Development Committee ______

Meeting of the

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ______

Wednesday, 29 March 2006 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 Julian Sharpe

Councillor Ray Gipson Councillor Janet Ludlow, (Designated Councillor Julia Mainwaring Deputy for Councillors Martin Rew, Akikur Councillor Ashton McGregor Rahman & Ray Gipson) Councillor Muhammed Ghulam Mortuza Councillor James Sanderson, (Designated Councillor Akikur Rahman Deputy for Councillors Martin Rew, Akikur Councillor Martin Rew Rahman & Ray Gipson) Councillor Salim Ullah Councillor Azizur Rahman Khan, (Designated Deputy for Councillors Martin Rew, Akikur Rahman & Ray Gipson)

[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, 29 March 2006

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 - 2 unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 8th February 2006.

4. DEPUTATIONS

To receive any deputations. 3 - 4

5. PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION

5 .1 119-123 Poplar High Street, London E14 0AE 5 - 14 Limehouse

5 .2 Moorings off Hermitage Wharf, Wapping High Street, 15 - 26 St London E1 Katharine's & Wapping 5 .3 East End Mission, 583 Commercial Road, London E1 27 - 42 St Dunstan's 0HJ & Stepney Green 5 .4 Cabot Hall, Cabot Square, London E14 43 - 50 Millwall

5 .5 Stour Wharf, Stour Road, London E3 2MT 51 - 66 Bow East

5 .6 99 Leman Street, London E1 8EY 67 - 76 Whitechapel

5 .7 One o'clock Club, St Bartholomew's Gardens, 77 - 84 Bethnal Buckhurst Street, London E2 Green South

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 08/02/2006 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)

LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS

MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

HELD AT 7.30 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY 8 FEBRUARY 2006

THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, 1ST FLOOR, TOWN HALL, MULBERRY PLACE, 5 CLOVE CRESCENT, LONDON, E14 2BG

Members Present:

Councillor Rofique U Ahmed (Chair) Councillor Ray Gipson Councillor Muhammed Ghulam Mortuza Councillor Martin Rew Councillor Salim Ullah

Officers Present:

Brian Bell – Clerk to the Committee Stephen Irvine – Development Control Matthew O’Donnell – Development Control Andrew Wiseman – Legal Advisor/Trowers and Hamlins

1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies were received from Councillors Sharpe, McGregor and Rahman.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

None were made.

3. MINUTES

The Clerk advised that paragraph 5 of minute 5.1 (page 2) should be amended to show five members voting in favour of the application rather than four.

RESOLVED That the minutes of the Development Committee held on 18th January 2006 as amended, be confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Chair.

4. DEPUTATIONS

It was agreed to accept Ms Sufia Alam speaking on behalf of the applicant for item 5.1.

5. PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION

1 Page 1 DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, 08/02/2006 SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED)

5.1 Wapping Womens Centre, Pinchin Street, London E1 1PD (Report number DC037/056)

Mr Matthew O’Donnell introduced the report, which assessed an application for alterations and an extension to provide a day-care centre. The objections had been to the loss of 8 car-parking spaces and more intensive use of the facility. The authority’s highways engineers considered that the loss of spaces could be absorbed within the area, and had also pointed out that public transport accessibility was good. While it undoubtedly would lead to increased use of the centre, the significant benefits of this had to be balanced against any detrimental effects, and on balance it was recommended for approval.

Ms Sufia Alam, on behalf of the applicant, emphasised the educational, social and recreational programmes currently provided in the centre for a very deprived community and area. The principal purpose of the extension was to provide day care as a satellite of Surestart Shadwell. Any hire of the hall would be for local events and stay strictly within the permitted hours.

Members praised the work done presently by the centre and welcomed the proposed childcare provision.

It was unanimously AGREED that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions, legal agreement and informative outlined below:

Conditions 1) Full time. 2) Landscaping plan to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. 3) A Travel Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority before the proposed building is occupied. 4) If any suspected contamination, or unusual or odorous ground conditions should be notified to the Local Planning Authority. 5) Materials to be submitted for approval. 6) Hours of construction. 7) Hours of use, Monday to Friday, 9am to 9pm: Saturday and Sunday, 10am to 8pm.

A Section 106 agreement to secure the following

The replacement of existing trees.

Informative With regard to condition 3 above (Travel Plan) the applicant is advised to discuss the scope of the report and mitigation measures with Council’s Transport Department, Mulberry Place, London E14 2BE, 0207 364 6926.

The meeting ended at 7.47 p.m. ______/___/06 Chair, Councillor Rofique U Ahmed Development Committee

2 Page 2 Agenda Item 4

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OLYMPICS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AT COMMITTEE MEETINGS

1. The Clerk to the relevant committee must be informed at least 3 days prior to a meeting of an applicant's or objector's request to speak

a) Applicants will not be expected to address a planning committee, where there are no objections to an application and where officers are recommending approval.

b) Where officers are recommending refusal of an application, requests to speak from applicants will be accepted and submitted to the relevant Chair/committee for ratification.

2. All requests to speak should be confirmed in writing or by e-mail, at least 3 days in advance of the meeting. This should confirm the details of the intended spokesperson and include contact telephone numbers.

3. Requests to speak will be submitted to the relevant committee through the Chair, and members must formally agree to permit a member of the public to speak.

4. Requests to address the committee must relate to planning applications on the agenda and matters within the committee's terms of reference.

5. Only one person will be permitted to speak in objection to an application, and one person will be invited to respond to the objection. In the case of there being more than one objector, the Clerk should suggest that the objectors liase prior to the meeting and choose a spokesperson to represent them.

6. Each spokesperson will be allowed no more than five minutes to address the committee.

7. Committee members may ask questions of any spokesperson.

8. At the close of a speaker’s address and the question and answer session, if one is held, the spokesperson must take no further part in the proceedings of the meeting, unless directed by the Chair of the committee.

9. Every effort should be made to ensure applicants are informed of their right of reply, which will also be five minutes, if there are objectors wishing to speak against any application. This may be done through the planning officer.

D:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\2\5\7\AI00004752\ProcedureforObjections0.docPage 3 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 4 Agenda Item 5.1

Committee: Date: Classification: Report Agenda Item Development 29th March 2006 Unrestricted Number: Number: Committee DC044/056 5.1 Report of: Title: Town Planning Application and Conservation Area Director of Development and Renewal Consent

Case Officer: Weahren Thompson Location: 119-123 POPLAR HIGH STREET, LONDON E14 0AE

Ward: Limehouse (February 2002 onwards)

1. SUMMARY

1.1 Registration Details Reference No: PA/05/00795 (PP) & PA/05/01116 (CAC) Date Received: 25/05/2005 Last Amended Date: 1.2 Application Details

Existing Use: Bookmakers + vacant residential upper floors (no.119)/Haulage Yard (no. 121-123). Proposal: Demolition of existing 3 storey building with rear addition and removal of portakabin offices.

Redevelopment to provide a four storey building, comprising of a commercial unit - A1 (shops)/A2 (financial and professional services) and/or B1 (business) - and 3 one bedroom flats on ground floor, plus 3 one bedroom flats and 8 two bedroom flats above (14 flats in total). Applicant: Telford Homes PLC. Ownership: M Whaley. Historic Building: N/A. Conservation Area: St Matthias Church, Poplar.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

2.1 That the Director of Development and Renewal is instructed to inform the Planning Inspectorate that had the Development Committee been empowered to make a decision on the above applications - Full Planning Permission and Conservation Area Consent - it would have been minded to grant permission and consent subject to the following conditions and informatives:

2.2 Planning Permission

Conditions (1) Time Limit – Five Years. (2) Details (samples) of external materials, including joinery details of new doors and windows, head and cill details, window surround/dressing and location of windows/doors within the reveals are required. (3) Details of (a) hard and soft landscaping, (b) any proposed walls, fences and railings (c) a scheme of external lighting for the rear courtyard/main entrance to flats are required. (4) Detailed specification of new shopfront required. (5) The window glass of the shopfront shall not be painted or otherwise obscured and shall contain a display which shall be permanently retained and maintained. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT

Brief Description of background Tick if copy supplied for Name and telephone no. of holder paper: register Application case file, plans, supporting √ technical reports, UDP, PPGs. Development Control: -020 7364 5338 (6) All new rainwater or downpipes shall be of cast iron and shall be painted black and (7) thereafter retained in that colour. Site investigation regarding any possible soil contamination to be carried out and (8) any remedial works to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development to take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme for investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local (9) Planning Authority. Construction works restricted to between 8am to 6pm on Mondays to Fridays and (10) 8am to 1pm on Saturdays only, and not on Sundays or Public Holidays. Any hammer driven piling or impact breaking out of materials carried out in pursuance of this consent shall not be carried out other than between the hours of 10am to 4pm Mondays to Fridays and shall not take place at any time on Saturdays, (11) Sundays or Public Holidays. The area on the approved plan for bicycle parking and the designated disabled car (12) parking bay shall be retained and used for disabled parking only. The refuse stores shown on approved drawing no. 405/P/02/ A shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development and thereafter shall be made permanently available for the occupiers of the building. 2.3 Conservation Area Consent (1) (2) Time Limit (for demolition works) – Five Years. The demolition works granted shall not commence except in accordance with a valid planning permission. 2.4 That the Development Committee grant planning permission subject to the completion of a Section 106/278 legal agreement for: (1) (2) Car Free Agreement. The carrying out of off-site highway works in front of the premises. 2.5 Informatives (1) (2) Permission subject to car free agreement/highway works. Prior to development, the applicant is advised to contact the Council’s Highways department with regards to highways works. For further information contact Yousef (3) Qandeel on 020 7364 6727. Prior to development, the applicant is advised to contact the Council’s Environmental Health department, to ensure that the requirements under the Public (4) Health Acts and Regulations are satisfactory. The development of this site is likely to damage archaeological remains. The applicant should therefore submit detailed proposals in the form of an archaeological project design. This design should be in accordance with the appropriate English (5) Heritage guidelines. The applicant is advised of the need to obtain separate consent under the Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 for any advertisements requiring express consent which the applicant may wish to display (6) on the premises at no. 119. The applicant is informed that the Council operates a Local Labour in Construction Scheme for all major developments proposed within the Borough. Further information can be obtained from the Project Manager, Local Labour in Construction Team, 316 Poplar High Street, Poplar, London E14 0BB.

3. BACKGROUND

Planning History (119 Poplar High Street)

Page 6 3.1 Planning permission was granted for the change of use to offices in March 1982.

3.2 Planning permission was granted for ground floor alterations, a rear extension and change of use to licensed betting office in March 1988.

3.3 Planning permission was granted for the installation of a receive only dish aerial of 1.3m diameter in February 1989.

Planning History (121-123 Poplar High Street) 3.4 Planning permission was granted for the continued use of the site as a transport yard and retention of a single storey temporary office building in August 1980.

119-123 Poplar High Street 3.5 Planning and Conservation Area Consent applications were lodged in January 2005 for the demolition of the existing 3 storey building and rear addition and removal of portakabin offices. It was also for the redevelopment to provide a 5 storey building comprising of a commercial unit (A1/A2 and/or B1) on the ground floor with 14 flats elsewhere. (8 one bedroom flats and 6 two bedroom flats).

3.6 These applications were withdrawn since the proposed design, scale, height (five storeys), massing and bulk would detrimentally affect the adjoining listed building and the character and appearance of St Matthias Church, Poplar Conservation Area. In addition, it was felt that the existing corner building should be retained to preserve and enhance the conservation area.

Proposal 3.7 The current (amended) applications are for:

• the demolition of existing 3 storey building with rear addition and removal of portakabin offices • redevelopment of the site to provide a four storey building comprising of a commercial unit (A1/A2 and/or B1) and 3 one bedroom flats on ground floor, plus 3 one bedroom flats and 8 two bedroom flats above (14 flats in total).

3.8 The design has been substantially changed to reflect the adjacent buildings and the character of the conservation area. The height has also been reduced to a maximum height of four storeys with the top floor set back on either side of the proposed four storey corner building. The mix of units has also changed from 8 one bedroom and 6 two bedroom flats to 8 two bedroom and 6 one bedroom flats, and the off-street car parking provision has been reduced from three car parking spaces to one disabled car parking space.

Appeal 3.9 This application is now the subject of an appeal by the applicant against the Local Planning Authority’s failure to determine this application within the statutory period allowed. The Council is no longer empowered to make a decision on this application. Therefore, this report seeks confirmation of the decision that the Council would have taken had it been able to decide the application.

4. PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

4.1 The following Unitary Development Plan proposals are applicable to this application:

(1) Flood Protection Area (2) Area of Archaeological Importance or Potential

4.2 The following Unitary Development Plan policies are applicable to this application:

(1) DEV1 & DEV2 – General Design & Environmental Requirements (2) DEV3 – Mixed Use Developments (3) DEV4 – Planning Obligations (4) DEV12 – Provision of Landscaping in Development (5) DEV25 – New Development in Conservation Areas (6) DEV28 – Demolition in Conservation Areas

Page 7 (7) DEV39 – Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building (8) DEV43 – Protection of Archaeological Heritage (9) DEV45 – Development in Areas of Archaeological Interest (10) DEV51 – Soil Test (Contaminated Land) (11) EMP1 – Encouraging New Employment Uses (12) EMP2 – Retaining Existing Employment Uses (13) HSG1 – Provision for Housing Development (14) HSG2 – Location of New Housing (15) HSG7 – Dwelling Mix and Type (16) HSG8 – Mobility Housing (17) HSG9 and HSG11 – Density (18) HSG16 – Amenity Space (19) T17 – Parking Planning Standards (20) S10 – Requirements for New Shopfront Proposals (21) S11 – Use of Open Grills (22) Planning Standard No. 2 – Noise (23) Planning Standard No.3 – Parking Requirements (24) Planning Standard No. 5 – Access for People with Disabilities (25) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Sound Insulation (26) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Archaeology & Development (27) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Residential Space (Refers to HSG13) (28) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Flexible Design in Business Use (Class B1) (29) Supplementary Planning Guidance – Shopfront Design

4.3 The following Local Development Framework Preferred Options Draft Proposals Map:- 1st Statutory Consultation are applicable to this application:

(1) Flood Protection Area (2) Area of Archaeological Importance or Potential

4.4 The following Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Document Proposals are applicable to this application:

Core Strategies (1) CS6 – New Housing Provision (2) CS15 – Good Design (3) CS16 – Density (4) CS17 – Historic Areas (5) CS18 – Archaeological Monuments and Remains

(6) CS25 – Securing Benefits

The following Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Document 4.5 Policies are applicable to this application:

Development Control Policy (1) EE5 – Mixed Use Development (2) EE7 – Redevelopment/Change of Use of Employment Sites (3) HSG1 – Housing Density (4) HSG2 – Lifetime Homes (5) HSG6 – Housing Mix (6) HSG13 – Housing Amenity Space (7) TR1 – High Density Development in Areas of Good Public Transport Accessibility (8) TR2 – Parking (9) Parking Standards (10) UD1 – Scale and Density (11) UD4 – Accessibilty and Linkages (12) UD5 – High Quality Design (13) C1 – Historic Sites and Conservation Areas (14) C2 – Archaeological Heritage Sites (15) C3 – Demolition of Buildings in Conservation Areas (16) SEN10 – Contaminated Land (17) OSN3 – Landscaping

Page 8 (18) IM1 - Securing Benefits

4.6 Legislation and Government Policy (1) Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment

5. CONSULTATION

5.1 The following were consulted regarding this application:

(1) Highways: Raised no objection, subject to a Car Free Agreement whereby future residents/occupants would not be issued parking permits and that there should be the carrying out of off-site highway works subject to a Section 278 legal agreement.

(2) Environmental Health: Raised no objection, subject to a site investigation regarding any possible soil contamination to be carried out and any remedial works to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Environmental Health also stated that, prior to development, the applicant is advised to contact them to ensure that the requirements under the Public Health Act Regulations are satisfactory.

(3) Cleansing Officer: No comments have been received.

(4) Landscape Section: No comments have been received.

(5) Corporate Access Officer: Raised no objection, advising the applicant that the development should be built to mobility standards.

(6) English Heritage: Raised no objection, subject to archaeological investigations.

(7) Victorian Society: Raised objection to demolition of Victorian buildings, and stated the Council should give due care to preserving the character of the conservation area when considering the current proposal.

5.2 Responses from neighbours were as follows:

No. Responses: 8 (3 In Favour: 0 Against: 8 (including Petition: 1 (containing letters signed by 3 petition). 37 signatures). petitioners).

5.3 A total of 118 neighbouring properties have been consulted. 8 letters have been received, including a petition, and the grounds of planning objection are summarised as follows:

Demolition of Victorian buildings • The Victorian corner building and stable are within a conservation area and should not be demolished. The buildings should be renovated and refurbished

Design • The proposed height of the corner building would be out of keeping with the height, period features and scale of the surrounding area and any proposal should reflect the adjacent buildings • The proposed development is a modern pastiche and does not compare with the original buildings

Amenity • Loss of natural light to 34 Woodstock Terrace • Concerns about excavation work and the laying down of foundation which may cause damage to party walls (at 34 Woodstock Terrace)

Highways • The proposed development would cause a further shortage of on-street car parking spaces • If more conservation was undertaken and the number of proposed flats was reduced, more off-street car parking provision could be provided on site

Page 9 5.4 The application has also been advertised by a Public Display Site Notice and in the Local Press.

5.5 Date officer site visit undertaken: 31 May 2005.

6. ANALYSIS

Site and surroundings 6.1 The application site is situated on the corner of Poplar High Street and Woodstock Terrace, which falls at the southern end of the St Matthias Church, Poplar Conservation Area. The site is made up of two numbered properties, 119 and 121-123 Poplar High Street.

6.2 119 is a three storey Victorian building, with a bookmakers (A2 Class) at ground floor level and 2 vacant upper floors (formerly residential use). To the rear of the building, along Woodstock Terrace immediately north, is a yard entrance and a two storey stable block which is in a dilapidated condition.

