terra d9
The dd 41
1
t o
9 2 d dddddddd d Worksd d d 403 d d 411 Donald G 417 A dd ddddddddddddddd Winnicot R d N d 395 Centre d E dddd R d d 97 3 S dd d
T d 391
d S R d 383 2m
9 4
u
. 2 E 5 4
1 4
r 2
g E 6 M 4 d 1 B 2 e T d d dd
r
y
4 0 d 8 T ddddddd d ddd E 3 E 37 75 15.5m C d 3 L S 4 d O D Oakwood d 0 4 d S A 4 0 6 House 0 6 c E L 4 6 E d b ddddddddddd d 0 a PH d359 6 d ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
55 d d ddd
Shelter 3 d 9
4
8 3 t d 8 o
3 dddddd 9 6
2 7 16.0m ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd to 3 PH 1 d d T E Lion Mills E 6 d S 1 to D
11 ddddd 3
7 to ddddd 5 A
4 L
d 0
4 E
16 3
to 9 dddd2 5 o
22 1 1 t 3 C
d 8
dd L l o t a
O lared 3 S 3 C 2 3 d E 1
dddddddd ddddddddddddddddddddddddddd 2 t
o 14.6m R 4 T 3 S d d 6 1:1250 ALE RED d Hadrian d CLA Legend Consultationd Area
This Site Map displays the Planning Application Site Boundary and the neighbouring Occupiers / Owners who were consulted as part of the Planning Application pro Map was reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Tower Hamlets LA086568 Page 105 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 106 Agenda Item 7.6
Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Development 31 st January 2006 Unrestricted 7.6
Report of: Title: Telecommunications Decision Delegated Report Ref No: PA/06/02262 Case Officer: Allie Moore Ward(s): Shadwell
1. APPLICATION DETAILS
Location: Proposed Telecommunications Antenna, Land Between South West of 7 Branch Road and North West of Limehouse Basin, Branch Road, London Reference Number: PA/06/02262 Existing Use: Proposal: Installation of a 10m slim-line monopole (including shrouded antennas) and associated equipment cabinet. Drawing Nos/Documents: 100-Rev B, 201-Rev B, 202-Rev B, 203-Rev B, 204- Rev B, ICNIRP statement Applicant: T-MOBILE (UK) Ltd Ownership: Historic Building: - Conservation Area: -
2. SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 The Local Planning Authority has considered the particular circumstances of this application against the Council's approved planning policies contained in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan and the Council’s emerging Local Development Framework Submission Document and has found that:
3. The proposal is unacceptable in terms of siting, design and visual amenity.
3.1 It is therefore recommended that the Committee resolve to REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:
The proposed 10 metre monopole by reason of its poor design, excessive height and prominent siting would appear incongruous to the site and setting as a whole. The proposed antenna fails to respect the character and appearance of the Limehouse Basin and as such, the proposal is contrary to policies DEV1, DEV2 and DEV10 of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan (adopted 1998) and policy U3 of the emerging Local Development Framework Submission Document (2005).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT
Brief Description of background papers: Tick if copy supplied for register Name and telephone no. of holder:
Application, plans, adopted UDP. draft Xxxx Xxxx LDF and London Plan 020 7364 xxxx Page 107 4. PROPOSAL AND LOCATION DETAILS
Proposal
4.1 Installation of a 10 metre slim-line monopole (including shrouded antennas) and associated equipment cabinet.
Site and Surroundings
4.2 The application site is located within the Limehouse Basin, an area characterised by its high density residential nature incorporating some 300 residential units. The site for the proposed development is located to the north- western edge of the Limehouse Basin, adjacent to the existing public walkway that circles the marina.
The proposed telecommunications installation is intended to provide 3G coverage to T-Mobile users within the Limehouse Basin service area.
Planning History
4.3 There is no planning history for other teleco mmunications applications within the vicinity of the proposal site.
5. POLICY FRAMEWORK
5.1 Note: For details of the status of relevant policies see the front sheet for “Planning Applications for Decision” agenda items. The following policies are relevant to the application:
Unitary Development Plan
Proposals: Flood Protection Area Policies DEV1 General Design Requirements DEV2 Environmental Requirements DEV9 Control of Minor Works DEV10 Telecommunications Development
5.2 Emerging Local Development Framework
Proposals: LBTH Sites of Nature Conservation Flood Protection Area
Core Strategies CP4 Good Design CP36 The Water Environment and Waterside Walkways Policies: U3 Telecommunications Equipment DEV1 Amenity DEV2 Character and Design
5.3 Government Planning Policy Guidance/Statements
PPG8 Telecommunications
Page 108
5.4 Community Plan
The following Community Plan objectives relate to the application:
A better place for living safely A better place for living well A better place for excellent public services
6. CONSULTATION RESPONSE
The views of officers within the Directorate of Development and Renewal are expressed in the MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS section below. The following were consulted regarding the application:
Highways
No adverse comments.
6.1 Informal comments were received from the Councils Environmental Health Officer, who had raised no concerns with regards to Health and Safety.
