PDU Case Report XXXX/Yydate
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
planning report PDU/2187a&2188a/02 13 May 2009 City Pride and Island Point, Westferry Road in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets planning application no. PA/08/02292/3 Strategic planning application stage II referral (new powers) Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 The proposal City Pride – The erection of a part 9, part 62-storey tower comprising 430 residential units, 203- bed hotel with conference facilities, spa, swimming pool, gymnasium, reception and lounge bar. Island Point – The erection of six buildings ranging in height from 2 to 8 storeys comprising 189 residential units. The applicant The applicant is Glenkerrin Ltd, and the architect is Fosters and Partners and Darling Associates. Strategic issues The principle of the redevelopment of both sites to provide residential led developments is in the interest of good strategic planning in London. Further clarification and information has been provided regarding affordable housing, child play space, climate change mitigation and transport. On the basis of this information the applications are consistent with London Plan policy. Recommendation That Tower Hamlets Council be advised that the Mayor is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal or direct that he is to be the local planning authority. Context 1 On 11 November 2008 the Mayor of London received documents from Tower Hamlets Council notifying him of a planning application of potential strategic importance to develop the above site for the above uses. This was referred to the Mayor under Category 1A of the Schedule to the Order 2008: “”Development which comprises or includes the provision of more than 150 houses, flats or houses and flats.” It is also referable under category 1B “Development (other than development which only comprises the provision of houses, flats or houses and flats) which comprises or includes the erection of a building or buildings in Central London (other than the City of London) with a total floorspace of more than 20,000 sq.m”, and category 1C “Development page 1 which comprises or includes the erection of a building of one or more of the following descriptions, the building is more than 30 metres high and is outside of the City of London”. 2 On 17 December 2008 the Mayor considered planning report PDU/2187a & 2188a/01, and subsequently advised Tower Hamlets Council the application did not comply with the London Plan, for the reasons set out in paragraph 97 of the above-mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 99 of that report could address these deficiencies. 3 A copy of the above-mentioned report is attached. The essentials of the case with regard to the proposal, the site, case history, strategic planning issues and relevant policies and guidance are as set out therein, unless otherwise stated in this report. Since then, the application has been revised in response to the Mayor’s concerns (see below). On 15 April 2009 Tower Hamlets Council decided that it was minded to grant planning permission, and on 30 April 2009 it advised the Mayor of this decision. Under the provisions of Article 5 of the Town & Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008 the Mayor may allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, direct Tower Hamlets Council under Article 6 to refuse the application or issue a direction to Tower Hamlets Council under Article 7 that he is to act as the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of determining the application and any connected application. The Mayor has until 13 May 2009 to notify the Council of his decision and to issue any direction. 4 The decision on this case, and the reasons will be made available on the GLA’s website www.london.gov.uk. Update Affordable housing 5 The stage I report stated that further evidence should be provided to demonstrate that the concentration of affordable housing in the south of the Isle of Dogs wouldn’t overload the existing social infrastructure. The findings of the independent economic appraisal of the proposed quantum of affordable housing should also be submitted to allow GLA officers to assess whether the proposed quantum of affordable housing represents the maximum reasonable amount. 6 The applicant has submitted a summary of the socio-economic chapter in the environmental statement. This confirms that the if the Island Point development were to be considered in isolation the existing infrastructure provision would be able to absorb the demand generated from the development. However, given the amount of planned redevelopment on the Isle of Dogs the applicant has confirmed they will make S106 contributions towards community facilities, health, education and employment to mitigate the demand on the social infrastructure of the development at Island Point on the Isle of Dogs. The amount is currently being discussed with Tower Hamlets Council. This should prevent the proposal from overloading the existing social infrastructure. 7 The applicant has also submitted a breakdown of housing tenure for Millwall, the ward within which the site is located, the surrounding wards of Blackwall and Cubitt Town and the borough average. The information was taken from the Tower Hamlets Council census data. page 2 Ward Tenure Millwall Blackwall & Cubitt Borough Average Town Council 19% 28% 38% RSL 13.4% 11% 15% Mortgage 27.3% 24.6% 19% Outright Own 7% 7.6% 8% Private Rented 29% 24% 15% Shared Ownership 1% 1.7% 2% 8 The census data confirms that Millwall contains less Council and housing association ownership than the surrounding wards and the borough as a whole. The applicant states the proposal will address the under supply of rented accommodation and intermediate housing for this ward. 9 The independent assessment of the financial appraisal of the proposals was submitted to GLA officers for assessment. It appeared to suggest that there might be additional value in the scheme, which could be used to provide additional affordable housing. After raising this concern with the applicant, the applicant submitted additional information to confirm, that there is no additional value. In fact the scheme as it currently stands has a £17 million deficit shown in the toolkit. This is the worst-case scenario for the applicant who is hoping to reduce this deficit as the housing market stabilises. As such the proposed offer of 41% affordable housing is considered to be the maximum reasonable amount. The proposal therefore complies with policy 3A.9 and 3A.10 of the London Plan. Children’s play space City Pride 10 The stage I report highlighted a discrepancy over the estimated child population and requested the applicant to submit the methodology used to estimate the child population. Concern was also raised over the quantum of child play space being provided. 11 Following these comments the applicant has submitted the methodology used by the applicant, a breakdown of the calculated child yield and details of the surrounding parks. The applicant has used the Wandsworth child yield model to calculate the estimated child population. 12 The applicant proposes to provide 220 sq.m. of on site child play space for children under 5 years old and to make a S106 contribution to Tower Hamlets Council to cover the provision of up to 60 sq.m. of playspace for 5-11 years olds and 30 sq.m. for 12–15 year olds. The applicant has indicated that there are three parks surrounding the site, the closest of which is Sir John McDougal Park approximately 400 metres away and the furthest of which Poplar recreation ground over 800 metres away. 13 The use of the Wandsworth methodology on which the Mayor’s SPG is based to estimate the child population for the development is acceptable as is the provision of 220 sq.m. of child play space for the under 5s. Given the location of the development and the constraints of the site the provision of off site play space for children over 5 years old is also acceptable. As a result the development complies with policy 3D.13 of the London Plan. Island Point page 3 14 The stage I report requested the plans were amended to provide a kick about area for children over 12 years of age. 15 The stage 1 report also stated that there is an under provision of child play space of 517 sq.m. Following this the applicant has confirmed that the inclusion of the semi-private gardens to the east of block C of approximately 566 sq.m. as play space. The proposal will now provide an over provision of play space. 16 Given the proximity and quality of existing play facilities for children over 12 years of age the applicant does not consider there to be a need for an on site kick about area. Instead the applicant proposes to make a financial contribution towards their upkeep. The applicant also states that although some of the play space is not designated as a kick about area it could be used as such. In particular the grass at the north of the site, the incidental play street, the home zone area and the semi-private gardens east of building C. The applicant also states that the Play Association for Tower Hamlets are impressed with the existing proposal for child play space and have presented a clear view that the site would not benefit from a designated kick about area and may act to produce less adequate play provision as it excludes the majority of children.