6.3 121-123 is a haulage yard used for lorry parking and houses a portakabin used for office purposes. The site is open in nature and is bounded by 119 and 125 (a modern, three storey commercial building) Poplar High Street.

6.4 North of the site are a row of three and four storey (including basement) Victorian designed houses, which run along Woodstock Terrace. Parallel to Woodstock Terrace to the east is an early 1960s low rise block of flats on Cottage Street. East along Poplar High Street (no. 127) is a two storey Grade II listed building plus dormers (coroners court).

6.5 To the south, the housing is characterised by 1950s low/medium rise housing stock. South- west of the site is a two storey Pastoral Centre and a medium/high rise college, part of which is Grade II listed. Immediately to the west (no. 117), lies a Grade II listed part two, part three plus octagonal tower Council office building. No. 115 is a double-fronted Grade II listed building. West of the site is a communal open space – Poplar Recreation Ground and St. Matthias Church (which is a Grade II* listed building) and a bowling green and day nursery which face Poplar High Street.

Conservation Area Control over Demolition 6.6 PPG15 states that the general presumption should be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a conservation area. The Secretary of State expects that proposals to demolish such buildings should be assessed against the same broad criteria as proposals to demolish listed buildings. These considerations are:

i the condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use ii the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use iii the merits of alternative proposals for the site

6.7 The two buildings that officers believe need to be considered under these terms are the corner building (no.119) and the stable block adjacent.

6.8 The applicant has provided a building survey dated April 2005 (Ref: BW242) from the Livemore Partnership. In conclusion it states that:

‘The stable is in a severely dilapidated condition. It is subject to a Dangerous Structures Notice dated 28th February 2005. We strongly advise hoarding be erected to protect the general public and Coral’s employees and action be taken to demolish it as soon as possible’.

‘The main roof, two walls to the street and upper floor structures do need extensive rebuilding. This would require new foundations to be constructed.’ ‘The main building flank and rear walls could suffice with only cosmetic repair’.

6.9 It is accepted that the stable block is in a very dilapidated condition and is structurally

Page 10 unstable. Indeed, it has been subject to a Dangerous Strutures Notice in February 2005. Overall, the demolition of this building is considered acceptable, because this building in the opinion of officers, does not make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area in this condition. Indeed, it is dangerous. Additionally, it should be noted that this building is not protected on any buildings at risk register.

6.10 A full assessment in terms of the cost and repair of the corner building has not been furnished by the applicant. However, the external appearance would suggest that there has been a lack of maintenance and repair of the building on the upper part of the elevations, including side and rear elevations. Furthermore, the Council do not have any evidence that refutes the applicants view that:

‘The main roof, two walls to the street and upper floor structures do need extensive rebuilding. This would require new foundations to be constructed.’

6.11 The interior of the upper parts have also been neglected over the years. Overall, it is considered that there would be a substantial cost needed to renovate and refurbish these buildings, one which would make any efforts to retain this building in its current use unviable.

6.12 When considering the merits of the proposed development, officers views are that the proposed development would:

• provide important additional housing in the borough • make good use of a brownfield site • provide a high quality design, which would be sympathetic in terms of its design and use, and an improvement to the area overall.

6.13 In view of these facts, officers recommend that the Planning Inspectorate be informed that had the Development Committee been empowered to make a decision on the demolition of the building(s), it would have been minded to grant Conservation Area Consent, subject to the relevant conditions as set out in paragraph 2.3 of the report.

Land Use 6.14 The current use of 119 is as a bookmakers with residential as the upper floors. 121-123 has lawful use as a haulage yard. The proposed mixed-use development for commercial and residential use is therefore acceptable in this location. It is not considered that the loss of the yard and its replacement with housing is unacceptable in view of the residential context of the surrounding area. Furthermore, it is not considered that the change of use would result in a loss of jobs created on this site, that would warrant a refusal of this application. Moreover, the scheme provides much needed residential accommodation to meet the Council’s housing targets.

Housing 6.15 The mix of units of 8 two bedroom and 6 one bedroom flats is considered acceptable in this locality. Whilst Council UDP policy HSG7 states that there should be a substantial proportion of family dwellings in new housing developments, it is considered that due to the tight site constraints and the configuration of the site, the current scheme is acceptable and does not warrant a refusal on these grounds.

Design 6.16 Careful consideration has been taken into account when considering the redevelopment of the site due to its constraints. In the context of the surrounding area and the sites prominent location on this corner, it is considered that a four storey building would be satisfactory in terms of scale, height, bulk and mass. In officers’ opinion, the development would not have a detrimental impact on St. Matthias Church, Poplar Conservation Area.

6.17 The proposed development would be of a high quality design. The new building would be arranged as a quasi ‘L’ shaped block. The four storey building would have a prominent corner element, which would be of similar height to the original building. The two flanking elements would have the top floor set back with low parapet lines. The top floor would have mansard styled roofs. The mansard roofs, particularly on Woodstock Terrace would be suitable for this prominent corner site, complementing the overall design approach of the scheme.

Page 11

6.18 In terms of materials, the proposal reflects the traditional materials of adjacent properties. The windows would be white timber sliding sash windows (including stucco window surrounds). The building would use London stock brick and red stock brick to the flanking element on Poplar High Street up to 125. With regards to the roofing materials for the mansards this would be (grey) natural slate. All facing materials would be conditioned to ensure that the quality of the materials used is of sufficient quality.

6.19 The ground floor commercial space would provide three window displays - two on Poplar High Street and one on Woodstock Terrace. This would create ground floor activity, which is welcomed. The window displays would also be subject to relevant conditions to ensure window displays are maintained at all times.

Access 6.20 The main entrance to the ground floor commercial space would be in a similar position to the existing – on the corner of the Poplar High Street and Woodstock Terrace. There would also be an entrance at the end of the commercial building fronting Poplar High Street. The commercial space could be used as a single unit or could be sub-divided. It is proposed to use this space as A1/A2 and/or B1 floorspace. These uses are all considered to be acceptable in this location.

6.21 The entrance to the residential part of the development would be via a single entrance gate on Poplar High Street adjacent to new vehicle access gates. These would lead to a rear courtyard via a double entrance point. This scheme is considered satisfactory and meets mobility standards in accordance with Council UDP policies.

Amenity 6.22 Due to site constraints and the loss of privacy/overlooking new balconies would create to adjoining residents, the proposal lacks amenity space. However, the site is next to Poplar Recreation Ground, an area that provides plentiful open space and leisure related activities. On balance, the benefits of the new housing outweigh the lack of amenity space provided on this site. As such, it is considered that this scheme would not sustain a reason for refusal on these grounds.

6.23 Council UDP policy DEV2 seeks to protect the amenity of existing residents from unacceptable development. It is considered the proposed development would have no/minimal impact on adjoining residents’ amenity. There would be no loss of overlooking or privacy to existing residents or future occupants. The L shaped block would not negate the enjoyment of existing adjacent residents daylight/sunlight.

Highways 6.24 No highways issues would arise from this scheme. The proposed development would be subject to a car free agreement whereby future occupants would not be issued parking permits. In these circumstances, the development would not generate unacceptable traffic or create congestion. The development would provide up to 15 cycle parking spaces and one designated disabled car parking space. Access would be gained via new vehicle access gates. These arrangements are considered acceptable.

7. SUMMARY

7.1 Overall, the proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of land use, design, amenity, highways and conservation grounds.

Recommendation 7.2 That the Director of Development and Renewal is instructed to inform the Planning Inspectorate that had the Development Committee been empowered to make a decision on these applications, it would have been minded to grant planning permission and Conservation Area Consent, subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 2.2 to 2.5 of this report.

Page 12 Site Map

P Hous tio V m ta L lsa S B a i B l A l M a R s d 6 B . PCs 3 A 8 dis ) T East Indi a Hall m H

S 9 1 8 Tennis Court 0 T 0 R

E 1 d E d T

9 9 4 2 6 T REE d d S ST To we r WLES

War Memorial D Fn d 3 LA

4 1 7

1 5 El d d Sub Sta d d d P d

l a d y d 6 g to 2 r 21 Ga mes Ar ea o d to 42 u d 37

n o 58 1 t d 53

1 0 20 d d5 d 0 to

1 1

4 to 36

d 9 27

1 52

9 to 1

d3 43 se Clo

9 ou all d 6 H d d torey Woo

W S

O 3

d d 9 4

O D d d 1 Poplar Recreation Ground S

9 T 1 O d d C 8 d C d d O d d K T 1

6 T

9 A d E d5

d 8 G

R 3 Playg rou nd E R A

d 7 d 1 d

A 7 b

1 S

8 b C 6 T o d

E d R 5 t E

d 8 H

E d 3 d o d T u

s d d e d 2 d d 2 d d 1

d d1 1

7 0

5 d 7

2 d 2 4 d

d 5

1 9 7

5 REET E ST

d 3 TH

3 MY

7 S 5 St Mat thias' d2 4 6

d 4 5 0 5

Ch ur ch 2

d d 0

3 0

d d 8 dd 4 2

2 d

4 3 d 0 1 0

d 8 2

9 2

d 8 dd

8 d

d d 2 d

d 5 d 6 2 d 1 dd dd d d

C d M o

u I

N r n 3

C t d4 andon Walk Bowling Green c u L

B H a i

Pavilion l d M ' r

d S

d O y

6 C f 6 2

o t

. 1 111 f 6 O i

c d 9 U e m R

s d d d T Popl ar D ay Nu rser y d 115 d 121d Cor one r's 117 d 119 to 125 Cou rt 123 127d STREET 5. 7 m 5. 5 m POPLAR HIGH 5. 3 m

130

6 2 1

1 1 2

1 to 18 Tower Hamlets College 1 to 12 Lubbock Hous e Goodhope Housed d

d a 12 1 to d n

d H

El Sub Sta M

o u 6 12

o s Goodwill House

t 1

d e d i

o t 1 5 n 1 o f t a d d t

i 6 d t d d a 2 h

1 l

2 H d

o d H u

s N Goodspeed u 1:1550

d s House9 to 1 d d d e Legend Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area d Land Parcel Address

This Site Map displays the Planning Applicat ion S ite B oundary and t he neighbouring Occupiers / Owners who were consulted as pa rt of the Planning A pplication process. The Sit e Map was reproduced from t he Ordnance Survey mapping wit h the permis sion of Her Majesty's Stationery Off ice © Crown Copyright . London B orough of Tower Hamlets LA086568

119-123 POPLAR HIGH STREET, LONDON E14 0AE

Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 14 Agenda Item 5.2

Committee: Date: Classification: Report Agenda Item Development 29th March 2006 Unrestricted Number: Number: Committee DC045/056 5.2 Report of: Title: Town Planning Application Director of Development and Renewal Location: MOORINGS OFF HERMITAGE WHARF, Case Officer: Ms K Phillipson WAPPING HIGH STREET, LONDON, E1

Ward: St Katherine's and Wapping

1. SUMMARY

1.1 Registration Details Reference No: PA/04/01823 Date Received: 03/12/2004 (valid 14/2/05) Last Amended Date: 27/6/05 1.2 Application Details

Existing Use: Commercial moorings Proposal: Provision of new moorings for both temporary and permanent residential and commercial vessels; involving installation of piles, construction of a pier and pier-house (for storage and community use) and creation of access jetty from Wapping High Street via Hermitage Stairs. Applicant: Hermitage Community Moorings Ltd Ownership: Port of London Authority and LBTH Historic Building: n/a Conservation Area: n/a

2. RECOMMENDATION:

2.1 That the Development Committee grant planning permission subject to A. the conditions outlined below:

1. Standard time limit 2. Standard hours of construction 3. Details of lighting, building materials, railings and gates, planting, disabled access, noise insulation of pumps 4. Details of foreshore monitoring, reedbeds and other ecological enhancement (as required by Environment Agency) 5. Archaeological investigation 6. Action on finding any suspected contamination and certification of disposal of excess soil 7. Provision/retention of bin stores, bicycle stores, sewage disposal system 8. Provision/retention of small craft launching facility 9. Use of community room 8am - 10pm 10. No outward opening gates over public highway 11. No boat building or repairs other than minor maintenance by residential berth-holders 12. No vessels to lie at anchor within the moorings site. 13. No offensive storage 14. No amplified music

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT

Page 15 15. No house-boats (vessel without means of propulsion) 16. Glass re-cycling facility and sewage pumps not to be used except 8am-8pm 17. Movement of boats to and from permanent moorings to be only between 8am and 8pm 18. No discharge of sewage into the river 19. No loading/unloading, including fuel, other than 8am to 6pm any day 20. No additional service bollards without planning permission 21. No boats to extend beyond the boundary of the application site

And B s.106 legal agreement to secure:

1. Car-free development 2. Scheme of occasional public access to pontoons and regular access to the community room including management and booking arrangements 3. Accessible links to Wapping High Street and riverside walks

3. BACKGROUND

Site and surroundings

3.1 The site consists of an existing commercial mooring facility on the River Thames, approximately 10 minutes walk west from Wapping Underground Station and 5 minutes east of St. Katherine's Dock. There is no existing physical link from the shore to the floating pontoon which forms the mooring but it lies off-shore from the 'historic' footpath known as Hermitage Stairs, which links Wapping High Street to the river front.

3.2 The area is predominantly residential but has shops, restaurants, offices and other commercial uses at street level and a newly laid out park fronting the river. Hermitage Stairs separates the park and a mixed use development known as Cinnabar Wharf. Both sites have riverside walkways.

3.3 The site is not located in a Conservation area but is situated between The Tower and Wapping Pier Head Conservation Areas.

Planning history

3.4 There is no history relating to the existing moorings. The development of Cinnabar Wharf and the park are the result of planning permission dated March 1998. On the opposite side of the river, in the London Borough of Southwark, there is an existing mixed use mooring known as Downings Roads. This was the subject of a planning appeal in 2004 and provides useful background information. The Planning Inspector granted retrospective planning permission subject to a number of conditions, including the maintenance of a 25m gap between the boats and the nearest residential window. He also made comments about the effect of the moorings on views.

Proposal

3.5 The application is for the change of use of the existing moorings from commercial to a mix of residential, commercial and visitor berths and an increase in the extent of the mooring area. The proposed development would involve the sinking of piles in the river bed to support floating pontoons and construction of an access gangway to the shore at Hermitage Stairs.

3.6 The access gangway and main pontoon would together extend approximately 55m from the shore. This main pontoon would be roofed over and partly enclosed to create a single-storey 'pier house' containing a mooring manager's office, toilets, refuse and recycling room, bicycle store and a multi-purpose common room/community space. The four sets of mooring pontoons would run at right angles, so that boats would lie parallel to the river bank. The proposed pontoon mooring arms would vary in length from 50m to 85m.

Page 16 3.7 The only development on land would be the support for the gangway and associated gates. The proposal also shows improvements to public footpaths by the provision of a ramp from Wapping High Street and links to riverside walkways.

4. PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Comments of Chief Legal Officer

4.1 The relevant and emerging policy framework within which the committee is required to consider planning applications includes the adopted London Plan 2004, The Council's Unitary Development Plan 1998 (UDP), draft Local Development Framework 2005 (LDF) and Community Plan.

4.2 Decisions must be taken in accordance with s.70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and s.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. s.70(2) 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 to other material considerations.

4.3 Whilst the adopted UDP is the statutory development plan for the Borough, it will eventually be replaced by a more up to date set of plan documents which will make up the LDF. This report takes account not only of the policies in the statutory plan but also those in the emerging plan where these more closely reflect current Council and London-wide policy and guidance.

4.4 The Committee is invited to agree the recommendations set out above, which have been made following analysis of the proposal in accordance with Article 22 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. This analysis has been undertaken on the basis of the policies set out below and other material considerations, as set out in the report.

4.5 The following London Plan Blue Ribbon Network policies are applicable to this application:

4C.3 Nature value 4C.10 New development and historic environment and archaeology 4C.12 Use of water for transport, leisure, recreation 4C16 Increasing sport and leisure use 4C.17 Increasing access 4C.18 Support facilities eg mooring sites 4C.19 Protect and improve existing moorings, new ones in areas of deficiency where impact on navigation, biodiversity and character not harmful 4C.20 Design quality 4C.22 Need for risk assessment (navigation, hydraulics etc.) 4C.23 Safety 4C.24 Importance of Thames, promote greater use for water-based leisure 4C.29 Loss of open water to moored craft if no detriment to navigation, biodiversity etc

4.6 The following Unitary Development Plan proposals are applicable to this application:

1. Flood protection areas 2. Sites of nature conservation interest 3. Strategic views (St Pauls) 4. Strategic riverside walkway 5. Area of archaeological potential

4.7 The following Unitary Development Plan policies are applicable to this application:

ST4 Improve the environment ST5 Safe, accessible development ST6 Minimise pollution ST7 Encourage energy efficiency ST8 Open space, nature conservation ST9 Special character of River Thames ST28 Restrain use of private cars

Page 17 ST37 Maintain/enhance open space ST38 Increase leisure and recreation facilities ST46 Encourage education and training ST49 Encourage social/community facilities ST55 Impact on flood defences

DEV1 Design, access, safety, landscaping DEV2 Residential amenity, nature conservation, sustainability DEV4 Planning obligations DEV8 Protection of local views DEV12 Provision of landscaping DEV29 Development adjacent to Conservation Areas DEV45 Archaeology DEV46 Protect and promote waterways, encourage public access, protect water quality DEV47 New development adjacent to river - re-use historic artifacts, appropriate scale, respect important views, access to waterside where appropriate, avoid detriment to nature conservation DEV49 Proposals for moored vessels only if essential to movement of goods/passengers, increase recreational use or are residential - must be appropriate scale/design, in good repair, not interfere with navigation or flood defences, accord with other policies (access, traffic, amenity etc) DEV50 Noise during construction DEV51 Contaminated land DEV56 Recycling facilities DEV57-62 Nature conservation/ecology DEV64 Riverside walk HSG15 Residential amenity, use of conditions HSG23 Residential moorings considered if comply with riverside policies 46-49 T9 Discourage use of cars T11 Controlled parking zones T20 Improve pedestrian facilities on riverside OS13 Youth provision EDU9 New training facilities SCF10 - 11 New community facilities/meeting places U2-6 Consult with Environment Agency re tidal defences/flood risk

4.8 The following draft Preferred Options: Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan/City Fringe Area Action Plan proposals are applicable to this application:

As UDP see 4.6 above

4.9 The following draft Preferred Options: Core Strategy and Development Control Development/City Fringe Action Area Plan policies are applicable to this application:

CS1 / UD4 Equality/access CS9; SCF1-2 Social/community facilities CS13 / CRF13 / TR7 Cycling/walking network CS14 Safety CS15 / UD5 Design CS17 / CRF16 Historic areas, preserve/enhance historic sites and their setting; promote active uses near key pedestrian routes CS18 / C2 Archaeology CS21 Waterside CS25 Planning obligations CS21 Improve water environment CS22 / CRF9 Increase public access to open space, ecology TR5 Water transport UD6 Views SEN5 Construction nuisance SEN Contaminated land SEN11 Flood protection OSN1 Nature conservation OSN4 Blue Ribbon Network

Page 18 1. Development to have appropriate uses and design, be accessible, include public use, link walk and cycle routes, respect waterway heritage, enhance views, provide appropriate access to water, provide flood defences 2. Non-residential moorings only permitted if essential to water transport/encourage recreation/education 3 All moorings to be appropriate scale, good state of repair, not interfere with navigation, comply with nature policies, not impede access to water, comply with other policies

4.10 The following Community Plan objectives are applicable to this application:

1. A better place for living safely 2. A better place for learning, achievement and leisure

5. CONSULTATION

Site notice 22/2/05 Press notice 7/3/05

5.1 The applicants undertook a variety of consultation during 2004/5; this included local distribution of leaflets, a stall at Safeways, meetings with the Hermitage Environment Group and public meetings at St Peter's Hall and Hermitage Primary School in Wapping.