7. LOCAL REPRESENTATION
7.1 A total of 179 neighbouring properties within the area shown on the map added to this report were notified about the application and invited to comment. A public notice was posted on site on 5th January 2007. The number of representations received from neighbours and local groups in response to notification and publicity of the application were as follows:
No of individual Objecting: 71 Supporting: 1 responses: 72 No of petitions received: 0
7.2 The following issues were raised in representations that are material to the determination of the application, and they are addressed in the next section of this report:
• The proposed installation of the mast would, by reason of its size and massing, be visually obtrusive. • The proposed development would detract from the visual amenity of the area. • The proposed telecommunications apparatus may have potential health implications ( OFFICER COMMENT : The applicant has provided the necessary documentation to verify the development would meet the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure)
7.3 The following issues were raised in representations, but they are not material to the determination of the application:
• The proposed development would lead to a depreciation of property values in the vicinity .
8. MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The main planning issues raised by the application that the C ommittee must
Page 109 consider are:
• The suitability of the proposed site for telecommunications development • The impact that the installation would have in terms of design, scale and visual amenity
8.1 Summary
The site of the proposed installation is located to the north-western edge of the Limehouse Basin, adjacent to the existing footpath that circles the basin. From here, the basin continues to the east and south-east whilst residential blocks are located in all directions. The area is therefore characterised by its predominant residential nature and aesthetic qualities, with the Limehouse marina and pontoon docks as its dominant feature. Due to the uniqueness of the site, the Council considers the area worthy of protection. The Limehous e Basin has been reviewed under the Local Development Framework Submission Document (2005) and duly added to the Boroughs listing of Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation. It is considered that the proposed siting of the telecommunications equipment is unsympathetic and detrimental to the overall character and appearance of the site and its setting.
The area surrounding the pontoons within the marina has been distinctively modelled in a consistently planned design approach. The marina walkway is enclosed by a series of low-level poles interlinked by chains to form a fenced off area along the existing walkway. A number of street lamps that are uniform in colour, design, height and spacing are also featured along the pedestrian walkway. The proposed 10 metre high monopole would exceed the height of the tallest street lamp structure by at least 6 metres, resulting in an over-bearing and incongruous addition to the area with the potential to set an unwelcome precedent for further development within the Limehouse Basin.
Policy DEV10 of the Borough’s Unitary Development Plan (1998) states that telecommunications equipment should be sited as to minimise its impact on visual amenity. The proposal site is a dominant focal point for occupants of the residential towers that surround the Limehouse Basin, as well as pedestrians and visitors to the area. The anticipated 10 metre high mast would be an obtrusive and unsightly intrusion resulting in a material loss of visual amenity to the many surrounding residential occupants within the vicinity of the application site.
9. Other Considerations:
The 3G Coverage Map submitted with this application indicates that there is a varying level of coverage available in the Branch Road/Horseferry Road area, demonstrating that an installation in this area may provide a benefit.
9.1 Under the requirements of the Act for the determination of telecommunications applications, the applicant must provide evidence that they have considered alternative locations for the siting of the proposed apparatus. The following sites were considered by the service provider and discounted for the following reasons:
1. Westferry, 90-162 Milligan St- Peabody Trust was unwilling to accommodate a mast due to Health and Safety concerns. 2. Brewster House, rooftop option- Under the ownership of Tower Hamlets Borough Council. The Local Authority has a moratorium against accommodating telecommunications equipment on land or property in
Page 110 their ownership. 3. Malting House, possible rooftop option- Under the ownership of Tower Hamlets Borough Council. The Local Authority has a moratorium against accommodating telecommunications equipment on land or property in their ownership. 4. Consideration was given to a DNS structure on Branch Road, where it converges with the tunnel approach and Ratcliff Road- The site is on a red route, as a result there would be significant restrictions with regard to the construction and maintenance of this particular installation. The site was therefore discounted. 5. The Limehouse and Westferry DLR Stations- Serco/Dockland Light Railway were unwilling to accept telecommunications equipment on land and property in their ownership. 6. The Holiday Inn Express, rooftop option- Attempts to contact this company with regards to the installation of equipment failed. The site may infact be too far out to provide the necessary coverage. Further confirmation from T-Mobile is required. 7. Salmon Lane and Three Colts Street (DS style installation) - Due to the proximity of residential properties and high level of underground services, the agent believes these two locations would not be acceptable to T-Mobile. 8. Cape House- The agent is unable to establish the owner of the site, and is therefore unable to provide this as a candidate.
Furthermore, whilst it is accepted that there is a requirement for an installation to provide 3G coverage in this area and alternative sites have been considered, the search for alternative sites is not exhaustive and many of the discounted options are not confirmed to be unacceptable sites. Further investigation of a number of the above options should be sought by the developer before they can be ruled out as possible sited for development. It should also be noted that the agent has not investigated the possibility of shared facilities with other existing telecommunications equipment providers in the area, as required by policy DEV10 of the Tower Hamlets Unitary Development Plan (1998).
To summarise the above, the need for the installation is not considered to outweigh the harm to the character of the area and impact on the amenity of nearby residents.
10. Conclusions
All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account. Planning permission should be refused for the reasons set out in the SUMMARY OF MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS and the details of the decision are set out in the RECOMMENDATION at the beginning of this report.