5.2 The following comments have been received as a result of consultation:

Other departments and external organisations:

1 Head of Highways Development - Hermitage stairs is a public highway as far as the high water mark so works to this area need consent through a s278 agreement. The refurbishment of the truncated stairs to give access to the foreshore should be sought. Transport Statement provided suggested 20 residential and 2 business permits would be required - this is not acceptable and a car-free agreement is required.

2 Environmental Health - standard hours of construction; s.61 consent required to ensure construction period does not cause a nuisance to residents and agree noise levels and piling methodology. Standard conditions required regarding action on any suspected contamination found during ground works and certification of proper disposal of any excess soil. No objections regarding air quality issues.

3 Cleansing Officer - no comments received

4 Landscape Section- no comments received

5 Head of Planning Policy- draws attention to the Blue Ribbon Network policy in London Plan and draft LDF

6 Conservation Advisory Group - supports the re-introduction of boats to this section of the Thames but sensitivity should be shown to the Memorial Gardens by pulling the pontoons further east.

7 Crime Prevention Officer - moorings should have photo electric cell lighting dawn to dusk. Railings, gates etc should be 2.4m high and designed to discourage climbing. Access to pontoon should be restricted to users and visitors. Also various advice about alarms, locks and laminated glass.

8 Metropolitan Police Marine Police Unit - Consider security of the riverside would be enhanced by the presence of a community of moored boats. Marine Police Unit in Wapping would intend to establish community links and a safer neighbourhood scheme within a short time of the opening of such a development.

9 Port of London Authority - initially objected to extent of pontoon riverwards, to

Page 19 permanent moorings on outside face of riverward pontoon and to potential blockage of river flow. Following revisions to the plans and completion of a navigational assessment commissioned by the PLA this authority does not now object. They state that the proposal is acceptable 'with appropriate mitigation measures in place which can be implemented through conditions attached to any works licence the PLA may ultimately grant' and 'in accordance with its practice elsewhere on the Thames the PLA will wish to see effective use of the proposed visitor moorings attached to the scheme, and will seek to ensure this through appropriate licence conditions'

10 Environment Agency - initially objected due to impact on foreshore and aquatic life. Following revisions it is considered the proposal will not damage nature conservation or character of river landscape. Conditions required a) programme of monitoring levels of foreshore b) details of proposed reed-bed c) details of ecological enhancements.

11 English Heritage - The Thames riverbed and foreshore are of archaeological significance and standard conditions including a desk-top study followed by appropriate investigation should be imposed.

12 Inland Waterways Association - no response

13 London Borough of Southwark - no response

14 London Rivers Association - supports the proposal as it will address the scarcity of such facilities on the Thames; encourage links between waterfront and water space and includes non-residential berths and community space.

15 Pool of London Partnerships - proposals are compatible with objectives of the Pool of London Public Realm Strategy (improve linkages, enhance and improve access to riverside and walkway). Support provision of facility for launching small craft. Pontoon should incorporate pedestrian link between existing riverside walks and not prejudice works to the park. Adequate refuse storage required, suggest restricting number of berths to 20 and a gap of 35m to nearest residential property.

16 Riverfront Residents Association (Bermondsey) the development is critical to the future of the river.

17 Hermitage Environment Group - letters and meetings with officers - increased traffic, lack of control over number and types of boat, over-use and overlooking of park, lack of public access to the foreshore, although berths have been pulled east to improve the view of proposed memorial the moorings would still extend across much of the park's river frontage, welcome provision of community room.

18 London Assembly Green Group - Urge LBTH to approve the proposal as it will bring diversity, life and community facilities to the area and preserve historic craft and support the objectives of the Blue Ribbon Network.

5.3 Responses to general consultation were as follows:

Approximate No. In Favour: approx.390 Against: approx.190 Petition: 1 Responses: 581

5.4 Over 390 expressions of support have been received. The majority (approx.290) are pro- forma letters with additional comments from individual residents from Wapping, Tower Hamlets and beyond. Individual letters have also been received from residents, businesses and various local groups including 2 Wapping Tenant's Associations and 4 local schools. There are also letters from several boat/river related organisations and from arts/education bodies including the Museum of London, Docklands Museum, the Arts Council and Tower Hamlets Environment Trust.

5.5 Reasons given for support:

Page 20 Proposal would be an asset to the river; provide small craft landing facilities and community space; enable residents to use the river; regenerate the riverside; maintain the maritime heritage of Wapping; increase activity in the area and encourage tourists; improve security in the area, including the park; be a resource for education.

5.6 Over 190 objections have been received. The majority (approx. 120) as a pro-forma. Individual letters have been received from 26 addresses, plus the managing agent, the freeholder and on behalf of the residents association at Cinnabar Wharf (the nearest property) and from 40 addresses at Halcyon, Capital and Tower Bridge Wharves and elsewhere in Wapping High Street. There are 6 names on a petition and several letters where the addresses are incomplete and/or outside London. There is one 'non-residential' objection, from a canoe club.

5.7 Objections/concerns:

• Potentially unattractive appearance of boats • Relationship with existing residential moorings on opposite bank • Potential number of boats • Noise from construction, boat-building/repairs, the community building, boat residents • Traffic and parking congestion in Wapping High Street • Insufficient local sewer capacity • Obstruction of view of Tower Bridge and loss of open panoramic view of river from flats and park and of proposed memorial in park from the river • Mooring should be only commercial • Mooring should not include any commercial berths • Dangers to navigation including forcing small boats such as canoes into midstream • Effect on ecology, birds etc. • Over-use and loss of tranquillity of the park • Crime • Lack of public access to foreshore and to proposed development • Community space too small • Community space should be omitted (noise etc) • Pollution/fire hazard from fumes, refuse, sewage and storage of hazardous materials Overlooking between boats and flats • Negative affect on property values

5.3 Date officer site visit undertaken: several, most recently 13/2/06.

6. ANALYSIS

6.1 The main issues in this case are whether the proposal is acceptable in the context of specific policies for moored vessels and those regarding the amenity of local residents and the area in general. The application is for the provision of the physical structures and the principle of residential use of the location. This application is not for the appearance of the individual boats and must be considered on its merits on that basis. The issues relating to the proposal are:

Use

6.2 Applications to moor individual boats, often for leisure purposes, in the docks and around the river-front are not uncommon, but this proposal for a substantial community of residential boats on the Thames is unusual. As mentioned in para.3.4 above there is an existing mixed use mooring on the opposite side of the river which obtained retrospective planning permission on appeal in 2004. The presence of that group of boats and its planning history has led to suggestions from objectors that the current application is to provide a replacement mooring for those boats currently moored at Downings Roads.

6.3 The London Plan introduces the concept of the Blue Ribbon Network of canals, rivers, docks etc., with a series of policies designed to protect and enhance the valuable resource which water represents in the sustainable development of the Capital. This concept is further carried through to the Council's draft LDF. The overall aims include maintaining a supply of

Page 21 waterside space to support and enable those uses and activities which require water or a waterside location; improving public access; enhancing biodiversity and protecting the heritage and distinctiveness of waterside areas.

6.4 The London Plan notes that moorings for visitors and residents are in short supply and that they can add to activity, diversity and safety. It emphasises that such proposals must minimise impact on navigation and biodiversity and that residential and long-stay moorings should have support services such as power, water, sewage and refuse disposal storage and washing facilities. Other recommended uses of moorings include educational resources. The London Plan further notes that whilst new moorings are supported a continuous line of moored craft along the network should not be allowed to develop.

Navigation and river environment

6.5 The PLA and The Environment Agency have been involved throughout the planning process. As a result of their advice flood risk assessment, hydraulic assessment and piling methodology studies have been submitted and a number of amendments, in particular a substantial reduction in the number of piles and other changes to minimise the effect on river flow and the consequent siltation and ecological impact, have been made. Both bodies have withdrawn their initial objections to the scheme, following revised proposals.

6.6 The Environment Agency is also of the view that the nature conservation value of the river would not be damaged as a result of the proposal and has provided model conditions requiring detailed submissions regarding foreshore monitoring and ecological enhancements. It is recommended that these conditions be attached to any grant of planning permission.

6.7 The PLA is responsible for navigational issues and for licensing both construction work and the continuing use of the moorings. They have required amendments such as moorings on the outer pontoon which can be vacated at 48 hours notice if a large vessel, such as a cruise ship, is due to sail or moor nearby. This is to avoid danger to the boats on the moorings and to allow clear passage for other river users. Any licence granted would inter alia require the applicant to take responsibility for any erosion /silting which might occur and to provide navigation lights, fenders etc to ensure safety for other vessels.

Residential Amenity

Privacy

6.8 The recommended minimum distance between windows of opposing habitable rooms, in UDP policy DEV 2, is 18m. As the distance between the front façade of Cinnabar Wharf and the nearest point of the mooring area is 39m, more than the minimum recommended by the Planning Inspector at Downings Roads, the privacy of adjacent residents would not be unacceptably compromised as a result of the proposed development. Furthermore, because of the significant distance of the moorings from the riverbank, the privacy of prospective residents of the moorings would not be compromised by people overlooking them from the riverside.

Noise

6.9 As advised by the Environmental Health Officer, the information provided suggests that there is potential for noise nuisance during piling and a s.61(Control of Pollution Act) construction management agreement is essential. A standard planning condition, i.e. 8am - 6pm Mon/Fri and 8am - 1pm Sat, is also recommended for construction works, with a further restriction on piling to 10am - 4pm to minimise noise nuisance.

6.10 The proposed use of the mooring would be strictly controlled by the PLA and is for the semi- permanent mooring of private residential vessels and small leisure craft and also for temporary mooring of visiting commercial and non-commercial vessels. Objections have been received to the use of the moorings for boat building purposes. Boat building and major works such as converting a boat for residential use would be considered industrial activity and would breach both planning permission and any potential PLA licence. A condition is recommended to reinforce this and ensure the moorings are not used for this

Page 22 type of activity.

6.11 As regards general domestic noise; residents of boats cannot be considered to be intrinsically noisier than any other residents. Any statutory nuisance which occurred would be liable to enforcement under Environmental Health legislation in the normal way. It is recommended that conditions are imposed on those elements of the proposal which could cause disturbance i.e. the hours of use of the community room; the times at which potentially disturbing disposal of glass in the re-cycling bins can take place; the use of amplified music and the movement of semi-permanent boats.

Sewers and other potential pollution

6.12 Objections have been received on the basis that there is insufficient local sewer capacity to cope with the proposed development. All boats which would use the moorings would have their own sewage storage tank and boat owners would connect to purpose designed points on the pontoons to pump out. A link to the public sewer is proposed via pipes concealed in the walkway. Thames Water confirms that there is a trunk sewer in Wapping High Street which gives rise to smells after heavy rain. They have advised that this is not a matter of capacity and that connection of the moorings to the sewer would not have a significant impact on the current situation. A condition is recommended on any grant of planning permission prohibiting discharge of sewage into the river.

6.13 Objections have also been received to the potential nuisance caused by engine exhaust from the vessels using the moorings, increased refuse and possible smells from refuse stored on the pontoons. Significant nuisance from engine exhaust is unlikely, as boats will be generally static with most coming and going on the riverward edge. The location is also very open and there is a 30m gap between the shore and the nearest vessels. Refuse storage and disposal would be similar to that on a land based development with centralised storage on the pier and regular collections. The potential for occasional nuisance such as smells in hot weather would be no different to existing on-shore situations. Storage of hazardous materials in anything more than small quantities is subject to Health and Safety Legislation. Standard conditions are recommended on any grant of planning permission to ensure that full details of refuse storage are submitted to the Council.

Crime

6.14 A number of objections received also raised concerns that the proposal would result in increased crime in the surrounding area. The proposal has been considered by the Crime Prevention Officer and the local River Police who are of the opinion that the introduction of activity would increase rather than decrease security. Specific security advice regarding the development has been given to the applicant and can be dealt with at the 'details' stage if conditional planning permission is granted.

Parking and traffic

6.15 The streets around Hermitage Wharf are within a Controlled Parking Zone (8.30am-5.30pm) and both sides of Wapping High Street have parking bays with a mix of permit and pay and display spaces, the remainder of the road has single yellow lines. As advised by the Highways Officer any permission should be subject to a 'car-free' agreement. Bicycle stores are indicated on the plans and provision and retention of these should be conditioned by any grant of planning permission. A restriction on (un)loading times is also recommended by way of planning condition to reduce the impact of the proposed development on nearby residents.

Community facilities

6.16 The accommodation provided in the pier house is in two parts separated by the open sided bicycle storage area. One section houses the services for the moorings and the other the community room. This is approximately 20m² in size and estimated to hold 15 people comfortably. This multi-use space is intended to be available for school projects and community groups, as a place for cultural events and meetings and to facilitate the use of the pier by small boat/canoe clubs. This proposal has been welcomed by a number of local schools and by the Hermitage Environment Group and the provision of this facility is

Page 23 recommended for inclusion in a s.106 agreement.

Public access

6.17 Different views on public access have been expressed, some considering that there should be open access and others that community activity on the pier would cause nuisance to residents. Following consultation with the police the arrangements proposed are a) walkway and links to riverside walk - unrestricted, b) jetty and pier house - accessible by arrangement for those booking space for community/education activities, c) pontoons - generally private for berth-holders and their visitors with possible 'open days' to allow public to view the boats. The use of the pier house and general access arrangements is recommended as subject for a s106 agreement as is the completion of links to the riverside walks.

6.18 Public access to the foreshore is not proposed, as this is owned by the PLA and there is doubt about the existence of a public right of way. It is therefore shown fenced off, as it has been for many years, but future access is feasible as the footpath and steps making up Hermitage Stairs are unusually wide for a river stair and the proposed access gangway to the moorings would occupy only half its width.

Design and Appearance

6.19 References to 'blots on the landscape' and floating gypsy camps' have been made by objectors concerned that 'rusting wrecks' will be moored alongside the flats and the park . It is not possible to control the appearance of individual boats through planning conditions but the PLA would individually approve each boat applying to moor, as part of their licensing procedure, with a requirement that they be 'presentable, riverworthy, and operational’. Planning conditions can be used to prohibit house boats and to prevent the boats lying at anchor (i.e. not moored to the pontoons and therefore unlicensed) within the site covered by the application.

6.20 The gangway would be a 2m wide aluminium truss structure with a steel grille deck and 2.5m high open-work sides. The gangway would be in two sections, a fixed portion spanning the inlet and a hinged portion, which would rise and fall with the tide. The fixed section would be the most visible element, because the gangway has to start at the highest point of the flood wall and the structure would therefore rise above the level of the existing railings around the park and Cinnabar Wharf. To minimise its impact, the gangway has been designed to slope down so that where it reaches the riverbank the top of the structure would be roughly level with the adjacent railings. The open nature of the construction also reduces the apparent bulk of the structure.

6.21 The other static feature of the development is the 18 piles to which the floating pontoons are attached. These are particularly visible at low tide, but it should be noted that the existing piles at this location are 90cm in diameter and rise well above the level necessary to serve their purpose, i.e. keeping pontoons in situ at the highest of flood tides. The current proposal uses thinner, 60cm diameter, piles and the tops would be only as high as the existing flood defences, roughly level with the riverside walk at Cinnabar Wharf. Such piles are a traditional feature of the river and as they are also low enough to see over it is not considered that they would have an unacceptable visual impact on the area.

6.22 The mooring pontoons themselves are simple and practical with little visual impact. They would be floating steel boxes rising about 1m above the water and the only fixed items on them would be small mooring bollards, a central handrail and metal service bollards (for electricity, water and telephone) with illuminated tops.

6.23 The main pontoon measuring approximately 20m x 7.5m would be formed of two floating steel boxes linked by a bridging deck. Guard-rails and a 2m wide walkway would run around the outer edge, surrounding and giving access to the pier house. The house would be a steel framed building with painted timber 'bargeboard' cladding and a shallow-pitched, hipped roof of profiled metal. The building would be 3.3m high and its scale, design, proportions and external materials are based on the traditional cabins seen on other floating pontoons nearby. This is considered to be in keeping with the character of the area. A single 8m flagpole is also proposed on this pontoon. This is shown as a lightweight structure and has a practical purpose as a marker to assist navigational safety.

Page 24

Number of boats

6.24 As mentioned above, the application is for the pontoons and jetty rather than for the boats themselves and conditioning the number of vessels at any one time would be considered unreasonable/unenforceable. The maximum number is indicated as 24, limited by the number of service bollards (water and electricity hook up points) provided on the pontoons. It is therefore suggested that a condition prevents the provision of any additional hook-ups without further planning permission.

Views and effect on park

6.25 Individuals have no 'right' to a view, such as an open river or Tower Bridge, but this site is within the 'strategic' view corridor for St Pauls and Tower Bridge is identified as a local landmark in the LDF. The proposal falls below the height considered to impact on the St Pauls view. As regards local views the movement of tides and the variety of visiting boats would mean the contribution to views and the setting of conservation areas would be constantly changing. At low tide most of the pontoon structure and boats would be below the river wall and should not significantly obstruct views across the river from or to the park and its planned 5m high memorial.

6.26 There are existing commercial moorings in this location and other jetties and pontoons east of this site, as well as the mooring across at Downings Roads. Moored boats are a traditional element of the vista of the Thames at Wapping and contribute to the concept of an active river. The proposed mooring would significantly increase the number of boats but, as highlighted by the Inspector at Downings Roads, boats would appear in the foreground as one moved along the river or the riverside walk and would complement rather than detract from the views. Lower parts of buildings across the river and of Tower Bridge would be hidden for a few hours at high tide but at other times the view would be unimpeded.

6.27 There is concern from local residents that the adjacent park would be 'used as a backyard' however, as a public open space, activities allowed there would be governed by the same rules or by-laws applicable to other parks. As one of few open spaces on the riverside it is likely to be popular with both residents and visitors and it is not considered that the addition of 20 residential units to the area is would have an unacceptable impact.

7. SUMMARY

7.1 The current proposal is in line with policy guidance in that it would provide an enhanced mooring facility and the introduction of a link to the shore provides a new landing/stopping place for visiting boats. It includes the required support services; facilities for launching small craft to encourage leisure use by clubs and local people; a community room which would be available for local schools and groups; assists the completion of a section of the strategic riverside walk and offers the opportunity of new views of the river and the surrounding area from its pier. The introduction of activity is considered to be beneficial to the general safety and security of the area, including the park.

7.2 The appearance of the permanent structures is considered to be of appropriate and simple design and incorporates features to enhance biodiversity. It is in keeping with the traditional character of the riverside heritage and would add interest to the wide and rather empty stretch of river walkway at Cinnabar Wharf. The development could only take place subject to the approval of navigational and other technical matters relating to effects on the river and shore, by the PLA, Environment Agency, English Heritage and the Councils own Environmental Health Department.

7.3 Subject to the conditions and legal agreements outlined above planning permission is recommended.

Page 25 Site Map

R 1

9 E t 1 3 1 El Sub Sta o t 0 5 2 E o Cloysters 6 T 8

Gre en CLOSE 1 23

TCB s WAVENEY 4

1 d 3 2

d 2

1 5

9 16 21 1 d 20 4 to d 1 1 o 3 t

7 45 1 36 d ot 4 E 4 OS 6 9 5d L dd 7 8 'S C d Y d dd ON d 9 H 4 N T o T A

t N 1 AI 3

2 S 7

1 5

23 0

8 t

9 5 o

t 1

1 Ma ud lins 1 3 1 V d 3 A

5 U Gre en d 9 1 G 4 d H o A

t N

1 8

2 0

58 3 6 1 W 7

d A 6

Y o t

64 8 5 d2 d dddddd E d36 S d

1 L 1 C 9 3 d R d R BU ddd d d d30 d d 2 d1

SM 6

2 2

d0 8 3 dd m 4.70 M Pla yg rou nd LB d B Her mit ag e Ba sin H e d rm it ag e P rim a ry S 5.4 m c 3 m ho 13 .63 d o o 4 l t M m S 1 d B 1 T 4 K e 5. AT s H ou M AR T H B

IN CB da

4 E s til 8 ' 4.6 m a S W W E A M D N Y 5.1 m A L D A

S 1

M M

1 t

D T o

d E n E 9

R E 122 d d R HER

T MIT

S 2 AG 2 E W N ALL

d Riviera Court O s d d 0 t T 8 3

0 d

a 3 5.4 m

0 R 4 d

l 2

f 1

o d 40 o o t t

O Halcy on

3 d

8 1

1 1

t Wha rf 9

o S

f M d

t 4 d d s 5 ddd d M dddd iah T T t o e rr r 5 w W a c u e e 2 T r W o B H d E 3 r H C E

id 2

ge M e 1 d R W M g T h n a 7 S r a d Playground d r 2

f r S a 4 O l G l

o d N I B 6 L d d L 4.5 m E d d 5 dd d1 H MP dd d 1 to d 11 Se vil le Ho W Ga m e s C our t APP

ING

2 2 H I GH

Dolphin STR

4 E

t o E T

1 3.6 m Page 26 Jett y Hermitage Dolphin Stai rs

Cin d

y b a 4 r 2 a W

w ha

r f 0

W 6

o e

es t

s t 5 u 2 a C d C in na b ar W har f Ce n tra l Mea n H igh W a ter Ri ver Th am es Upp Bor o er Co P n st o an d ol LB Bdy C CL W

Legend Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area

Th is Site Ma p displays the Plan ning Ap plicat ion S ite B oundary and t he neighb ouring Occu piers / Owners wh o were con sulted as pa rt o Map was reproduced from t he Ordna nce Survey mapping wit h th e permis sio n of Her Majesty's Sta tionery Off ice © Crown Copyright . Lon don B oroug h of Towe r Hamle ts LA0 86568

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT

Agenda Item 5.3

Committee: Date: Classification: Report Agenda Item Development 29th March, 2006 Unrestricted Number: Number: Committee DC046/056 5.3 Report of: Title: Town Planning Application and Conservation Area Director of Development and Renewal Consent

Case Officer: Scott Hudson Location: EAST END MISSION, 583 COMMERCIAL ROAD, LONDON, E1 0HJ

Ward: St Dunstan's and Stepney

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The applicant has lodged an appeal against the Council’s non-determination of applications for planning permission and conservation area consent (PA/05/00485 and PA/05/00488) for the conversion and partial redevelopment of the East End Mission. The hearing is scheduled to be held on the 3 May 2006.

1.2 On the 30 November 2005 the Development Committee considered a report (Appendix 1) on the applications and resolved that were the Council empowered to make a decisions, it would have GRANTED both planning permission and conservation area consent.

1.3 The applicant has now submitted identical applications to those tabled at the 30 November 2005 Development Committee (PA/05/2098 and PA/05/2099) and proposes to withdraw the appeal if approval is forthcoming.

2. RECOMMENDATION:

PA/05/0298 – Full Planning Application:

2.1 That the Development Committee GRANT full planning permission subject to the conditions outlined below:

2.1.1 Time Limit. 2.1.2 Amending condition, prior to the commencement of development, detailing; • All room and unit sizes to accord with the Council’s SPG Residential Space. 2.1.3 Amending condition, prior to the commencement of development, detailing; • Provision of security gates to secluded entrances or deletion of secluded entrances to units located in the Bromley Street Wing. 2.1.4 Amending condition, prior to the commencement of development, detailing; • Details of CCTV and secure entrance from Commercial Road. 2.1.5 Amending condition, prior to commencement of the development, detailing; • Conservation design conditions requiring full details of materials, joinery and repairs to the existing building. 2.1.6 Contaminated land reporting. 2.1.7 Archaeological condition. 2.1.8 Air quality reporting. 2.1.9 Facing material details required. 2.1.10 Sound insulation between individual units and external noise required. 2.1.11 Wheel cleaning during construction required. 2.1.12 Provisions for disabled access.

2.2 And subject to a s106 legal agreement, securing the following:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT

Brief Description of background Tick if copy supplied for Name and telephone no. of holder paper: register Application case file, plans, supporting √ technical reports, UDP, PPGs. Development Control: -020 7364 5338 Page 27 2.2.1 Provision of 19 units (1,276sq.m and the following mix: 4 one-bed, 7 two-bed, 6 three-bed, and 2 four-bed) of the dwellings proposed in this application are to be made available for affordable housing provision. 2.2.2 Car-free agreement. 2.2.3 Management of ground floor retail units.

PA/05/02099 – Conservation Area Consent:

2.3 That the Development Committee grant conservation area consent subject to the conditions outlined below:

2.3.1 Time Limit. 2.3.2 Demolition shall not be carried out until a valid full planning consent is issued.

3. CONSULTATION

3.1 The following were consulted regarding this application:

(1) Environmental Health

Comments as per previous application. No further observations.

(2) Housing

Comments as per previous application.

(3) Highways

Comments as per previous application.

(4) English Heritage (Archaeological)

No objection subject to recommended conditions.

3.2 Responses from neighbours were as follows:

No. Responses: 1 In Favour: 0 Against: 1 Petition: 0

3.3 One objection letter was received from 23 Bromley Street, E1. The concerns raised by the residents were as follows. • Development will further overshadow the adjoining properties. • Precedent for similar developments in the area. • Loss of natural light to property. • Loss of privacy.

3.4 The above objection is identical to the one received previously. The concerns raised by the objection have been addressed in the previous committee report, attached in Appendix A.

4. ANALYSIS

4.1 The officer analysis of the applications as presented at the Development Committee on the 30 November 2005 is attached as Appendix 1.

5. SUMMARY

5.1 The application proposes a mixed-use scheme comprising of retail and community uses at the ground and basement levels, 100 residential units and 100 bicycle parking spaces. A total of 19 affordable housing units are also proposed. The application is identical to the previous application determined at the 30 November 2005 Development Committee.

Page 28 5.2 The assessment of the other matters contained within the officer report (refer Appendix 1) remain unaltered.

5.3 The proposal is considered to meet Council’s policies of the Adopted UDP 1998 and the LDF Core Strategy and is therefore recommended for approval as set out in Section 2.

Page 29 Site Map

3 26 d 3 d d d 2 d d 6 d d QUARE VIS S d 30 d

A d d 7

21 4 ddd d

W 1 d 4

d E

dd 4 d t

S o

25 d T 2 d m

4 6 d

P d . d

C 5

O C e 0 2

d R r 1 d t e

r d

e d T d

S d 3 d 13

T 39 d

R d dd 2 d E d 18 d E T d d

9 d

35 d d d

1 1 7 7 33 d d d 3

dd 1 4

1 d d 3 5 d 25 d d d d d d 9

d 9 d

3 2 d

23 T

d E 1 E 27 d d R T

S 7

Stepney V

A r

1 5

Methodist Church e R

7 g

12 G

8 (East End Mission)

23 L 24 u

29 E S 3 d d d d d d d d d d d d d B Garage 1

5d83 58d3 583 d a b d 583 58 c d3 58d3 TC d 583 Bs e f 5 helter S B oro Con st and W ard Bdy 585 to 11. 1m d 593 d TCBs CR

House Shelter

t ll o

1 alkwe2 500 LB

10. 7m 595

4 1 502 5 PH 2

508 1

d PO d 5

6 2

8 2

d 5

PH 3 5

d 2 3

dd d d 5 4

3 5

6 3 dddd 5 B

6 1 5 t

o 0 2 o 5

t dd

1 d T

1 2 4 1 C 6 4

t 4 5

o . Garage

0 L 5 d 8 4 d 5 2 I

F 8 d d d m

F d

E dd d

d d 9

t 3

o R d d

O 2 d d

d 9

t d d S

B d 8

S 1 O

T U o Works Club Warehouses R d L 9

E d O

E d T

T T

E e El E C

T e Sub A Sta R O

T I ge N ignal Brid 1:1250 S S

A Legend Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area d Land Parcel Address

Page 30 EAST END MISSION, 583 COMMERCIAL ROAD, LONDON, E1 0HJ APPENDIX 1:

Page 31

Committee: Date: Classification: Report Agenda Item Development 30th November 2005 Unrestricted Number: Number: Committee DC030/056 5.4 Report of: Title: Town Planning Application and Conservation Area Director of Development and Renewal Consent

Case Officer: Scott Hudson Location: EAST END MISSION, 583 COMMERCIAL ROAD, LONDON, E1 0HJ

Ward: St Dunstan's and Stepney

1. SUMMARY

1.1 Registration Details Reference No: PA/05/00485 (Full Planning Application) & PA/05/00488 (Conservation Area Consent). Date Received: 31/03/2005 Last Amended Date: 09/11/2005 1.2 Application Details

Existing Use: Vacant. Previously community, residential and retail. Proposal: Refurbishment of buildings on Commercial Road for community and retail use on the ground floor with residential above. Demolition of buildings at rear and erection of two, four to five storey plus basement buildings to provide 104 residential units. Applicant: Goldcrest Homes Ownership: Methodist Church Trustee Historic Building: N/A Conservation Area: York Square

2. RECOMMENDATION:

2.1 The applicant has lodged an appeal for non-determination on the 19 October 2005 for both the planning and Conservation Area Consent applications. In these circumstances, the committee cannot determine whether the application is acceptable or determine refusal of the applications. Instead, they are now asked to consider whether they are minded to grant the planning applications subject to the recommended conditions contained in paragraph 2.2 of this report.

PA/05/00485 – Full Planning Application: 2.2 That the Director of Development and Renewal is instructed to inform the Planning Inspectorate that had the Council been empowered to make a decision on the application, it would have GRANTED full planning permission, subject to the following conditions and S106 legal agreement:

Conditions; 2.2.1 Time Limit 2.2.2 Development in accordance with submitted amended plans. 2.2.3 Amending condition, prior to the commencement of development, detailing; • All room and unit sizes to accord with the Council’s SPG Residential Space. 2.2.4 Amending condition, prior to the commencement of development, detailing; • Provision of security gates to secluded entrances, or deletion of secluded entrances to units located in the Bromley Street Wing.

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

Page 32

Application case file, plans, supporting technical reports, UDP, PPGs. √ Scott Hudson, Development 020 7364 5338

2.2.5 Amending condition, prior to the commencement of development, detailing; • Details of CCTV and secure entrance from Commercial Road. 2.2.6 Amending condition, prior to commencement of the development, detailing; • Conservation design conditions requiring full details of materials, joinery and repairs to the existing building. 2.2.7 Contaminated land reporting. 2.2.5 Air quality reporting. 2.2.6 Facing material details required. 2.2.7 Sound insulation between individual units required. 2.2.8 Sound insulation to protect against external noise required. 2.2.9 Wheel cleaning during construction required. 2.2.10 Provisions for disabled access and cycle facilities. 2.2.11 Provision for cycle facilities

2.3 Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following:

2.3.1 Provision of 19 units (1,276sq.m and the following mix: 4 one-bed, 7 two-bed, 6 three-bed, and 2 four-bed) of the dwellings proposed in this application, to be made available for affordable housing provision. 2.3.2 Car-free agreement (strictly limiting the availability of on-street residents car parking permits to those persons holding a disabled person’s badge issued pursuant to section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970). 2.3.3 Management of ground floor retail units.

PA/05/00488 – Conservation Area Consent: 2.4 That the Director of Development and Renewal is instructed to inform the Planning Inspectorate that had the Council been empowered to make a decision on the application, it would have GRANTED Conservation Area Consent, subject to the following conditions:

2.2.1 Time Limit 2.2.2 Demolition shall not be carried out until a valid Full Planning Consent is issued.

3. BACKGROUND

Subject Site and Surrounds 3.1 The subject site is located on the northern side of Commercial Road, situated between Westport Street and Bromley Street, E1. The site is also within in the York Square Conservation Area. Contained on the frontage of the site is a red brick building with stone detailing, four stories in height designed symmetrically around a central bay which features a square domed roof and arched entrance. Lastly there are small turrets at either end of the front elevation. The buildings were opened in 1907 as the central hall and headquarters of the Wesleyan East End Mission. The site is currently vacant.

3.2 There are a series of small shop-fronts at ground level on either side of the main entrance. Some of these have been altered. However, many of them retain a significant amount of original joinery and which offer the potential for sympathetic restoration. The building has two wings fronting Bromley Street and Westport Street. These are generally smaller in scale and height and are of three stories and semi basement. They are finished in a yellow stock brick with red brick arches spanning rectangular, arched and round windows, and feature moulded brick courses, raised and recessed panels of brickwork. Overall it represents a prominent building of considerable quality, which contributes positively to the Conservation Area and is a significant building in this part of Commercial Road.

Planning History 3.3 Full planning consent (PA/02/01751) and conservation area consent (PA/02/01752) was recommended for approval by the Development Committee on the 17 March 2004. The

Page 33 consent allows for the refurbishment of buildings fronting Commercial Road for community and retail use on the ground floor with residential above. More specifically this includes the demolition of buildings at the rear and the erection of two, four-storey residential buildings to provide a total of 48 flats (6 one bedroom, 37 two bedroom and 3 three bedroom) with basement parking. The approval provides for a total of 12 affordable housing units on site. The signing of the S.106 legal agreement occurred on the 30 September 2005, and subsequent consents were issued.

Proposal 3.4 The current proposal is similar to the previous scheme in that it proposes the refurbishment of buildings on Commercial Road for community and retail use on the ground floor with residential above. However, the submitted application sees the demolition of buildings at rear and erection of two, four to five storey plus basement buildings to provide 104 residential units. Specifically this incorporate the following:

• 45 x studio • 41 x one-bedroom. • 10 x two-bedroom • 8 x three-bedroom. • A1 (retail) and D1/D2 (community) uses at ground and basement level, fronting Commercial Road. • A total of 26 affordable housing units. • 104 bicycle parking spaces. • No on-site car parking is proposed.

3.5 Amended plans were received on the 8 August 2005, which: • increased the size of the windows to the basement flats; • decreased the size of the rooms to these flats; and • material amendments to the external stairwell.

3.6 Further amended plans were received on the 1 November 2005, which revised the external staircase structure within the courtyard. The amendments incorporated a smaller, spiral staircase, which features glazing to the exterior. In addition, further revisions were received on the 10 November 2005, which altered the basement flats internally to provide a separate kitchen (previously open plan).