Page 111
Site Map
2 58
8 8 5 Bridge
y
r d d e Conduit g d d r ddddddddddddddddd ddddddddddddddddddd u ddddddddddddddddddd S dddddddddddddddd dddddddddddddddd ddddddddddddddd d El Sub Sta d d MP WB d d Cn
ddd MP BM 8.78m
d Bollards a o
D R y
l d A B a i k O d c c r dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd r o a R 183 to 241 e L d W 2 m H
m 2 C o
N 0 C 3
2 A dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
R
B 242 to 262 dddddddddddddddddddddd k Pond e Lin hous Lime nel) dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd (Tun
118 to118 182 Pond Berglen Court Und
6.1m 3 0 Limehouse Basin
5.9m Berglen Court
TCBs D
1 7
4 t
o
A 1 8 L
O
R
H
2 C
ddd N A dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
R
B
l ne n u T Bollards Quay Pontoons d Pontoon dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd Berglen Court
3
8
o
t
t o
4 5 6 1
4
ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd Bollard
Bollard dddddddddddddddddddddddd19 to 39 5.9m 40 dddHORSEFERRY ROAD to 45 1:1250
4
2 0 4
4 6 8 3 ddddddddd d Legend Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area d Land Parcel Address
This Site Map displays the Planning Application Site Boundary and the neighbouring Occupiers / Owners who were consulted as part of the Planning Application process. The Site Map was reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. London Borough of Tower Hamlets LA086568
Page 112 Agenda Item 8
Committee: Date: Classification: Agenda Item No: Development 31 st January 2007 Unrestricted 8
Report of: Title: Corporate Director Development & Renewal Planning applications with non-completed legal agreements Originating Officer: Michael Kiely Ward(s): See list of applications in report
1. SUMMARY
1.1 This report sets out procedures for dealing with old planning applications where the S106 agreement has not been signed in a timely manner. This is now routinely addressed in committee reports for new applications, but it is necessary to address the older cases.
2. RECOMMENDATION
2.1 That, in respect of the applications listed in the schedule at section 5 of this report, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to either:
(a) Refuse planning permission; or
(b) Treat them as being “finally disposed of” under the provisions of Article 25 of the General Development Procedure Order.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 Members will be aware that in recent agendas the recommendations to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 or other legal agreement have also included a further recommendation that delegated powers be given to refuse planning permission if the agreement is not completed within a specified time period – usually 3 months. The main reason for this is that the Council as local planning authority has a duty under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to grant planning permission in line with the development plan. If there is a significant delay in issuing a decision there will be an increasing possibility that the development plan may have changed and the application needs to be reconsidered. The other reason is to ensure that the Council completes the determination of planning applications in a timely manner.
3.2 There is a tendency with some developers to view the decision of the Committee as sufficient for their purposes; they see the planning permission as being “in-the-bag” even though, in law, a planning permission has not yet been issued. This practice can result in a tardy approach to finalising the legal agreement. The new practise of an additional recommendation setting a time limit is designed to eradicate this culture. As can be seen from the table in section 5 below, a high number of quite old applications are in this category.
3.3 The purpose of this report is to deal with those applications that predate the current practice of setting a time limit. If the Committee does not pass a new resolution then the committee’s original resolution remains in force (ie to grant permission etc) and the applications can stay undetermined on the Council’s “books”. This reflects badly on our
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT
Brief Description of background papers: Tick if copy supplied for register Name and telephone no. of holder:
Application, plans, adopted UDP. draft Michael Kiely LDF and London Plan ü 020 7364 5257 Page 113 performance as a local planning authority. This report seeks an amended resolution that enables officers to deal with these old applications.
4. PROPOSED ACTION
4.1 There are two options open to officers in dealing with applications where an agreement is not signed:
1. To refuse planning permission – this will generally only be done where applications are still relatively new and where the conditions in (2) below do not apply.
2. To treat the application as “finally disposed of” under Article 25 of the General Development Procedure Order (GDPO) – this will generally be the approach where the application is relatively old and the applicant no longer has a right of appeal due to the passage of time.
4.2 Under Article 25 of the GDPO, the Statutory Register of all planning applications is divided into two parts, Part I being current applications and Part II being historic applications. Part I is defined as those applications that are “not finally disposed of” (Article 25(3)).
4.3 Article 25(11) sets out criteria for determining whether an application is “finally disposed of”. For these purposes, only sub-paragraph (a) is relevant. This states:
a) it has been decided by the authority (or the appropriate period allowed under article 20(2) of this Order has expired without their giving a decision) and the period of six months specified in article 23 of this Order has expired without any appeal having been made to the Secretary of State.
4.4 Article 20(2) provides the time periods for decision (or longer period as may have been agreed in writing between the applicant and the local planning authority), while article 23 deals with the period for lodging of an appeal.
4.5 At the end of such periods where no decision or appeal has been made, an application is transferred from the Part I to the Part II register and is “finally disposed of”.
4.6 Therefore with all applications where the period for decision making has expired and no appeal has been made to the Secretary of State, the Council can finally dispose of the application in accordance with Article 25(11) of the Order and take no further action on it. In effect it is deemed withdrawn by virtue of the statutory provisions in the Order.
5. SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS
5.1 The following applications have been considered by this committee and received a resolution to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement, but that agreement has not been completed. These applications do not have the current additional resolution to delegate powers to refuse.
Ref No Address Development 1999 cases PA/99/00854 1 Merchant Street, Change of use of second floor to create 6 flats London, E3 together with external alterations. WARD: Bromley (pre February 2002 only) PA/99/01373 Walker House 6-8 Change of use of basement and part ground floor to Boundary Street, London, a gym and first floor to business (B1) use. E2 WARD: Weavers
Page 114 Ref No Address Development 2000 cases PA/00/00922 62-70 Bacon Street, Demolition of existing building and erection of a four London, E2 storey building comprising 10no. live/work units, with WARD: Weavers (pre ancillary car parking. February 2002 only) PA/00/00950 Land At South West Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a Junction Of Dunbridge part two, part three storey building to create six Street And Vallance houses, with ancillary parking. Road, Dunbridge Street, London, E1 WARD: Weavers (pre February 2002 only) PA/00/01002 118-122 Cheshire Street, Erection of an additional double height storey to London, E2 create six live/work units. WARD: Weavers
PA/00/01201 Land East Of Poplar Outline Application for office, B1/switch uses Business Park, Prestons development including determination of siting and Road, London, E14 parking.Land fronting Prestons Road and adjoining WARD: Blackwall (pre Poplar Business Park, Isle of Dogs E1 February 2002 only) PA/00/01742 39-47 Bethnal Green Erection of fourth and fifth floor roof additions in Road, London, E1 connection with the refurbishment and change of use WARD: Weavers (pre of the building to an arts centre (including retail, February 2002 only) cafe/bar, offices, and a fourth floor function room), the erection of a four storey rear extension to provide ground floor retail space and a new theatre auditorium, and the erection of a roof-top aerial/telecommunications mast. 2001 cases PA/01/00396 Saga House 157 Erection of fourth floor & mezzanine floor addition Commercial Street, including change of use of basement & ground floor London, E1 to a wine bar / restaurant, & upper floors to 9 self- WARD: Spitalfields (pre contained flats (Reused proposals). February 2002 only) PA/01/00439 516 Commercial Road, Demolition of a garage and erection of a five-storey London, E1 building to provide retail and garage uses at ground WARD: Shadwell (pre floor with 20 flats above comprising (19 x 2 bed and 1 February 2002 only) x 1 bed). PA/01/00744 25 Felix Street, plus Redevelopment to provide a part three, part four adjoining site and part of storey building comprising 11no. self-contained flats, what is now Cambridge and including the stopping of part of the public Crescent Footpath, highways. London, E2 WARD: St Peters (pre February 2002 only) PA/01/00851 255-257 Bethnal Green Rebuilding of front elevation, installation of shopfront, Road, London, E2 rear extension to 1st & 2nd floors construction of a WARD: Weavers (pre 3rd floor. Residential use of upper floors to provide a February 2002 only) 2 bedroom flat on each of 1st & 2nd floors and 1 bedroom/studio flat with front and rear terrace on 3rd floor. PA/01/00854 Land At Corner Of Erection of a three storey plus lower ground floor Amazon Street And building to create workshops at lower ground level, Umberston Street, retail/gallery use at ground floor and four split level Amazon Street, London, apartments at first and second floors. E1 WARD: St Katharines (pre February 2002 only)
Page 115 Ref No Address Development PA/01/00909 31-39 Redchurch Street, Erection of a roof extension to provide two, 2 London, E2 bedroom flats, with a front terrace. WARD: Weavers (pre February 2002 only) PA/01/01335 Block A, Central Roof restoration and repairs to Block A. Foundation Girls School, Harley Grove, London, E3 WARD: Bow (pre February 2002 only) PA/01/01472 1 and 1a Blondin Street, Demolition of the back addition, the construction of London, E3 an additional floor on the pub and a new two storey WARD: Bow (pre extension at the rear and the conversion and use as February 2002 only) seven residential units. PA/01/01563 516 Commercial Road, Demolition of building in connection with London, E1 redevelopment of site to create 20 residential units WARD: St Katharines (pre with commercial units at ground floor level. February 2002 only) PA/01/01608 1 Shacklewell Street, Construction of a first floor extension and a new London, E2 second floor, alterations to the ground floor garage WARD: Weavers (pre including changes in ceiling height and and February 2002 only) conversion of the upper floors to create two, 2 bedroom and one, 1 bedroom flats with front and rear terraces and alterations to front elevation including a new separate entrance lobby. 2002 cases PA/02/00042 26 To 30, Vallance Road, Erection of side extension to No.30 at first and London, E1 second floor in association with changes to layouts of WARD: Bethnal Green two existing flats at Nos.28 and 30 to create two 1- South bed and two 2-bed flats; erection of rear extension at ground floor level to form storage area for the shop at No.26; conversion of upper floors of No.26 to form two 1-bed flats with ground floor rear extension and new shopfront at No.26. PA/02/00169 Former Perseverance Erection of a three storey plus basement building to Public House 125 Gosset provide 3 two bed houses (as amendment to Street, London, E2 previous scheme for conversion and extension for 3 WARD: Weavers houses). (February 2002 onwards) PA/02/00259 88 To 90 Commercial Demolition of existing building and erection of a six Road and 1 To 5 storey building for mixed use purposes comprising Henriques Street, retail use (A1) at lower ground and ground floor with Commercial Road, servicing to the rear plus twenty self contained flats London, E1 (20 self contained flats). WARD: Whitechapel PA/02/00809 Land At South East Construction of two 3-storey, 6-bedroom houses Junction of Cable Street (each housing up to 12 persons from one family unit). and Dellow Street, Dellow Street, London, E1 WARD: Shadwell (February 2002 onwards) PA/02/00883 Entire Site Bounded By Demolition of existing building and erection of a Prescot Street, St Mark commercial office building to provide leisure/ retail Street, South Tenter facilities, creation of an urban space together with Street and West Tenter associated car parking, servicing and landscaping. Street formerly known as 44 To 61 Prescott Street And 2 To 30 South Tenter Street, Prescot Street, London, E1 WARD: Whitechapel