3.7 A revised accommodation schedule was received by the Council on 9 November 2005, which incorporates the following;

• Flats A5 and A6 are combined to create a three bed unit (instead of 2 studios). • Flats A7 and A8 are combined to create a four bed unit (instead of 2 studios). • Flats A9 and A10 are combined to create a four bed unit (instead of 2 studios). • Flats B43 to B47 are rearranged to provide 2 three bed and 2 four units (instead of 1 three bed, 2 two bed, 1 one bed and a studio). • Flats A32, B52 and B57 are now studio flats (previously one beds). • Flats C96, C97, C102 and C103 are now two bed flats (instead of three bed).

3.8 Further to above, the following flats are now allocated as affordable units;

• A4, A5, A07, A09, A33; • B43, B44, B45, B46, B48, B49, B50, B51, B53, B54, B55, B56 and B58; and • C59.

As a result, the revised affordable housing provision would now be 25% by net floor area (1,276sq.m.), with the following revised unit mix;

• 4 x one bed (21%) • 7 x two bed (37%) • 6 x three bed (32%) • 2 x four bed (11%)

Page 34 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 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.

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 up 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 consideration 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 accordance 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 balance 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:

Department of Transport Strategic Roads.

4.7 The following Unitary Development Plan policies are applicable to this application:

DEV1 General principles for new development DEV2 Impact of new developments DEV3 Mixed use developments DEV25 Development in conservation areas DEV29 Demolition in conservation areas ST25 Infrastructure provision for new housing HSG2 New housing for sites in non residential use HSG3 Affordable housing HSG6 Access to residential over commercial uses HSG7 Housing mix HSG8 Wheelchair and mobility housing HSG9 Density HSG14 Special needs housing HSG16 Amenity space T13 Essential parking needs T15 Capacity of transport system T16 Operational requirements of proposed use T17 Parking standards SCF9 Loss of community use

4.8 The following New Unitary Development Plan 1st Deposit Draft proposals are applicable to this application:

Strategic Roads.

4.9 The following New Unitary Development Plan 1st Deposit Draft policies are applicable to this application:

Page 35 EMP2 Mixed Use Development HSG1 Housing Provision HSG2 New Housing Provision HSG4 Affordable Housing Target HSG5 Affordable Housing Ratio and Mix HSG8 Dwelling Type and Mix HSG9 Density HSG10 Lifetime Homes and Wheelchair/Mobility Housing. SF1 Social Facilities TRN1 Transport and Development UD1 Scale and Density UD2 Architecture Quality UD3 Ease of Movement and Access Through UD4 Design and Access Statements UD5 Safety and Security UD22 Conservation Areas UD23 Demolition in Conservation Areas. ENV1 Amenity ENV8 Energy Efficiency ENV13 Waste Management Facilities.

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) Design and Conservation

Concerns with elements of the design as proposed. Recommend conditions prior to commencement development.

(2) Environmental Health

Contaminated Land Standard conditions prior to commencement required.

Air Quality An Air Quality assessment is required from the applicant, prior to the commencement of the development.

Sunlight/Daylight Ongoing discussions between the applicant’s consultant and Environmental Health regarding daylight/sunlight to the basement units have occurred. Environmental Health has determined that the basement flats receive adequate daylight/sunlight.

(3) Housing

Discussions and negotiations have occurred between the agents and the Housing team. It is considered in light of the previous approval and the amended affordable housing provision, that the application is acceptable in this instance.

(4) Head of Planning Policy

Concerns raised in relation to affordable housing and mix.

(5) Horticulture Officer

No comments.

(6) Highways

Page 36

No objections subject to a S106 car free agreement and a S278 agreement for Highway works to Bromley and Westport Streets.

(7) Education

No comments.

(8) English Heritage (Archaeological)

No objection subject to recommended conditions.

5.2 Responses from neighbours were as follows:

No. Responses: 1 In Favour: 0 Against: 1 Petition: 0

5.3 One objection letter was received from 23 Bromley Street, E1. The concerns raised by the residents were as follows. • Development will further overshadow the adjoining properties. • Precedent for similar developments in the area. • Loss of natural light to property. • Loss of privacy. • Application should not be considered, as it is located in a conservation area.

6. ANALYSIS

Land Use 6.1 The proposal seeks the redevelopment and refurbishment of an existing vacant premises for the purposes of a mixed use development comprising of housing and a mix of A1 (retail), A2, B1 (offices), D1 and D2 (community uses).

6.2 The principle of a mixed-use development on the site has previously been supported and approved by the Committee under the previous planning consent (PA/02/01751). Furthermore, the proposal for a mixed-use development is encouraged within the adopted UDP Policy DEV3 subject to four considerations. These are the character and function of the area; the scale and nature of development; the physical constraints of the site; and other policies in the plan. In addition, Draft UDP policies EMP2 and HSG2 also seek to encourage mixed-use housing developments within the Borough.

6.3 However, concerns from the Council’s Environmental Health team have identified potential conflict between the proposed D1 & D2 uses (community uses) within the basement. 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 relating these uses, not to disturb future residents of the site.

Housing 6.4 The originally submitted application proposed a total of 104 flats on site, which included the following mix:

• 45 x studio. • 41 x 1 bed. • 10 x 2 bed. • 8 x 3 bed.

Of this total provision, 26 units (25% based on unit numbers) are proposed for the provision of affordable housing. This featured the following mix:

• 4 x studio. • 16 x 1 bed. • 4 x 2 bed.

Page 37 • 2 x 3 bed.

In addition, all of the 26 units allocated for the affordable housing provision would be for shared ownership.

6.5 The previous application (PA/02/01751) saw a provision of 12 affordable units to be provided on site. The accompanying S106 agreement signed on 30 September 2005 has secured this provision. However this application was assessed wholly on the adopted UDP (1998) as it was lodged and assessed prior to the adoption of the Draft UDP. As a result, the then affordable housing policy was 25% based on unit numbers, which the previous application complied with.

6.6 The affordable housing policy of the Draft UDP (HSG4) requires that all developments over 10 units or more are required to provide 35% of the gross floor space of the development. This will increase to 50% if provided off site. In addition, policy HSG5 requires a ratio and mix in accordance with the Council’s Housing Need Survey (2004). This requires a social rented to intermediate split of 80:20 and the following housing mix:

• 20% 1 bed. • 35% 2 bed. • 30% 3 bed. • 15% 4 bed.

6.7 In support of the Agent’s affordable housing provision, a Toolkit report was submitted as part of the original application. The Toolkit is financial analysis reporting program produced by the Greater London Authority (GLA) to help determine the levels of affordable housing a particular site can produce. This toolkit has been produced for the purposes as a guide only and is not considered the opinion of the GLA. In response to the concerns raised by the Council, further information with regards to the Toolkit was received which further detailed input data uses (such as build costs, values, sale costs etc).

6.8 Amended plans received by the 9 November 2005 seek to address the Council’s policy HSG5 for affordable unit mix. The amended proposal now incorporates the following mix for affordable housing;

• 4 x one bed (21%) • 7 x two bed (37%) • 6 x three bed (32%) • 2 x four bed (11%)

This proposed mix would result in a total of 19 units, equating to 19% based on unit numbers, 25% based on floor area and 32% by habitable rooms.

6.9 Although the mix as detailed above, does not meet the 35% affordable housing as required by HSG4 of the Draft UDP, the proposed affordable housing mix accords with HSG5 of the Draft UDP. The amended provision complies with HSG5 by better meeting the needs of the Borough as detailed in the Council’s Housing Need Survey (2004). This has been achieved through the deletion of studio units and an increase in the family unit provision (approximately 43%). As a result, the amended scheme is considered to be an overall improvement to the consented scheme.

6.10 Although the affordable housing provision tenure fails to accord with the current Council’s policy HSG5 by providing a Social Rented to Intermediate ratio split of 80:20. The agents however, argue that in accordance with the ODPM Circular’s 7/91 and 6/98, the local authorities can not determine affordable housing tenure. More specifically the baseline position, established in Circular 7/91 is that “planning conditions and agreements cannot normally be used to impose restrictions on tenure, price or ownership” although “they can properly by used to restrict the occupation of property for people falling within particular categories of need”. Circular 6/98 elaborated government’s position suggesting that affordable housing may be defined in so far that it is either ‘subsidised’ or ‘low cost’. But beyond these parameters local authorities in principle may not stray.

Page 38 6.11 Therefore, it is considered that the Council cannot determine the specific tenure for affordable housing in accordance with the ODPM Circulars as discussed above. However, the Council can determine the need for affordable housing provision. As a result, the Council has required the agents to provide additional family accommodation in accordance with the Housing Needs Survey (2004) and policy HSG5.

6.12 In light of these issues, it is considered the overall provision of affordable housing to be an improvement on the previously consent scheme on site. The current application provides additional units and an increase in family accommodation generally in accordance with the Borough’s need. It is therefore considered that the provision of affordable housing in this instance to be appropriate.

Daylight/Sunlight 6.13 The design of the proposed additions to the existing building creates a U shape courtyard, where an area (approximately 40m by 12m) of communal open space is proposed within the centre. The two additional wings are a total of 6 storeys in height. The lowest level of residential accommodation is below natural ground level. The units (8 in total) all feature bay type windows and are single aspect units.

6.14 Comments received from the Council’s Environment Health Team, who raised initial concerns from the outset to the proposed use of the basement for residential use. It was also considered that the submitted daylight/sunlight report was inadequate, based on its calculations. Furthermore, concerns were also raised concerning the quality of the communal courtyard with regards to the amount of sunlight it would receive.

6.15 Additional concerns were raised by the Council’s Environmental Health Team as to the amount of daylight and sunlight the basement units would receive and as to whether these units were suitable for residential use. The Agent’s submitted a sunlight/daylight report prepared by Gordon Ingram Associates, which stated that four of the living rooms and four bedrooms of the basement flats would have levels below the BRE recommendations. In addition the report failed to have regard to the daylight/sunlight levels to the habitable rooms (living rooms/kitchens) of the basement flats. The locations of the proposed kitchens are the furthest away from these windows (approximately 6.5m).

6.16 A revised daylight/sunlight report was submitted on the 23 May 2005 providing additional calculations. However it was considered that this report still failed to address the concerns of the Council’s Environmental Health Team as stated above. Amended plans were also received on the 8 August 2005, which marginally increased the window sizes to the basement flats. In addition, a number of the room sizes of these flats were also reduced. Comments received from the Environmental Health Team again stipulated that there would be insufficient light to the kitchens and insufficient methods/formulae have been provided.

6.17 Further amended plans received by the Council on the 1 and 10 November 2005 seeking to address the concerns raised with regards to daylight and sunlight. The amendments incorporated a revised external stair structure (smaller spiral stairs proposed) and kitchen layout alterations.

6.18 The internal alterations to the living/kitchen areas within the basement unit sees the kitchens become a separate room from the living area and thus technically not a habitable room. As a result, the living areas are reduced in size and the requirement for separate kitchens to receive daylight is no longer applicable. Revised daylight/sunlight calculations from the agents consultants have indicated that these rooms now comply with the BRE requirements. Discussions with the Council’s Environmental Health team confirm that the recent amendments accords with the BRE guidelines and residential use in the basement is now considered appropriate.

Design 6.19 The proposal incorporates the refurbishment of the existing East End Mission building fronting Commercial Road (4 storey commercial building) and the addition of two, six-storey wing buildings running north-south across the site with an internal courtyard. The width of the internal courtyard is approximately 13m. The buildings feature an external stair and lift access and walkways across the façades facing into the courtyard. An external stairwell structure (5 storeys) is proposed towards the northern end of the site and is required for fire regulation

Page 39 requirements as a means of escape.

6.20 The amended plans in reference to the external stairwell seek to address the Council’s concerns on its location and its impact in the internal courtyard/amenity space. The originally submitted application featured a large, triangle shape external stairwell with external cladding, protruding into the internal courtyard. The overall result was an imposing structure, which created a sense of enclosure for both the courtyard and flats adjacent. The revisions see the stairwell drastically reduced in size and of a spiral form. The result is a less imposing structure to the courtyard and adjacent units. This in turn allows adequate daylight/sunlight to the adjacent flats, particularly at the basement level, which has been confirmed by Environmental Health.

6.21 The height of the additional wing fronting both Westport Street and Bromley Streets are considered appropriate in this instance as they are approximately up to one-storey lower than the approved consent (PA/02/01751). However, little attempt has been made to ensure the elevations of the wing buildings relate to the existing scale proportions of the building on site

6.22 Comments received from the Design and Conservation Team consider that the proposal is mediocre and lacks any form of character and fails to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area. However it is acknowledged that the existing consent also failed to respect the existing character of the adjacent buildings and/or enhance the conservation area. Therefore, a refusal on design and conservation grounds would not be practical. As a result, it is recommended that conditions requiring the following shall be imposed; • Samples of materials, to include brick, brick bond, mortar colour, and external stairwell. • Full details of joinery to include doors and windows. To include head and sill detail, reveals and the details of the joinery. • Full details of attic storey and eaves detail. • Full details of full bay of each of the blocks to determine the detail. • Full specification of proposed repairs to the existing building. • Details of the proposed timber repairs for the existing shop-fronts (if proposed). • Full joinery details for new shop-fronts (if proposed). • Full details of the method of cleaning the existing building (if proposed).

6.23 In light of the amended plans received and recommended amending conditions, it is considered that the proposal accords with the policies DEV1 of the Adopted UDP and UD1 and UD2 of the Draft UDP relate to the urban design and quality of the proposal.

6.24 In addition, concerns are also raised with regards to the general sense of security within the proposal, particularly with the new wing buildings. Many of the units feature a secluded entrance setback of approximately 4m and by width of approximately 1m. This results in a number of entrances that are obscured from view and are some distance from any means of escape. Policy UD5 (Safety and Security) of the Draft UDP clearly identifies safety and security with a development as a key design issue. However, it is considered that this issue could easily be addressed through a minor design alteration, which could incorporate either individual security gates or flush entry doors to the walkway. Therefore an amending condition is recommended to address this concern. Furthermore, the applicants have confirmed that the building will be totally secure through the use of CCTV and security entrances from Commercial Road.

6.25 The proposed development also incorporates Conservation Area Consent. The requirement for assessment against the conservation area consent is the suitability of the proposed demolition. Under the previous Conservation Area Consent (PA/02/1752) approved by the Committee, the demolition of the rear side wings were considered to be appropriate. As a result, the demolition is again considered appropriate in this instance. However, a condition requiring a Full Planning Consent prior to the demolition of the buildings is recommended. This is to ensure demolition can not occur without a valid planning consent.

Density/Accommodation Standards. 6.26 The proposal would incorporate a density of 903 habitable rooms per hectare (hrph). The site is in a moderate (level 5) Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL). The Density policy (HSG9) of the Draft UDP, which is based on the approach of the London Plan, stipulates a density range of between 400-700 hrph. However, in certain instances the Council can

Page 40 consider higher densities, which demonstrate good access to services and facilities. In addition, an increase in density is only considered acceptable dependant on the quality of the environment proposed.

6.27 It is considered that the amendments to the proposal seek to address the concerns which are generally associated with an over-development (inadequate dwelling mix; poor outlook; dwelling size; lack of light and increased sense of enclosure to new flats; poor level of quality amenity spaces). These amendments have addressed the concerns in relation to affordable housing, daylight/sunlight, and sense of enclosure. Therefore, given the sites location and accessibility levels, it is considered that the application can not be recommended for refusal solely on density grounds.

6.28 Concerns are also raised with the room and unit sizes proposed within some of the flats (flat No.’s: C66, C69, C72, B43, B45, B46, B47, B50, B51, B52, C93, C96, C97, B52, B55, B56, B57, C101, C102, and C103). A number of the flats proposed feature room sizes that are below the minimum requirements outlined in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Residential Space. However, the applicants have agreed to an amending condition requiring the unit and room sizes accord with the SPG.

Planning Obligations 6.29 In regards to Planning Obligations, the Council can generally require contributions for residential development on affordable housing, education, highways and public realm improvements, health, and community and social facilities. The agents have submitted a number of viability reports (Toolkit) to the Council as part of their application. In response to this and in light of the previous approval, the Council has accepted their provision of affordable housing (refer to discussions above). It is considered that the overall affordable housing provision an improvement to the previous scheme. If the Council were in this instance to pursue additional S106 contributions (in addition to affordable housing), it could potentially render the site un-viable. Therefore, it is considered that the affordable housing to be an appropriate planning obligation in this instance.

7. SUMMARY

7.1 The application proposes a mixed-use scheme comprising of retail and community uses at the ground and basement levels, 100 residential units and 104 bicycle parking spaces. A total of 19 affordable housing units are also proposed.

7.2 The proposal has been assessed against the Council’s Adopted and Draft UDP, where it has been determined that the application accords with policies relating to affordable housing, urban design and conservation, amenity, density and safety and security.

7.3 It is therefore considered in light of the analysis of the proposal as discussed in Section 6 that the Council supports the proposal and the Committee would have been minded to grant planning consent as recommended in Section 2 of this report.