Page 116 Ref No Address Development PA/02/00911 148-150 Commercial Change of use from showroom/storage use to use as Street, London, E1 a (tourist) hostel comprising 30 rooms with ancillary WARD: Spitalfields and office, lounge and kitchen areas. Banglatown PA/02/00980 Site West of Dandridge Construction of a three storey building over vehicle House, Lamb Street, ramp incorporating retail use and new security booth London, E1 on the ground floor and 14 flats on the first and WARD: Spitalfields and second floors together with associated landscaping Banglatown and enabling works.(This application is supported by a new Environmental Statement submitted for the purposes of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999. PA/02/01198 105c Commercial Street, Use of ground floor and basement for food and drink London, E1 (A3) or retail (A1) use. WARD: Spitalfields and Banglatown PA/02/01204 107 A and B, Commercial Use of ground floor and basement to A3 (food and Street, London, E1 drink) or A1 (retail) plus installation of a kitchen WARD: Spitalfields and extract unit. Banglatown PA/02/01360 207-211 Bow Road, Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a five London, E3 storey building fronting Bow Road and a four storey WARD: Bow East building to the rear of the site, to provide a total of 23 flats. PA/02/01560 552 To 558, Roman The erection of a three storey addition above the Road, London, E3 existing shops to provide 12no. two bedroom flats, WARD: Bow East together with alterations to the front elevations of the ground floor premises at Nos. 552 & 558 Roman Road - as an amendment to the planning permission dated 14th May 2002 (LBTH Ref: PA/01/01655). PA/02/01667 52 To 56, Brick Lane, Erection of a mansard roof to create 2 flats. London, E1 WARD: Spitalfields and Banglatown PA/02/01745 Site At Junction Of East Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission Ref: India Dock Road And T/97/314 (L.D.D.C.) dated 3rd December 1997 for West India Dock Road, redevelopment by the erection of a 5 storey building London E14 (Lipstick Site) comprising gallery/retail (D2/A1 use) at ground floor WARD: Limehouse and 6 live/work studio units on the upper floors to (February 2002 onwards) allow a further three years for implementation. PA/02/01813 123-125 Whitechapel Change of use on the ground-floor from retail Road, London, E1 warehouse to Class D1 non-residential education WARD: Spitalfields and and training centre. Banglatown 2003 cases PA/03/00143 461-463 Hackney Road, Internal alterations in connection with change of use London, E2 of existing second floor furniture storage (B8) to two WARD: Bethnal Green self contained flats. North PA/03/00261 20-24 Corbet Place, Demolition followed by construction of a replacement London, E1 (Lana House, building behind retained facade to provide basement Block B). car park, retail unit at ground floor and one live/work WARD: Spitalfields and unit on three levels above. Car park access ramp Banglatown located in adjoining 'Block A' at 2-18 Corbet Place. PA/03/01115 20-24 Corbet Place, Demolition of roof structure; internal structure and London, E1 floors; east wall - above ground floor level along WARD: Spitalfields and boundary with internal light well; part of loading bay Banglatown gable and beam.
Page 117 Ref No Address Development PA/03/01148 114 To 118, Commercial Refurbishment, alterations and change of use to Street, London, E1 create 18 live / work units on upper floors (ground & WARD: Spitalfields and basement remain commercial). Works include new Banglatown entrance on east facade; access to car park located under Block B and refuse store to serve both blocks.(This scheme is a revised version of those permitted 15th May 1997 and 24th August 1999) PA/03/01431 238-244 Hackney Road, Demolition of existing warehouse building and re- London, E2 development of site to include the provision of WARD: Weavers commercial wholesale showroom (sui generis) within (February 2002 onwards) the new building at ground and basement levels and 14 new residential units above at 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors. The proposal also includes the provision of a new vehicle crossover from Allgood Street.(Revised Scheme) 2004 cases PA/04/00317 Marina Point, 14 Lanark Demolition and re-building of existing roof space to Square, London, E14 provide four self-contained one bedroom flats with WARD: Blackwall and dormer windows. Cubitt Town PA/04/00586 97-99 Whitechapel Road, Change of use from wholesale, showroom, London, E1 warehouse (Sui Generis) to professional and WARD: Spitalfields and financial services (A2). Banglatown PA/04/00604 41 Coate Street, London, Change of use from commercial use to create 3 E1 residential units over 3 floors, consisting of 1 x 1 WARD: Bethnal Green bedroom at ground level, 1 x 2 bedroom at first and 1 North x 2 bedroom at second floor level. PA/04/00670 Land West Of Branch Outline Application for residential development. Road North Of Horseferry Road And South Of Rotherhithe Tunnel, Branch Road, London, E14 WARD: Shadwell (February 2002 onwards) PA/04/00671 Land West Of Branch Outline application for mixed use development Road North Of Horseferry consisting of residential (Class C3) and educational Road And South Of (Class D1) uses. Rotherhithe Tunnel, Branch Road, London, E14 WARD: Shadwell (February 2002 onwards) PA/04/00880 St Lukes House And Demolition of the existing church, church hall and Church, Strafford Street, vicarage and redevelopment of the site to provide a London, E14 new three and five storey development comprising a WARD: Millwall (February new church, church hall and office space for 2002 onwards) community use and 22 residential units (the plans have been revised to reduce the number of proposed units by one and reduce the bulk of the proposed new vicarage). PA/04/00842 89-91 New Road, London, Change of use and conversion from ancillary storage E1 use to residential at 1st & 2nd floors. The erection of WARD: Whitechapel 1st & 2nd floors rear extension to form new residential use as 4 x 1bedroom flats. Alterations and reposition of internal staircase in the basement plus new shopfront in connection with the use of the basement and ground floor for wholesale showroom.
Page 118 Ref No Address Development PA/04/01021 61 Commercial Street, Erection of a rear extension at second and third floor London, E1 levels; construction of raised roof; the conversion and WARD: Spitalfields and change of use of the upper floors (1st to 3rd floor) to Banglatown create 3 one bedroom flats; roof terrace at third floor level; refurbishment of and alterations to the front (Commercial Street) elevation and the existing shopfront, including creation of a separate street access to new flats. (AMENDED SCHEME) PA/04/01079 40 East India Dock Road, Change of use and conversion of existing building to London, E14 form 4 x 1 bedroom flats with external stair case to WARD: Limehouse the basement and installation of railings. (February 2002 onwards) PA/04/01173 Land At North East Construction of new mosque and multi-cultural Junction Of Duckett Street community centre and relocation of existing mosque And Bale Street, Bale onto adjoining public open space for a temporary Road, London, E1 period during construction works. WARD: St Dunstan's and Stepney PA/04/01201 First Second And Third Change of use of vacant first, second and third floors Floors, 85 to form six bedsit units accomodation and erection of Whitechapelhigh Street, an external staircase for fire escape at rear. London, E1 WARD: Spitalfields and Banglatown PA/04/01809 Queens Head Public Amendment to existing approved development House, 57 Greatorex currently under construction (PA/00/1802 which Street, London, E1 involved the redevelopment and the erection of a four WARD: Spitalfields (pre storey building to provide eleven flats) to provide an February 2002 only) additional storey (total 5 storeys) and increase the number of flats to thirteen in total. PA/04/01881 Hopetown Hostel, 60 Old Revision to approved scheme for re-development of Montague Street, London, the site: approved development (our ref. PA/03/540) E1 consists of 22 units of supported housing in main WARD: Spitalfields and building and 10 self-contained family flats (2 x 1 Banglatown bedroom, 7 x 2 bedroom) in rear building; proposed revision is to replace family flats with 18 bedsits and 1 x disabled unit. Proposal includes external alterations to proposed rear building including reduction in height by 1m and different windows to south elevation. 2005 cases PA/05/00012 54 Leman Street, London, Change of use from disused office building into 4 E1 residential flats involving works to rear of the building WARD: Whitechapel comprising; erection of a mansard roof extension an increase to the height of the building's existing rear projection by 1.3m PA/05/00159 Meath Gardens, Walter Siting of two recycled sea containers, linked and Street, London, E2 adapted to provide a 'youth cafe' with a verandah. To WARD: Mile End and be sited on the disused playground west of the NE Globe Town entrance to the park. PA/05/00192 Norton House, Cannon Refurbishment of Norton House including the Street Road, London, E1 construction of a new escape staircase and the WARD: Shadwell replacement of existing balustrade panels and stair (February 2002 onwards) curtain walling. The construction of a new five storey block of 10, two bedroom flats to adjoin the southern end of Norton House, the construction of a new five bedroom house on the north east side of Norton House and associated landscaping works.
Page 119 Ref No Address Development PA/05/00309 94 Horseferry Road, Conversion of existing garage to provide new London, E14 bedroom with en suite bathroom. WARD: Shadwell (February 2002 onwards) PA/05/00335 Dover Castle Public Demolition of existing building and construction of a House, 118 Old Bethnal four storey plus dormer roof building to provide eight, Green Road, London, E2 one and two bedroom dwellings. WARD: Bethnal Green North PA/05/00427 15 To 17, Wentworth Conversion of upper floors into 3 x self contained Street, London, E1 two-bedroom residential units and new separate WARD: Spitalfields and entrance for residential units. In addition, the rear Banglatown walled-in yard to be covered with a flat roof. PA/05/00469 412 And 414 Commercial Demolition of buildings in connection with proposed Road, London E1 redevelopment for shop or financial and professional WARD: Shadwell services and residential. (February 2002 onwards) PA/05/00611 613 Manchester Road, The creation of a new one bedroom self-contained London, E14 flat by extending the existing building by one storey WARD: Blackwall and to create a fourth storey to the building. Cubitt Town PA/05/00742 174c Bow Common Lane, Demolition of existing single storey outbuildings and London, E3 redevelopment of the site to provide four x 2- WARD: Mile End East bedroom and 2 x 1-bedroom, two storey houses with private gardens. PA/05/00868 136 To 142, Whitechapel Works including First floor rear extensions to 136 and Road, London E1 140 Whitechapel Road, First and Second floor WARD: Whitechapel extensions to 138 Whitechapel Road, a Second and Third floor extension to 136 Whitechapel Road, plus new ground floor access at 138 Whitechapel Road, new smoke vents to rear of 136 to 140 Whitechapel Road and replacement windows at 142 Whitechapel Road in connection with the change of use of First to Third floors to create 8 flats and 1 bed-sit at 136-142 Whitechapel Road. PA/05/01117 442-444 Roman Road, Erection of a mansard roof extension and the