Page 41 Site Map

3 26 d 3 d d d 2 d d 6 d d QUARE VIS S d 30 d

A d d 7

21 4 ddd d

W 1 d 4

d E

dd 4 d t

S o

25 d T 2 d m

4 6 d

P d . d

C 5

O C e 0 2

d R r 1 d t e

r d

e d T d

S d 3 d 13

T 39 d

R d dd 2 d E d 18 d E T d d

9 d

35 d d d

1 1 7 7 33 d d d 3

dd 1 4

1 d d 3 5 d 25 d d d d d d 9

d 9 d

3 2 d

23 T

d E 1 E 27 d d R T

S 7

Stepney V

A r

1 5

Methodist Church e R

7 g

12 G

8 (East End Mission)

23 L 24 u

29 E S 3 d d d d d d d d d d d d d B Garage 1

5d83 58d3 583 d a b d 583 58 c d3 58d3 TC d 583 Bs e f 5 helter S B oro Con st and W ard Bdy 585 to 11. 1m d 593 d TCBs CR

House Shelter

t ll o

1 alkwe2 500 LB

10. 7m 595

4 1 502 5 PH 2

508 1

d PO d 5

6 2

8 2

d 5

PH 3 5

d 2 3

dd d d 5 4

3 5

6 3 dddd 5 B

6 1 5 t

o 0 2 o 5

t dd

1 d T

1 2 4 1 C 6 4

t 4 5

o . Garage

0 L 5 d 8 4 d 5 2 I

F 8 d d d m

F d

E dd d

d d 9

t 3

o R d d

O 2 d d

d 9

t d d S

B d 8

S 1 O

T U o Works Club Warehouses R d L 9

E d O

E d T

T T

E e El E C

T e Sub A Sta R O

T I ge N ignal Brid 1:1250 S S

A Legend Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area d Land Parcel Address

EAST END MISSION, 583 COMMERCIAL ROAD, LONDON, E1 0HJ

Page 42 Agenda Item 5.4

Committee: Date: Classification: Report Agenda Item Development 29th March 2006 Unrestricted Number: Number: Committee 5.4 Report of: Title: Town Planning Application Director of Development and Renewal Location: Cabot Hall, Cabot Square, London, E14 Case Officer: Scott Hudson Ward: Millwall (February 2002 onwards)

1. SUMMARY

1.1 Registration Details Reference No: PA/05/02114 Date Received: 22/12/2005 Last Amended Date: 22/12/2005 1.2 Application Details

Existing Use: Conference Facility/Retail Mall/Car Park.

Proposal: The change of use of Cabot Hall and Cabot Place West retail mall, as follows: • Gross total floor space of no more than 12,587sq.m. • Change of use of existing 2,541sq.m. D1 space (public hall), and 2,563sq.m. car park to Class A1 (shops). • Additional 939sq.m. of new Class A1 (shops) floor space . • Reconfiguration of 6,544sq.m existing retail to Class A1 (shops) and Class A3/A4/A5 (café, restaurant, bar and take-aways). • Ancillary storage and mall circulation spaces. • Associated minor external works to western elevation.

Applicant: DP9 Planning Consultants Ownership: Cabot Place Ltd. Historic Building: N/A Conservation Area: N/A

2. RECOMMENDATION:

2.1 That the Development Committee grant planning permission subject to: i) the conditions outlined below:

(1) Time limit for commencement (three years). (2) Restriction within approved use classes (Class A3/A4/A5, up to a maximum 3,000sq.m). (3) Refuse and recycling facilities. (4) External Materials and Finishes to match existing. (5) No structures on roof. (6) Disabled Access (Retention). (7) Commercial parking retained for businesses/visitors.

2.2 ii) Reference to the Government Office for London under the Town and Country Planning (Shopping Development) No.2 Direction 1993.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT

3. BACKGROUND

Site and Surrounds

3.1 The subject site is located at the western end of the existing retail mall at Cabot Place West, to the west of Canary Wharf DLR station. The existing uses on site are as follows: • Existing retail space floorspace (6,544 sq.m). • Car Parking (2,563 sq.m). • Conference/Meeting hall(2,541 sq.m).

3.2 Cabot Place forms part of the larger retail and commercial district of Canary Wharf. The site is surrounded by the North and South Colonnade and Cabot Square.

Proposal:

3.3 The application relates to the change of use of the existing Cabot Hall conference and banqueting facility, the existing car park, reconfiguration of existing retail units in the Cabot Place West retail mall and the addition of retail space in the existing void over the function hall. At the first floor, it is proposed that the existing function hall would become a large retail unit and a restaurant unit linked to those proposed at second floor level. At ground level, the existing retail units would be reconfigured to form a number of larger units. The existing car park at concourse level would be changed to form a number of retail units focused around an east west thoroughfare.

3.4 In detail, the application proposes: • Gross total floor space of no more than 12,587sq.m. • Change of use of 2,541sq.m. D1 space (public hall), and 2,563sq.m. car park to Class A1. • Additional 939sq.m. of new Class A1 floor space. • Reconfiguration of 6,544sq.m existing retail mall floor space to Class A1 (retail) and Class A3/A4/A5 (up to a maximum 3,000sq.m). • Ancillary storage and mall circulation spaces. • Associated minor external works to western elevation.

3.5 The application relates to the second, first, ground, concourse and lower car park levels. The existing basement car park and service areas would remain.

3.6 The planning application is accompanied by a Retail Assessment prepared by DP9 and Transport Assessment prepared by Steer Davies Gleave.

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.

4.3 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 up the Local Development Framework (LDF). As the replacement plan documents progress towards

Page 44 adoption, they will gain increasing status as a material consideration 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 accordance with Article 22 of the General Development Procedure 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 balance 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) Central Area Zones (2) Flood Protection Areas

4.7 The following Unitary Development Plan policies are applicable to this application:

DEV1 Design Requirements CAZ1 Location of Central London Core Activities. CAZ3 Requirements for Mixed Use Schemes EMP8 Encouraging Small Business Growth T17 Planning Standards S1 Retail Development in District Centres S2 Change of Use in Core Areas SCF11 Meeting Places

4.8 The following Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Document proposals are applicable to this application:

(1) Major Town Centre (2) Flood Protection (3) Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan

4.9 The following Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Document policies are applicable to this application:

EE10 Commercial Densities RT1 Range of Quality Shopping RT3 Efficient Use of Land RT4 Retail Development and the Sequential Approach RT5 Town Centre Hierarchy RT8 Accessibility SCF1 Social and Community Facilities TR2 Parking TR3 Transport Assessments TR4 Travel Plans

4.10 The following Community Plan objectives are applicable to this application: (1) Living Well (2) Living Safely

4.11 The application is required to be referred to the Government Office for London under the Town and Country Planning (Shopping Development) No.2 Direction 1993. This requires that shopping development that reach a threshold to be referred to the Government to decide on the impacts the proposal would have on the surrounding retail areas.

5. CONSULTATION

5.1 The following were consulted regarding this application:

Page 45

(1) Highways

Canary Wharf is a private estate therefore there are no public highways which are directly affected.

The proposal will have an insignificant effect on the nearest public highways and there is capacity on public transport.

(2) Transport for London - Street Management

No response.

(3) Docklands Light Railway

No response.

5.2 Responses from neighbours were as follows:

No. Responses: 1 In Favour: 0 Against: 1 Petition: 0

5.3 Coffee Republic, the occupier of a retail unit on the first floor, raised an objection due to: • Loss of car parking spaces and increased on street parking. • Impact to existing shop units. • Loss of external seating used by Coffee Republic and the blocking of an internal window.

6. ANALYSIS

6.1 The key issues associated with the application relate to the loss of a public hall (Class D1) at Cabot Hall, the suitability of the additional retail floor space and transport impacts.

Land Use:

6.2 Cabot Hall is currently used as a multi-purpose venue, which comprises rooms of varying sizes and capacity, as follows: • Cabot Hall features a 450sq.m hall capable of occupying 400 persons. • Sebastian (96sq.m) • Cape Breton (32.1sq.m) • Newfoundland (18.9sq.m) • St Lawrence (76.8sq.m).

6.3 Cabot Hall was built in 1990 and was originally designed as retail space. However, as there was limited demand for retail space at the time, its use was changed. The applicant says that Cabot Hall lacks many modern facilities, including no backstage/wings area, there is insufficient reception/foyer space, limited storage, inadequate loading facilities and no translation facilities. Cabot Hall is now competing with more modern facilities in the area and the current hall facilities would require major investment to bring it up to modern specifications.

6.4 A replacement facility was opened in Canary Wharf in October 2003, known as The East Wintergarden, which overlooks Jubilee Park. This facility provides a total area for hire of approximately 682sq.m, with additional floor space at gallery level. As a result, Cabot Hall is now underused, hosting approximately only 12 community and 2 charity events last year. The local community by invitation uses Cabot Hall on occasions by the Canary Wharf Group.

6.5 Policies SCF9 (Community Buildings) and SCF11 (Meeting Places) of the adopted UDP 1998 support the retention of such facilities unless it can be demonstrated that the need no longer exists, the facilities are not fit to serve their purpose and the facility is no longer well related to the catchment area. It is considered with regards to SCF9, that just 14 events over a 12 month period demonstrates that there is not an overwhelming need for the venue

Page 46 and the new East Wintergarden venue could accommodate this demand.

6.6 Policy SCF1 (Social and Community Facilities) of the Core Strategy (LDF) stipulates that to ensure users are not disadvantaged by any reduction in the quality of and access to facilities, any development that displaces existing or increase the need or demand for social facilities will be required to provide or contribute to new or existing provisions to meet identified demands. In addition, Policy SCF9 of the Core Strategy ensures that high quality, local public services, social and community facilities are retained, designed and located to maximise accessibility, and serve the diverse needs of the borough. It is considered that there would be no displacement of such facilities or a reduction given the existence of the East Wintergarden venue and its ability to cope with demand as discussed above.

Retail Use

6.7 The adopted UDP 1998 identifies the site and Canary Wharf as lying within a Central Area Zone. The Local Development Framework identifies it as a Major Centre.

6.8 The adopted UDP Policy S6 generally allows for permission of new retail developments where there is no detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of any district centre. The nearest district centre is the Asda supermarket site further south on the Isle of Dogs. It is considered that the retail expansion of Cabot Place would not adversely impact on the vitality or viability of the existing district centre, as it proposes a number of smaller speciality stores. In addition, the existing Canary Wharf centre appeals to both workers and residents in the area, whereas the Asda site services the local supermarket need for the southern part of the Isle of Dogs. The adopted UDP (1998) policy CAZ3 supports larger developments for business and retail developments in the Central Area Zones.

6.9 In 2004 on behalf of the Council, Drivers Jonas conducted a Borough-wide retail capacity study, which advised that Canary Wharf should be allocated as a ‘major centre’. Policy RT1 (Range of Quality Shopping) of the Core Strategy of the emerging LDF accords with the London Plan’s policy on maintaining and improving retail facilities, highlighting the importance of providing essential convenience and specialist shopping to the local community. It is considered that the expansion of Cabot Place would improve the retail function of Canary Wharf.

6.10 In addition, policy RT4 (Retail Development and the Sequential Approach) of the LDF Core Strategy has identified that further retail developments should be ‘guided to existing centres’, in particular to Canary Wharf.

6.11 Furthermore, policy RT5 (Shopping Centre Hierarchy) of the LDF Core Strategy defines Canary Wharf as a Major Centre. This policy requires that any new proposal in the centre relate to its scale, role and catchment and character of the centre. It is considered the expansion of the retail uses within Cabot Place would form part of the overall function of Canary Wharf and is consistent with the existing character of the centre.

6.12 Policy RT6 (Night Time Economy) of the LDF Core Strategy refers to food and drink premises and says that the Council will focus such activities into defined areas with Canary Wharf being named as a specified location.

6.13 Moreover, policy IOD2 of the Isle of Dogs Action Area Plan supports new retail development at Canary Wharf. The new retail must be consistent with the scale, role and design of a Major Town Centre. As stated above, the expansion of Cabot Place seeks to introduce additional retail units at varying sizes and would secure major retailers in order to increase the appeal of the centre. The agents identify this within the submitted Retail Assessment through the survey work carried out with existing shoppers, and have identified the need for further major retail brands within the town centre.

Accessibility and Transport

6.14 The site is located adjacent to the Canary Wharf DLR station, and the Tube station is within walking distance through the existing retail mall. Furthermore the site is also serviced by a number of bus routes in and out of the Isle of Dogs. Policy S6 (New Retail Development) of the adopted UDP 1998 requires that retail developments be adequately served by public

Page 47 transport and includes safe and convenient facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. The submitted Retail Assessment report concludes that there are a number of transport links, which rival those of all other existing retail destinations within London. The Council’s Highways Department has confirmed the findings of the report.

6.15 The submitted Transport Assessment also concluded that projected demand associated with the proposal would not have a significant impact on the existing transport services. The Council’s Highways Department concur with these findings.

6.16 Moreover, the existing Cabot Place centre features a number of lifts throughout, ramped and step free access via the existing DLR stations, allowing an excellent level of accessibility as required by policy RT8 of the LDF Core Strategy.

External Works

6.17 Part of the proposal incorporates minor exterior works to Cabot Place, which include alterations to the western elevations such as additional opaque glazing and additional shopfront to colonnade. The proposed additions are designed to match the existing exterior. It is considered that these changes would not have an adverse impact on the external appearance of the building.

Objection

6.18 With regard to the objection received, it is not Council policy to encourage car-parking provision in Canary Wharf. Substantial parking (69 spaces) would remain. The area is a controlled parking zone and it is not accepted that the scheme would result in parking difficulties.

6.19 The internal layout within the building is not a planning matter and the use of circulation space by Coffee Republic and the loss of internal window are private matters between the company and Canary Wharf, the owner of the building.

7. SUMMARY

7.1 It is considered that the proposal will contribute to the expansion and vitality of the Canary Wharf shopping precinct and support Canary Wharf as a Major Town Centre without detriment to the existing shopping facilities. The site is well served by public transport and is not considered that there would be undue impact on the existing network. On balance, it is considered the change of use of Cabot Hall is justified given the new facility at the East Wintergarden.

7.2 Therefore it is considered the proposal accords with the policies within the adopted UDP, the LDF Core Strategy and the Isle of Dogs Area Action Plan.

7.3 It is recommended that the Development Committee grant conditional planning permission subject to the recommended conditions as detailed in Section 2 of this report, subject to any direction made by the Government Office for London.

Page 48

Site Map

West India Quay Station

West Indi a Do ck No rth

Foot Bridge

Fisherman

's W alk

6 3

2 4

1 Fisherm d an's

Walk

t o

Fishe

3 rman's W e 4 alk

g 2

t s o

6 a

d e

dd h 1

5 o

t 5 is 4 to Wren b 1 o d La r nding d F d

1 e c

a d d l n TCP s P o 10 i d s t

a t ) m

a S w

o d 1 to l 1 e 3 A c e i l b

( o 25 to 3 5 Canary Wharf P

19 to 2 9 TH E NORTH COLO 19 to 2 9 NNADE d

TH E NORTH CO LO N

10. 9m d NADE

2 3

6 Ca b o t Ca b o t 2 d Canary Wharf Plac e Ha ll St at ion d West d Cad b o t dd Plac e Eas t Cabot Place d d d Eas t d ddd d CA d 1 BOT SQ d

UARE d dd

o t

1 TH BM E S OU d9. 90m TH CO LONNAD

TCP E 8.6 m 2

d 0 d

1 4 o

d 2 Cub it t Steps 1 TH E SOU

TH C

0 3

o OL t

0 O 2 N NADE d dd FB 1 to 15

Macken dd

zie Wa lk 1

t 23 to 28 r u d o

PH r C d o l l h

s e a 16 to 35 c e n g N

a a d 2 h s s d Ma c ken C zie Walk a Po s t s P d42 to 55 t

West India Dock a i

V dddd West Plaza

Dr a w - b ri d ge 5 HERO d N QUAY El Su b S t a E d

0 R

1 A 1:2000

U Can ary W

1 d 4 Lon do n T r a Q

P d O d Legend Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area d Land Parcel Address

Cabot Hall, Cabot Square, London, E14

Page 49 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 50 Agenda Item 5.5

Committee: Date: Classification: Report Agenda Item Development 29th March 2006 Unrestricted Number: Number: Committee DC048/056 5.5 Report of: Title: Town Planning Application Director of Development and Renewal Location: STOUR WHARF, STOUR ROAD, LONDON, E3 Case Officer: Stephen Irvine 2MT

Ward: Bow East

1. SUMMARY

1.1 Registration Details Reference No: PA/04/00937 Date Received: 22/06/2004 Last Amended Date: N/A 1.2 Application Details Existing Use: Vehicle repair workshop Proposal: Demolition of existing vehicle repair buildings and redevelopment by the erection of three buildings (Blocks A, B & C), part 5 and part 6 storeys high to form 64 live-work units and 1126sqm of B1 (Business) accommodation plus 32 parking spaces. Applicant: Edgewater (Stratford) Ltd c/o Stock Woolstencroft Architects Ownership: Helen Humphreys Historic Building: N/A Conservation Area: N/A

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The applicant lodged an appeal on the 8th December 2004, against the non-determination of the planning application at Stour Road, Stour Wharf (PA/04/9337).

2.2 On 30th November 2005, the members of the Development Committee were asked to consider an officer recommendation recommending the refusal of this application on the following grounds:

1) The proposed development represents a loss of employment generating uses in the industrial employment location. As such the proposal is contrary to:

(a) Policy EMP1, EMP2, and EMP13 of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets UDP (1998), which seeks to ensure that an adequate supply of land is safeguarded to enhance employment opportunities within the Borough;

(b) Policy EMP7 of the First Draft Deposit UDP, which seeks to ensure that composites of business and residential space in the same self-contained unit are resisted;

(c) Policy EE2 of the Draft LDF: Preferred Options: Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan, which seeks to ensure that any development that includes a change of use from B1 and B2 is strongly resisted and any development that is proposed in the vicinity of a Strategic Employment Location that may give rise to pressure to curtail the industrial use is resisted; and

(d) Policy 2A.7 of the London Plan, which requires Boroughs to identify Strategic Employment Locations in UDP’s; and the Draft Sub Regional Development Framework – East London, which seeks to protect East London’s strategic reservoir of land for industrial type activities. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT

2) The proposed non-industrial use would detrimentally affect the continued ability to use this area for industrial uses. The non-industrial may give rise to pressure to curtail the industrial use. As such, the proposal is contrary to:

(a) Policy EMP5 and EMP13 of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets UDP (1998), which seeks to ensure that incompatible development in the vicinity of existing industrial use is not normally permitted;

(b) Policy EMP7 of the First Draft Deposit UDP which states that composites of business and residential space in same self contained unit will be resisted;

(c) Policy EE2 and EE5 of the Draft Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan (CSDCD) which seeks to safeguard the retention, expansion and growth of employment provided by general industrial uses, resist the change of use from B1 and B2 uses, and resist development that may give rise to pressure to curtail the industrial uses.