London, E3 creation of two-self contained flats with rear terraces WARD: Bow West at first floor level above the existing shop and alterations to the shop front. PA/05/01131 Land At Rear Of 109 To (1) Demolition of existing single and two storeys 121, New Road, London, derelict warehouse buildings. (2) The re-development E1 of the site by erection of a part four storey building WARD: Whitechapel (block No.3) (over entrance way adjacent to No. 119 New Road), and a part two (block No.4) and four storey buildings (blocks Nos. 1 and 2) at the rear of the site to provide 25 flats, consisting of 3 one bedroom, 18 two bedroom, 2 three bedroom, 1 four bedroom and 1 five bedroom, together with bicycle storage area and amenity spaces. (Revised application received on 18 November 2005). PA/05/01199 58-62 Middlesex Street, Conversion/change of use to create 3 x 1 London, E1 bedroom/studio and 3 x 2 bedroom flats. (Revised WARD: Spitalfields and scheme) Banglatown PA/05/01227 Mooring In Millwall Cutting Permanent mooring of a vessel for use as a hotel And South Dock, Thames with ancillary uses including business function rooms, Quay, Marsh Wall, restaurants, bars, health spa, retail units, together London, E14 with pontoons and the formation of a new vehicular WARD: Blackwall and access from Marsh Wall and new pedestrian swing Cubitt Town bridge across Millwall Cutting.
Page 120 Ref No Address Development PA/05/01254 1a Kay Street, London E2 Construction of 1 three storey 3-bedroom house on WARD: Bethnal Green land at rear of 341-343 Hackney Road. North PA/05/01312 126 Mile End Road, Development of vacant site by the erection of a four London, E1 storey and basement mixed use building, comprising WARD: St Dunstan’s and an A3 use on the ground floor and basement with two Stepney residential units above PA/05/01360 483 Hackney Road, Change of use from 3 storey residential building London, E2 (upper floor levels) to create 5 one bedroom flats WARD: Bethnal Green (upper floor levels at first, second and third floor) and North the installation of two velux rooflights. PA/05/01415 4-6 Davenant Street, Erection of a rear third floor and fourth floor London, E1 extensions, the change of use of the existing WARD: Spitalfields and commercial building to provide 8 Class B1 (Business) Banglatown units on the ground and first floors, with 14 flats residential on the 2nd to 4th floors (11 x 2 bedroom and 3 x 3 bedroom) with the provision of 15 bicycle racks. PA/05/01491 69 Hessel Street, London, Erection of a three-storey building with basement E1 floor to provide two self-contained flats comprising WARD: Whitechapel two 2-bedroom units. PA/05/01686 50 St Leonards Street, Conversion of existing ground floor from A3 into a London, E3 one bedroom flat and a studio flat plus creation of WARD: Bromley By Bow access to basement for storage purposes. PA/05/01731 Wapping Women, Alterations to existing crèche/community centre and Philchurch Place, London, construction of a two storey extension to provide E1 training and teaching rooms, administration office, WARD: Whitechapel health consulting room and wash closets (Class D1). PA/05/01792 22 Fordham Street, Re-development of a vacant site by erection of a new London, E1 3-storey mixed-use building comprising basement WARD: Whitechapel level storage, a retail shop unit on ground floor, with 1 x 1 bedroom flat at first floor and 1 x 1 bedroom flat on the second floor level. PA/05/01864 200 Hackney Road, Construction of two additional floors over rear of London, E2 property and one additional floor on top of main WARD: Weavers building to provide 2 x one bedroom and external (February 2002 onwards) alterations to provide separate access to upper floors. 2006 cases PA/06/00102 799-801 Commercial Demolition of part of existing two storey storage Road, London, E14 building at rear of property fronting St Anne's Row WARD: Limehouse and construction of a new 3 storey building to form (February 2002 onwards) four x two bedroom flats and a garage. (RESUBMISSION OF PA/05/1481). PA/06/00108 2 To 10 And 5 To 7, Court Erection of a three storey building plus basement at Street, London, E1 No. 5-7 Court street to create two retail units (A1 WARD: Bethnal Green Use) at ground floor level, two 2-bedroom flats on South upper floors. Demolition of existing buildings at No. 2- 10 Court Street and erection of a three storey building to create clothing warehouse (B8 Use) and office (B1 Use) on ground floor, two 1-bedroom flats and two 2-bedroom maisonettes on the upper floors. PA/06/00114 First, Second & Third Change of use and conversion of upper floors to form Floors, 127 Whitechapel a single dwelling. Road, London, E1 WARD: Spitalfields and Banglatown PA/06/00153 First Floor and Second Change of use and conversion of first and second Floor, 114 Commercial floors into self-contained 1 x 1 bed flat each. Road, London, E1 WARD: Whitechapel
Page 121 Ref No Address Development PA/06/00185 126-127 Whitechapel Conversion of existing vacant office space on first, High Street, London, E1 second and third floors of building to form three, two WARD: Spitalfields and bedroom flats. Banglatown PA/06/00196 Land Adjacent To 93, Erection of a five storey building to provide five Sclater Street, London E2 residential units and one business unit on part of a WARD: Weavers vacant car parking lot. (February 2002 onwards) PA/06/00203 Land At Kings Arms Demolition of existing storage buildings and erection Court, Kings Arms Court, of four and five storey buildings to provide 27 London, E1 dwellings and one (Class B1 use) business unit. WARD: Spitalfields and Banglatown PA/06/00206 421 Bethnal Green Road, Conversion of upper floors and construction of a third London, E2 storey to allow for two residential units (1 x one WARD: Bethnal Green bedroom and 1 x two bedroom) and a first floor rear North extension. PA/06/00232 45 Fieldgate Street, Erection of part six part seven storey building London, E1 comprising car-parking at lower basement and WARD: Whitechapel basement floor, mosque extension on ground and first floor, education and training use on third to fifth floors and 3x2 bedroom self-contained flats on sixth floor. Description of the proposal changed on 7 th June 2006. PA/06/00241 Duke Of Wellington Public Conversion of disused public house to provide five House, 52 Cyprus Street, self contained flats (one three-bedroom and four one- London, E2 bedroom) involving: Demolition of existing single WARD: Mile End and storey rear buildings and extension of existing Globe Town basement floor area to provide patio area, new two storey building and first floor roof terrace. External works to existing rear elevation including new windows and door in rear elevation and addition of three velux windows in roof facing Cyprus Street. PA/06/00295 60-61 Squirries Street, Erection of single storey roof extension to provide 2 x London, E2 1 bedroom flats. WARD: Weavers (February 2002 onwards) PA/06/00541 24 To 28, Elder Street, Change of use from offices (B1 use) with car park to London E1 provide five residential units involving: a) Partial WARD: Spitalfields and demolition of rear additions comprising carpark, Banglatown office, yards, walls and stores. b) Construction of two 2 bedroom two storey mews houses at the rear. c) Conversion of the buildings fronting Elder Street into two 2 bedroom and one 3 bedroom houses including rear additions. PA/06/00562 416 Roman Road, Change of use, alterations and conversion of existing London, E3 retail/storage use premises to form two flats (1 x 1 WARD: Bow West bed at first floor and 1 x 2 beds at ground floor rear with new glazed roof light) and one retail shop unit. (Revised Proposal 12/06/2006). PA/06/00589 152-154 Bethnal Green The erection of a mansard roof extension to create a Road, London, E2 new third floor together with the erection of a three WARD: Weavers storey rear extension and conversion of upper floors (February 2002 onwards) to provide 3 x 2 bed flats and 2 x 1 bed flats. PA/06/00659 169 Mile End Road, Conversion of existing house in multiple occupation London, E1 (HMO) into 7 x 1 bedsit accommodation on first and WARD: Bethnal Green second floor levels. South
Page 122 Ref No Address Development PA/06/00738 69-70 Whitechapel High Redevelopment and refurbishment works to 3 Street And 9 Whitechurch existing commercial buildings, including the Passage, London, E1 demolition of a lean-to structure at number 9 WARD: Whitechapel Whitechurch Passage and a roof extension over number 69 - 70 Whitechapel High Street. Formation of an office unit at basement and ground floor of number 9 Whitechurch Passage with creation of 1- bedroom maisonette at first, second and third floors. Formation of 4 flats consisting of 1 studio and 1 bedroom at first floor, 1 x 2 bedroom on the second floor and 1 x 2 bedroom on the new third floor roof extension at number 69 - 70 Whitechapel High Street plus the retention of existing 2 retail shops at basement and ground floor level. PA/06/00772 437 Bethnal Green Road, Re-instate 1st and 2nd floors to residential use with London, E2 mansard roof extension, to form 1 x 3 bedroom WARD: Bethnal Green maisonette. Alterations to shopfront. North PA/06/00852 41a Stainsby Road, Demolition of existing Public House and the erection London E 14 of a 5 storey building to provide 1 x 1 bedroom flat, 7 WARD: Limehouse x 2 bedroom flats and 1 x 3 bedroom flat. (February 2002 onwards) PA/06/00859 227 East India Dock Erection of 1st floor rear extension in connection with Road, London, E14 the conversion of upper part of shop premises to WARD: East India and create one self contained flat. Lansbury PA/06/00997 50 Brick Lane, London, Conversion of the upper floors together with a single E1 storey mansard roof extension to form three self- WARD: Spitalfields and contained flats (comprising 3 x 1 bedroom units). Banglatown PA/06/01409 47 Aberavon Road, Change of use of ground floor from offices to London, E3 residential (1 x 1 bed and 1 x 2 bed). WARD: Bow West PA/06/01413 43 Settles Street, London, Conversion of existing 6 bedroom maisonette unit E1 into 3 flats consisting of 1 studio flat each at ground WARD: Whitechapel and first floors with 1 x 2 bedroom maisonette unit at second and third floors plus retention of approved basement 1 bedroom flat. PA/06/01717 128-129 Whitechapel Conversion of upper floors to create 5 x 1 bedroom High Street, London, E1 flats and 3 x 2 bedroom flats. Roof extensions and WARD: Spitalfields and alterations to the rear facades. Alterations to Banglatown shopfront.
5.2 The Strategic Development Committee considered a similar report at its meeting on 18 th January 2007.
Page 123 This page is intentionally left blank
Page 124