3) The premises would provide sub-standard accommodation due to:

(a) evidence that suggests that live/work units are being used purely as residential units;

(b) the lack of appropriate transport and social (education, health, shopping and open space facilities) infrastructure in the locality expected in an environment where people live; and

(c) the amenity problems associated with adjoining industrial uses, such as noise, vibration, dust, odour, fumes, heavy vehicle traffic, safety and security, and hours of operation.

As such, the non-industrial use is incompatible with the industrial employment location and is therefore contrary to:

(a) the policies referred to in 2) above;

(b) Policy DEV2 of the UDP (1998), which seeks to ensure that amenity of occupies is protected; and

(c) Policy ENV1 of the First Draft Deposit UDP, which seeks to ensure that the development that causes demonstrable harm to the amenity of occupiers or neighbours is not permitted.

4) The proposal is contrary to Olympic Precinct OLY1 under the proposals for the new Olympic stadium. Stour Road will be extended across the canal via bridge “R11” to provide access for emergency services to the Olympic precinct during the construction phase. The bridge will also provide vehicle, pedestrian and cycle access across the Hackney Cut to serve the post Olympic legacy development. Therefore the proposed bridge fundamentally conflicts with the development as proposed. As such the proposed development is considered to be premature and in direct conflict with the planning permission issued for OLY1.

2.3 The members supported the officers ‘minded to refuse’ recommendation.

2.4 The appeal was heard at a public inquiry on the 10th and 11th January 2006 (Appeal Ref: APP/E5900/A/04/1169874).

2.5 The Inspector dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 14th February 2006, thereby supporting

Page 52 the Council’s position. A full copy of the Inspectors decision is attached as Appendix 1.

2.6 In summary, the Inspectorate considered:

Re: The availability of employment generating uses in the area

“ …. The proposed live / work units and unrestricted B1 use would conflict with the London Plan”. (Paragraph 12)

“ The proposed increase in employment generation would not alone outweigh my concerns regarding the loss of industrial land, the tensions between the uses proposed and the development plan and the ability of the Council to manage the area as a SEL.

I saw that the area designated within the LDF documents to be safeguarded as a SEL …… is far less than that indicated in the UDP. This would accord with the acknowledgement in both the London Plan and DELSRDF that the amount of land required for industry is projected to decrease. However, that in it self would not lessen the importance of those reduced areas. To the contrary, it would reaffirm the need to safeguard such areas for appropriate uses”. (Paragraphs 15 and 16)

“ ….. whilst I recognise that other schemes have been permitted, the potential resource of the area to be safeguarded for industrial purposes has also been depleted as a result. For the reasons set out above, I have taken the view that the proposal would not be compliant with the development plan”. (Paragraph 18)

“To conclude on this issue, I …. consider that the proposed development would unacceptably prejudice the availability of industrial employment land”. (Paragraph 19)

2.7 Re: The continued ability to use the area for industrial purposes

“ …… The existing and emerging policy context against which I am considering this appeal is clearly seeking to safeguard industrial land for specific purposes. There would in my view clearly be tension between both existing and future industrial uses in the area and the living conditions that future occupiers of the proposed live / work units would reasonably expect to enjoy. Noise and disturbance, odours and issues of visual amenity would all result in potential complaints from occupiers of the nearby live / work units. This would, in my judgement, unacceptably hinder and curtail industrial uses resulting in sites becoming inappropriate for their safeguarded purpose”. (Paragraph 20)

2.8 Re: The living conditions of future occupiers of the proposed live / work units

“ …… In my opinion, the living conditions of future occupiers would be seriously prejudiced by the operation of general industrial uses in such close proximity ……… (At this site) there is potential for neighbouring industrial uses immediately adjacent to the site to both the north and south and on the opposite side of Stour Road. This would, in my view, be wholly unacceptable and represent a poor quality environment in which to live, such that the living conditions of future occupiers would be unacceptably harmed”. (Paragraph 21)

2.9 Re: Proposals related to the 2012 Olympics

“ … my decision would not turn on consideration of this aspect of the appeal, even if I were to accept the Appellants arguments on this issue. As such it is not necessary for me to consider this matter further”. (Paragraph 22)

3. RECOMMENDATION

Page 53

That the Development Committee notes the appeal decision.

Page 54 Site Map

O H

A a

D c

Ch y k d

8 Bol

n 0

4 d

5 C

11 Bol

u t d Bol

d5 10 d

AD Warehouse Bol O R KE Y d W d Bollar d

h d d t a

ta g 1 S 9 n u b i l S w

r o E oi

t T at BM 6.86m b A d

d Bollar d d Warehouse d

81 Bollar d 0 2 to 79

D A D d O A

R O 9 Bollar d R 0 R E Y Bollar d NI H O AC M E d Abattoird B

Stour W harf Bollar d

d Warehouse 9

d 2 Bollar d 3 d LB 6.1m d6 d A D Bollar d O R d R S d U M TO Sta E S E d D 4 R d O

A D d d d Bollar d Works d 28 d B R

d1 E

A 1 M

d Warehouse S T

E Bollar d

T Old F ord Lock Houses d Works d Ol d F ord d Loc ks Bol Works d d d 47 to 51 Bol 2 d Bol Bol B R Bol St op Lig ht

E Works A d Bols Works M d h S Works t T

s P

S o g M E s B

T l n

i E 47 d Ol d F ord o w BM 6.54m E B

o D Loc ks

T Dep ot R 43 O d A Bol D FB Bol FB Bol St op 5.9m

Ligh ts

5 Works 6 Warehouse Bols

n 1:1750

o i

t 1 t 4 a Foot Bridge d D u A g d i C RO Legend Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area d Land Parcel Address

STOUR WHARF, STOUR ROAD, LONDON, E3 2MT

Page 55 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Agenda Item 5.6

Committee: Date: Classification: Report Agenda Item Development 29th March, 2006. Unrestricted Number: Number: Committee 5.6 Report of: Title: Town Planning Application and Listed Building Director of Development and Renewal Consent

Case Officer: Scott Hudson Location: 99 LEMAN STREET, LONDON, E1 8EY

Ward: Whitechapel

1. SUMMARY

1.1 Registration Details Reference No: PA/05/01396 & PA/05/01397

Date Received: 15/08/2005 Last Amended Date: 19/08/2005 1.2 Application Details

Existing Use: Proposal: Change of use from office to 40 residential units and 860 sq.m. of A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D2 in the basement together with external alterations (Amendments to Phase 1 of the Goodmans Fields Masterplan).

Applicant: DTZ Pieta Consulting

Ownership: Berkley Homes Ltd.

Historic Building: Grade II

Conservation Area: N/A

2. RECOMMENDATION:

2.1 That the Development Committee grant Full Planning Permission (PA/05/1396) subject to the conditions outlined below:

Conditions: 1 Time limit for commencement (five years) 2 Construction hours (8am-6pm Mon to Fri, 8am-1pm Sat, no Sundays or Public Holidays). 3 Sound insulation between flats and commercial units. 4 Details of any extract duct fumes for basement units. 5 Refuse and recycle facilities. 6 Archaeological investigation.

S106 Legal Agreement: 1 A variation to the legal agreement associated with Phase 1 (PA/04/01916) to substituting reference to PA/05/01396 with the same obligations:

• 25% (62 units/5,184sq.m.) for the provision of affordable housing. • Car-free agreement. • Introduction of car share club to assist in reducing car usage and ownership.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT

2.2 That the Development Committee grant Listed Building Consent (PA/05/1397) subject to the conditions outlined below:

Conditions: 1 Time limit for commencement (5 years). 2 The submission and approval of the following details: • The restoration of the 5th floor decorative ceiling. • Window replacement schedule. • Schedule of works of proposed joinery including doors/windows/architraves and skirting. • All existing joinery to be retained. • Details of works relating to structural stabilisation and refurbishment of original staircases. • Paint specifications for new paint coatings

3 All new work to match the existing. 4 All rainwater services to be cast iron to match existing. 5 Demolition of original staircases should not commence until a detailed photographic survey is undertaken. 6 Retention, restoration and exposure of glazed brick facing located within the basement. 7 Re-commissioning of the clock mechanism, repair of clock faces, cleaning out the tower and making good any original timber fabric. 8. No external cleaning of building, other than gentle surface clean using a nebulous water spray, without the prior approval of details.

Page 68

3. BACKGROUND

Site and Surrounds

3.1 The application site is a vacant Grade II Listed 19th Century building, formerly the London branch of the Co-operative Wholesale Society and last occupied by the Royal Bank of Scotland. It is located at the south-east corner of Leman Street with Hooper Street in the City Fringe. The building occupies a prominent corner location and features seven storeys although its high ceilings add significantly to its overall height. The stature of the building is enhanced by the addition of a clock tower at the juncture of its Leman Street and Hooper Street elevations. The existing building has a grandeur that emphasises its prominence within the existing streetscape.

3.2 The site forms part of the Goodmans Fields masterplan site, a 3.75 hectare, roughly rectangular site owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland (parts currently being sold to Berkley Homes), bounded by Leman Street to the west, Hooper Street to the south, Gower’s Walk to the east and Alie Street to the north. Modern and unsympathetic office buildings occupy the majority of the Goodmans Fields site.

History

3.3 The Council’s Development Committee granted outline planning permission (PA/02/0678) on the 14 January 2004, which established a masterplan for Goodmans Fields identifying areas for particular land uses. The permission approved the siting and means of access in association with the redevelopment of the whole site. The outline scheme approved use for residential, financial and professional uses (A2), restaurant/public house (A3), retail (A1), offices (B1), live/work and ancillary services. A S106 legal agreement secured the following:

• Affordable housing provision (25% of dwellings across the whole site). • Provision of 9% key worker housing (for the whole site). • Highway improvements. • Car-free agreement. • TfL requirements – improved signage to stations and cycle routes, open space improvements and Aldgate East/City Fringe Study. • Provision of primary health care (local doctor’s surgery). • Employment opportunities for the Borough. • Public access to main square. • Adequate television reception. • Introduction of a car-share club. • Green Transport Strategy.

3.4 Permission for the conversion of the listed 99 Leman Street (PA/03/0585) was the first trio of approved schemes following the outline permission. The permissions are all linked through the s106 affordable housing provisions. This permission allowed for the conversion of the existing building into 43 flats and was approved by the Development Committee on the 8 October 2003. A signed S106 agreement (28 October 2004) secured the following:

• 25% Affordable housing provision to be provided within the adjacent Gowers Walk/Hooper Street consent (PA/03/1305). • Car free agreement.

3.5 On the 11 February 2004 following approval by the Development Committee full planning permission (PA/03/01305) was granted for the site adjacent to 99 Leman Street. This permission (known as “Gowers Court”) approved the erection of 212 flats. This application is known as Phase 1 of the Goodmans Fields Masterplan. A s106 legal agreement was signed which secured the following:

• Affordable housing provision of 25%. • Car free agreement.

Page 69 • Introduction of a car-share club. • Highway works.

3.6 The Development Committee determined a subsequent application (PA/04/01916) for revisions to the Phase 1 scheme for Goodmans Fields. This proposed the erection of 266 flats within 5 buildings and supersedes permission (PA/03/1305). A s106 legal agreement (yet to be signed) would secure the following:

• 25% (62 units/5,184sq.m.) for the provision of affordable housing. • Car-free agreement. • Introduction of car share club to assist in reducing car usage and ownership.

Proposal

3.5 The current application seeks to amend the previous planning permission (PA/03/0585). It proposes the conversion of 99 Leman Street to provide 40 residential units with associated works and the change of use of the basement area to form A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D2 use.

3.6 The alterations to the previous permission for the site are as follows: • Basement: Change of use to A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1 (previously gym/plant rooms). Separate entrance off Hooper Street to basement units. Refuse and recycling areas.

• Ground Floor: New entrance from Hooper Street. Additional flat. Main entrance steps and stairs retained. Existing wall to side passage retained.

• First to Fourth Floors: One less flat on each floor. Secondary stair retained. Reduction in balconies facing the courtyard. Smaller openings in existing fabric (walls) for new lift.

• Fifth Floor: Additional flat in south wing. Additional original window openings re-instated.

• Sixth Floor: Reduction of one flat.

• Roof: Plant area omitted.

• Street Elevations: Reinstatement of entrance to Hooper Street. Retention of main entrance steps.

• Courtyard Elevations: Additional original window openings reinstated. Reduction in external balconies. Lift enclosure clad in timber (previously glazed).

3.7 A parallel application for listed building consent (PA/05/01397) is being made for the internal and external works.

4. PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Comments of Chief Legal Officer

Page 70

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 up the Local Development Framework (LDF). As the replacement plan documents progress towards adoption, it will gain increasing status as a material consideration 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 accordance with Article 22 of the General Development Procedure 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 balance 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) Central Area Zones

4.7 The following Unitary Development Plan policies are applicable to this application:

DEV 1 Design Requirements DEV2 Environmental Requirements DEV3 Mixed Use Developments DEV4 Planning Obligations DEV36: Demolition and Listed Buildings DEV37: Development Affecting Listed Buildings DEV40: Changes of Use and Listed Buildings DEV45: Proposals in Areas of Archaeological Interest DEV55: Development and Waste Disposal EMP2: Retaining Existing Employment Uses EMP3: Surplus Office Floorspace HSG2: Location of New Housing HSG3 Affordable Housing HSG7 Dwelling Mix and Type HSG9 Density in Family Housing HSG13 Standard of Dwellings HSG16 Housing Amenity Space T17 Planning Standards (Parking)

4.8 The following Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Document Proposals are applicable to this application:

(1) City Fringe Area Action Plan (AAP) (2) Development Site - CF12 “Goodmans Fields”.

4.9 The following Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Document Policies are applicable to this application:

Page 71 EE5 Mixed Use Development EE7 Redevelopment/Change of Use of Employment Sites HSG1 Housing Density HSG2 Lifetime Homes HSG3 Affordable Housing HSG6 Housing Mix HSG13 Housing Amenity Space HSG14 Eco-Homes TR1 High Density Development in Areas of Good Public Transport UD1 Scale and Density UD4 Accessibility and Linkages UD5 High Quality Design C1 Historic Sites/Conservation Areas SEN1 Disturbance from Noise Pollution SEN3 Energy Efficiency SEN9 Waste Disposal and Recycling IM1 Securing Benefits.

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) Environmental Health

No objections subject to standard conditions relating to noise transmission between commercial and residential units.

(2) Highways

No objection, subject to a “car-free” agreement and the funding of remedial works to the public highway.

(3) English Heritage

Satisfied that the application for listed building consent may be determined by the local planning authority.

5.2 Responses from neighbours were as follows:

No. Responses: 0 In Favour: 0 Against: 0 Petition: 0

6. ANALYSIS

Land Use:

6.1 The main difference between the current application and the previous is the proposed use basement level. The previous permission allowed gymnasium and plant rooms within the basement, whereas the current proposal is for either A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D2. The proposed commercial uses would accord with the Adopted UDP policy DEV3 Mixed Use Developments as the proposal is consistent with the mixed-use character of Leman Street. Furthermore, the Committee previously determined that the overall change of use of the building complied with policies EMP2 and EMP3 of the Adopted UDP.

Page 72 6.2 The proposed commercial uses also accord with the LDF Core Strategy EE5 Mixed Use Developments and CFR1 Office Development of the City Fringe Area Action Plan. The site has been identified within the APP as a mixed-use site. In addition, the proposal also accords with Policy CFR2 Small and Medium Size Business, through the creation of the commercial spaces within the basement. Furthermore, policy CFR4 Evening Economy seeks to promote ground floor business and ‘active’ uses, including A1/A2/A3 and A4 along principle street frontages as proposed.

6.3 The proposed residential units also accord with the policy CFR7 New Housing in the City Fringe AAP. The site has been specifically identified as suitable for high density housing.

Conservation and Design

6.4 The current applications seek to re-use the building, whilst restoring and retaining the original features.

6.5 The previous listed building consent imposed conditions requiring the reinstatement and repair of the decorative ceiling at the 5th floor, which would be retained as a single space as part of this planning application. A large part of the decorative ceiling remains intact to allow for the reproduction of the missing elements. It is recommended that a condition requiring the approval of details of the retention of the decorative ceiling be placed on any listed building consent.

6.6 Also, there are a number of features of the original fabric remaining despite previous internal alterations. These include fixtures, fittings, skirtings, joinery, internal walls, clock mechanisms, clock tower access and glazed brick facings. It is recommended that these original features are retained through the use of conditions.

6.7 The proposed conversion of the listed building provides the Council with a rare opportunity to require the re-commissioning of the distinctive clock mechanism as a working timepiece. As a result, the clock would make a significant contribution to the restoration of the historic character and amenity of this East London/City Fringe area. The retention of this historic fabric of architectural interest is supported by PPG15 and Policy C1 of the LDF Core Strategy and DEV36 of the adopted UDP.

Housing

6.8 The previous planning permission (PA/03/0585) established that the site is suitable for the provision of housing and accords with policy HSG2 of the adopted UDP.

6.9 Policy HSG3 of the adopted UDP states that Council will seek a reasonable provision of affordable housing on large housing developments with a capacity for 15 dwellings or more, consistent with the merits of each case and with the strategic target of 25% affordable housing outlined in policy ST21. The Core Strategy seeks an affordable housing target of 50%, with a minimum requirement of 35% affordable housing in accordance with the policies HSG3 and HSG4.

6.10 Whilst this application has no provision for affordable homes, this matter has been secured through the outline application (PA/02/0678) where 34% of all homes across the entire Goodmans Fields development will be allocated for affordable/key worker provision. In the event that the outline or adjoining Phase 1 permission (PA/04/01916) do not go ahead within 5 years (therefore not delivering the affordable housing requirement), it is recommended that a Section 106 Planning Agreement requiring affordable housing provision be provided in accordance with the current Council policy for this proposal. This is consistent with the previous approval on site and adjacent Phase 1 approval.

6.11 UDP Policy HSG7 states that new housing developments should be expected to provide a mix of unit sizes where appropriate, including a substantial proportion of family dwellings between 3 and 6 bedrooms. Exceptions to the policy apply on main road frontages or at other locations where physical conditions are unsuitable for family dwellings; or where accommodation is to be provided for special needs groups as defined in HSG14.

6.12 The previous permitted dwelling mix for 99 Leman Street was as follows:

Page 73 • 34 x one bedroom. • 9 x two bedroom.

The current mixed proposed is: • 25 x one bedroom. • 14 x two bedroom. • 1 x four bedroom.

The dwelling mix overall across the Goodmans Fields Phase 1 (including Leman Street) development would be: • 4 x studio. • 158 x one bedroom. • 135 x two bedroom. • 26 x three bedroom. • 1 x four bedroom.

6.13 Given the previous permissions issued for Goodman Fields Phase 1, the revised mixed for 99 Leman Street is considered appropriate in this instance as it is similar to the approved mix and also features an increase in two and four bedroom flats.

Archaeology

6.14 The site is located within a Zone of Archaeological Importance or Potential. As this proposal relates to the conversion only of an existing building, only substantial ground works are the new entrance ramp to the basement car park. A relevant condition is recommended as requested by English Heritage.

Design and Finishes

6.15 UDP Policy DEV1 notes that all development proposals should “take into account and be sensitive to the character of the surrounding area in terms of design, bulk, scale and the use of materials”. The proposal seeks to work within the existing fabric of the building, with minor exterior alternations. It is considered that the scheme is appropriate in relation to the existing fabric and character of Leman Street.

Transport

6.16 In accordance with the previous permission issued for the site and those for the associated Phase 1 permission, it is recommended that a “car free” agreement secured through a s106 in accordance with Council policy is required.

7. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 The access requirements of people with mobility problems are to be fully taken into account in the provision of the various elements of the development proposed.

8. SUMMARY

8.1 The introduction of residential units within the existing Grade II listed building has previously been approved by the Council. No objection is seen to the introduction of the commercial units into the basement. The restoration of the building would contribute to the formation of a sustainable and high density mixed use development that will enhance the vitality of the surrounding area.

8.2 It is recommended that the Development Committee grant planning permission subject to the recommended conditions and a S106 legal agreement as detailed in Section 2 of this report, together with the parallel application for listed building consent.

Page 74

Site Map

m o

u ge s a e ss

Pa 8

an d 6 m

d d Le 0

P 7 13 . 1 m Hd

5 3 t o

S P 7 d o 3 d ta l t ci i o e L

n 4 E 7 M A N dd

d S d T d R E E d T

d 7 d 5

d E A S T d T E N T

E 13 . 4 m d 6

0 R

0 t

o S 0

0 T

R 3

t o

E 1

E 3 1

t T 7 o 4

d 9

T 2

E t

E o

R 5

ST 0

6 R 2

d d E t o

P 4

d HOO 2

2 4

o t 4

9 2

9 o

R 4

NTE d 0 d E 2 d H T 1 d OUT REET d S ST d d 12 . 9 m d d Minet House d d

PER

0 OO El Sub Sta 2 0 H

ET 1 3

1 RE Hooper

Minet House 13 . 0 m ST 1 1 1 Square

4 2 d 1 1 d d 7 d d dd 7 5 T LB 1

EE 1 TR d 1 T S d9

CO 6 8 ES 5 d PR d d

d 2 d 9

d 1

TC B d 1 13 . 4 m 7

d 10 d 1

d4 BOWMAN 2

d WS d

9 E 3 M 1 d

1 ddddd 3

1 3 o t 2

4 dddd 1 d dddd L d d o 16 to 36 dd E 11 t 5 M o 38 d 37 t 1 d A N dd 23 S WS T NANT ME R CO d E d Bank E T PH

d d M I L

T 12 . 6 m 1 Y

EE 0 4 A R 2 1

d ST 1 d R R 1 4 d BE D 3 HAM 1 C 4

d 5 d

t o

1 uc 3 Viad

Bdy C 1 4 d d SL Ward Garage

d 11 . 5 m

11 . 8 m LB 1

2 .58m 2 BM 12

ourt d 1:1500 6 6 d 1

ET nea C PH dd

ui 2

TR G d1 d Sapphire 5 S 6 o

T d t MIN d

L dddd 5 OYA d d Legend Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area d Land Parcel Address

99 LEMAN STREET, LONDON, E1 8EY

Page 75 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 76 Agenda Item 5.7

Committee: Date: Classification: Report Agenda Item Development 29th March 2006 Unrestricted Number: Number: Committee DC050/056 5.7 Report of: Title: Town planning application Director of Development and Renewal Location: One o'clock club, St. Bartholomew's Case Officer: Ms K Phillipson Gardens, Buckhurst Street E2

Ward: Bethnal Green South

1. SUMMARY

1.1 Registration Details Reference No: PA/05/715 Date Received: 2/06/2005 Last Amended Date: 7/12/2005 Drawing Numbers for 036.15D, 16E and 17, site location plan, Decision archaeological study dated Nov 2005.

1.2 Application Details

Existing Use: 'Under 5s ' children's play club in park Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a multi- purpose community building to provide replacement children's play facilities plus adult education, community health, drop-in information and similar services for families with young children. Applicant: LBTH Cultural Services Ownership: Applicant Historic Building: n/a Conservation Area: n/a

2. RECOMMENDATION:

2.1 That the Local Planning Authority grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined below: 1. Standard time limit 2. Details reserved - materials, landscaping, tree planting, walls, gates, lighting etc. 3. Standard hours of construction 4. Contamination investigation 5. Provide and retain bins and bicycle stores 6. No trees to be lopped, topped or felled without consent 7. No music audible outside the building 8. Maintenance of landscaping 9. Hours of use 8am - 6pm Mon/Fri, 9am-5pm Sat/Sun 10. No outward opening doors 11. Provision and retention of the children's play element of the development

3. BACKGROUND

Site

3.1 St Bartholomew's Gardens is bounded on the west and east by Coventry Road and Buckhurst Street and to the north and south by footpaths linking the two roads. The surrounding area is almost entirely residential. The park was created from two pieces of land a disused burial ground, still owned by the Church, and GLC housing land (now LBTH).

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 (Section 97) LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN THE DRAFTING OF THIS REPORT

3.2 The application site fronts Buckhurst Street and covers about half of the LBTH owned land. It comprises two single storey buildings a run-down service yard and a children's playground.

History

3.3 There is no record of planning permission for the original brick 'sheds' and it is likely they originated as a park maintenance depot. The smaller building (45m²) is vacant and boarded up and was apparently used as a youth club until a few years ago. The larger building (115m²) has housed the 1 o'clock club since at least the 1970s when an extension was permitted. This building opens onto the children's playground which is surrounded by railings and is only accessible from the club.

3.4 1 o'clock clubs are found in several LBTH parks, they are run by the Council and the use is very low key, designed for accompanied under 5s. St Bartholomew's 1 o'clock club was, until recently, open only in the afternoons. It is now open 9.30am to 4pm with a morning session run by 'Sure Start' who have also introduced classes such as language, healthy living and child-minding.

Proposal

3.5 The existing buildings are to be demolished. The proposed building (330m² and up to 4.5m high) is designed to provide new facilities for the 1 o'clock club but also more general services for families. A common reception foyer gives separate access to a self-contained suite for playgroups (large room opening to veranda and playground, ancillary stores, kitchen, WC) and to a multi-purpose hall, therapy room, 3 offices, a drop-in area with computer access and additional kitchen and toilets.

3.6 The new accommodation is intended to provide on site activities but also an office base for outreach workers. A list of services currently proposed includes; children and family health sessions; family support services; parent outreach; child minder network; community meetings, family fun days; adult education such as speech and language and parent and carer training. All activities are aimed at families with pre-school children.

4. PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Comments of Chief Legal Officer

4.1 The relevant and emerging policy framework within which the Committee is required to consider planning applications includes the adopted London Plan 2004, The Council's Unitary Development Plan 1998 (UDP), draft Local Development Framework 2005 (LDF) and Community Plan.

4.5 No Unitary Development Plan proposals are applicable to this application:

Page 78 4.6 The following Unitary Development Plan policies are applicable to this application:

ST46 Encourage education and training located in accessible areas ST47 Encourage training for local residents ST48 Maximise benefits to residents offered by education facilities EDU3 Extensions to schools/nurseries supported subject to residential amenity EDU4 Dual use of education facilities ST49 Encourage range of social/community facilities in suitable locations SCF8 Maximise use of Council's community buildings Dev 1 Design, access, safety, landscape Dev 2 Residential amenity Dev 43-45 Archaeology Dev 51 Contaminated land Hsg15 Residential amenity, use of conditions ST28 Restrict unnecessary use of private cars T15 Consider traffic generation OS7 No loss of open space except if ancillary/complementary to outdoor space OS9 Encourage range of play facilities

4.7 The following draft Preferred Options: Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan proposals are applicable to this application:

Area of nature conservation importance - the park not including the application site.

4.8 The following draft Preferred Options: Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan policies are applicable to this application:

CS9/SCF1 Retain and provide social and community facilities in accessible locations for local residents CCS10 Promote healthy lifestyles CS11 Address skill requirements of Borough residents CS15/UD1 Good design CS18/C2 Archaeology CS22 Protect, increase and improve open spaces UD4 Accessibility SCF2 Multiple use of social/community buildings SEN1 Noise SEN5 Construction noise SEN10 Contamination OSN1 Protect nature conservation areas OSN2 Proposed development on open space to be ancillary and not have adverse impact on 'openness' of the space, protect existing play facilities OSN3 Retain or replace trees in developments TR5 Encourage walking and cycling

4.9 The following Community Plan objectives are applicable to this application:

A better place for living well A better place for learning achievement and leisure

5. CONSULTATION

5.1 Other departments and external bodies:

1. Environmental Health - standard comments re hours of construction; air quality officer recommends there is no on site parking; contamination investigation and remediation conditions required.

2. Head of Highways Development - car parking is not necessary as the proposal is to serve local people and has good public transport links.

3. Landscape - provide tree identification and condition survey for information.

Page 79

4. Access Officer - various issues regarding detail of internal layout; not significantly improved by the revisions.

5. 'Under 8's Officer - no response

6. Crime Prevention Officer - safety and security concerns re 'dead' spaces outside front entrance/lack of defensible space on street frontage (taken into account in revisions) 3m high fences and security lighting recommended. Advises that there is a big problem with drug use in the park.

7. English Heritage Archaeology - conditions initially recommended requiring desk top study followed by investigation if necessary; following submission of an investigative study by the applicant it is confirmed that no further conditions are required.

5.2 Neighbours:

Housing blocks all around the park were consulted. Site notice 8/7/05. Responses to the general consultation were as follows:

First consultation No. Responses: 5 In Favour: 0 Against: 4 Petition: 1

Second consultation No. Responses: 3 In favour: 0 Against: 3 Petition: 0

5.3 In response to the initial consultation 4 individual letters of objection were received and a petition of 48 names (39 addresses) all from Sovereign House - a block in Buckhurst Street, opposite the front of the proposed building. The concerns raised are: • Loss of open space and trees • Potential noise and nuisance from users of the building and related traffic, particularly if the building is used in the evening as it was for a previous youth club (refs to drug and associated anti-social behaviour problems in the park) • Lack of need for facilities other than children's play, as evening classes, homework clubs, healthcare etc are all available nearby, eg at Idea Store Whitechapel. • Disturbance to consecrated ground.

5.4 Further consultation was carried out following revisions to the scheme and 3 letters from Sovereign House were received, re-iterating previous concerns.

6. ANALYSIS

6.1 The main issues in this case are the principle of expansion of activities beyond those ancillary to the park and the matters highlighted by the consultation.

Use

6.2 The 1 o'clock clubs are ancillary/complementary to open space, allowing safe and structured use of parks and playgrounds. The additional facilities now proposed are not dependent on a park location but have evolved from the parent and child concept behind the club and wish to use the opportunity offered by this site. Policy considerations such as maximising the use of buildings, using education facilities to benefit local residents, improving health care, encouraging a range of community facilities and locating facilities where pedestrian and public transport are good are met by this scheme.

6.3 In principle the proposed building is a welcome addition to local services. It is recognised that the existing building is used for community purposes and as such the principle of an intensified use is acceptable. It is however considered important that the children's play element of the proposal is provided and retained, as this represents the main link with the park. A condition is recommended.

Loss of green space

Page 80

6.4 The proposed building is considerably larger than those currently on the site, and appears larger because of an oversailing roof. Most of the extra floorspace is built over the old service yard, but the new building also comes nearer the street frontage, necessitating the removal of 4 trees currently bounding the park. A landscaped strip is proposed to soften the frontage, but is too narrow for trees, so 3 new trees are shown on the nearby grassed area. The outdoor play area remains unchanged. The omission of the car park which was initially proposed allows the retention of the grassed area fronting the street by the park entrance south of the building.

Duplication of facilities

6.5 Facilities do exist elsewhere in the neighbourhood for activities similar to those proposed. The stated aim of this project is to reach local people, particularly women from ethnic minorities, who prefer not to use buildings open to the wider public and may find it more convenient and comfortable to access services provided in a building where their children are attending play sessions.

Burial Ground

6.6 The archaeological study suggests that the proposed building is outside the boundary of the old churchyard and further archaeological investigation will not be necessary.

Residential amenity

Traffic 6.7 The existing service yard will be built over and the vehicle access removed. The originally proposed on-site car park has been omitted. Surrounding streets are in a controlled parking zone during the hours the facility is expected to be open, so additional traffic will be minimised. Evening use of the proposal is not intended to be significant and there is no intention to let it out for private parties.

6.8 The proposed facility is intended to serve a local catchment area with most users expected to arrive on foot. The site is well served by public transport (as required by UDP policies ST46 and 49 and LDF policies SCF1 and TR7) and no parking provision other than bicycle racks is to be included. This should discourage the use of private cars and avoid nuisance to neighbours.

Use of the building 6.9 The intensification of use will undoubtedly lead to an increase in pedestrian activity, and some associated noise, but it is considered that this would not represent a significant reduction in residential amenity, given that the facility will be operating within normal working hours. As pointed out by the police, there is a problem of anti social behaviour in the area. This proposal may help to reduce the problem, by providing longer hours of activity and surveillance, rather than exacerbating it.

6.10 Proposed hours of use are 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 5pm weekends. The applicant has suggested that evening meetings and training sessions may be proposed but has not been able to be specific about times or frequencies. Given past problems, the concerns of residents and the untested nature of the proposed use it is recommended that the hours of use be limited to those mentioned above. Extensions could be sought once the use has established itself. A condition to prevent loud music is also recommended.

Relationship between buildings 6.11 The proposed building would not result in any loss of privacy or loss of light or represent an increased sense of enclosure to any of the surrounding residential properties.

6.12 The proposal would provide a comprehensive local facility to address the needs of local families and impacts on local amenity would be minor. The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of UDP policy DEV2 and LDF policy SEN1 in that would not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to the neighbours.

Design

Page 81

6.13 The proposed building has an irregular outline but is brought together under a pair of wide monopitch roofs, which extend well beyond the footprint to cover parts of the patio. The rear section, which contains the main halls, rises higher than the front giving the impression of a small second storey. This is actually a clerestorey strip of windows and ventilation serving the high ceilinged space below. Suggested external appearance and materials are simple and contemporary (a frame clad with panels of re-constituted stone, powder coated metal windows and a metal roof) and details of materials and landscaping should be reserved.

6.14 The proposed building is considered to be of acceptable scale, bulk, height and design consistent with UDP policies DEV 1 and DEV2 (4) and LDF policies UD1 and UD4. It would address the street more meaningfully and be more attractive than the existing utilitarian accommodation.

7. SUMMARY

7.1 The proposal is in line with policy guidance providing facilities for local people in a convenient location. Impact on residential amenity will be minimal and the small loss of open space is considered acceptable subject to provision of new trees and landscaping as part of the development. Subject to the conditions outlined above planning permission is recommended.

Page 82 Site Map

BM 12.75m 26 a to 2 8 a El C Sub O St a

S Br E

N 59a

T 59

R 61 d63

Y d 1 CUD d dd R WORTH STREET to O d A 24

D 1

2 9 d d ET ry Frederick RE 1 d Surge T D H S d 1 1 to RT o d 4 O o W t Charrington D d3 U 5 C n 3

e House D 71 to 104 to 71 2 g

1 0 11 8 1 Bartholomew d A 3 6 a

4 4

Square l O d 9 4

1 H d

o R

o 1

u H

35 d

d d T d T 6 s

1 E

e A E d Playg d E R d T

o8 1 to d H

S d

27 to 53 E T 115

S G 1 to 1 6 R d

d D 1 to 25 d U I d H R d Steeple Court K

d B C

1 72

U M 9 2 6 BARNSLEY STREET 0 d

0 4 52 d Pos t 11.7 m

18 11 9 70 Pos t 4 El d d Sub S ta St Bartholomew's

d 5 1 1 to d d Ga rde ns

88 6 1 4 1 d d d 2 d

PH 151

1 to 85 d d d House Dinnington

30 42 d Donegal d House St at ue

1 to 75

C Hal l d rion House O O

L L d I N

G 11.5 m d W

O 64 56 D d 8 S 36 1

T d S R

d v E d

e T d ouse r Gouldman H

d e 1

i 1

t o

7 5

t d o n 52

60 6

d d 8 28 10 H d d o d u 11.9 m

s d d e d 57 49 E d WYLLEN CLOS

d F d

S E

T L

d R L B E

R 31 to 36 20 2 E 7 to 12 I T G PHd 4 43 to 48 to 6 25 to 30 d G 19 to 2 d 1 42 13 to 1 8 37 to 4 2 d

Eagle House 3 6

10.8 m

HEADLAM 0 STREET d5

11.5 m 1 to Play Area 25 BM 11.80m dRedmill H ouse 1 to 25 Berry 28 d House 1 to se Hou

oodd d 9

10.5 m 4

21 to 35 to 21

6 3 Gd d d r i n d Tank D 1 e a t A o s ll u 24 8 O H 3 o R

o H 0 21 u 7 H

T s o d t 28 e o A 1 o d E

w H

g r 1:1650 E n e t d i l l l e G 23 h o D

S I 11.6m 30 7 C R d d 5 Legend Planning Application Site Boundary Consultation Area d Land Parcel Address

Page 83 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 84