Committee: Date: Classification: Report Agenda Item Development 7th June 2006 Unrestricted Number: Number: Committee 10.1 Report of: Title: Town Planning Application Director of Development and Renewal Location: Land West Of Elf Row And South Of 6 Glamis Case Officer: Suzanne Bowman Road, Elf Row, London
Ward: Shadwell (February 2002 onwards)
1. SUMMARY
1.1 Registration Details Reference No: PA/05/01876 Date Received: 08/11/2005 Last Amended Date: 28/11/2005 1.2 Application Details
Existing Use: Vacant Land Proposal: Construction of part three, part five storey building to provide 26 flats (9 x one beds, 10 x two beds and 7 x three beds including affordable housing) plus disabled car parking, cycle and refuse provision. Applicant: Buildwell Homes Ownership: As above Historic Building: More than one Conservation Area: Not applicable
2. RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 That the Development Committee grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 legal agreement under the following heads of agreement:
1. Affordable housing: 10 (38.5%) units, 80% social rented and 20% intermediate tenure (3 x 1 bed, 4 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed). 2. Car Free Development 3. Tree replacement (4 x £450 = £1800) 4. Arboriculture impact assessment 5. Open space contributions (26 x £1,000 = £26,000) 6. Traffic calming and provision cyclist and pedestrian routes in area (£20,000)
2.2 That the Development Committee grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined below:
2.2.1 Time Limit of three years 2.2.2 Control of hours: 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday 0800 to 1300 Saturday No work Sunday or Bank Holidays 2.2.3 Pile driving construction hours 2.2.4 Reserved matters: a. details all facing materials; b. lighting of site 2.2.5 Contaminated Land Survey 2.2.6 Details regarding refuse and recycling facilities required 2.2.7 Details of Landscaping (hard and soft) required 2.2.8 No structures on balcony 2.2.9 Anti-vandalism provision to north elevation wall 2.2.10 Require archaeological survey 2.2.11 Require construction management plan 2.2.12 Car parking for disabled persons only 2.2.13 Require boundary treatment details
2.3 Informatives 2.3.1 Application subject to Section 106 Agreement.
3. BACKGROUND
3.1 Site and Surrounding area
The application site is a parcel of vacant land situated to the west of Elf Row and the east of Glamis Road. To the immediate north of the site is the two-storey (lower ground and ground floor levels) Eva Armsby Family Centre, situated at a lower ground level 0.80 metres below the application site. Glamis Adventure playground, locally referred to as ‘the forest’, is situated to the west and south boundaries of the site. To the east of the site is the Peabody Estate, characterised by grade II listed six-storey buildings, orientated around a courtyard.
To the northeast of the site is a terrace of two-storey houses that back onto gardens bordering the site.
Directly south of the site, between the application site and Glamis Place with the adventure playground to the west and the Peabody Estate to the east, are allotments.
The surrounding area is predominately residential, with the Glamis Housing Estate to the east and the high-rise block of Gordon House to the south west, on the corner of Glamis Road and The Highway. The Highway runs to the south of the site, with Cable Street to the north. The site is within walking distance of the King Edward Memorial Park, with community gardens to the north of Cable Street.
3.2 Relevant Planning History
In the early 1990s outline planning permission was granted for the development of business use on the site. At the same time outline planning permission was granted for housing development.
The Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Children occupied the site up until 1963.
3.3 Proposal
The application is for the development of a part 3/part 5- storey building that is orientated around the boundary of the site.
The south elevation of the site is characterised by a full length curved rendered wall which extends outwards on the south west corner. This is detailed with vertical louvers breaking up the solid form, in relation to visually obscured balconies on the south side of the building, that are orientated to face south east. High level obscured glazing is also detailed on this elevation.
The east elevation of the site is split into three distinct sections.
The middle section provides access to the building, one for market housing and one for the affordable housing units, at ground floor level. The market housing entrance has a wide entrance with pitched canopy, whilst the affordable housing entranceway has a double entrance way with monopitch canopy. A strip of full glazing runs up the elevation above both entrances, providing light to internal communal areas and stairwells. The entrance ways are separated by balcony detail to all floor levels.
The southern most section of the elevation has balconies to all floors, with single window details to the left and double windows to the right.
The northern most section of the elevation is characterised by a steep pitch roof from the fifth floor down to third floor level.
The north elevation of the site is characterised by a steep pitch roof, with high level windows at ground to second floor level, to the right, whilst the left would have three dormer windows at fourth floor level, with balcony details from first through to third floor levels.
The west elevation will be broken up with slight curved wall details and some high level window details to all floors.
The accommodation of twenty six flats is to be provided as follows:
Ground Floor – 3 x 1 beds, 1 x 2 beds and 2 x 3 beds; First Floor – 3 x 1 beds, 1 x 2 beds, 2 x 3 beds; Second Floor – 3 x 1 beds, 1 x 2 beds, 2 x 3 beds; Third Floor – 3 x 2 beds and 1 x 3 bed; Fourth Floor – 4 x 2 beds.
A high wall would border the site on the north elevation. This would have a blank canvas with the intention that this would be used for children to decorate and use for sports activities. The same is proposed for the boundary with the adventure playground.
The site would be accessed from the end of Elf Row, presently a dead end between the Peabody buildings and houses at 1-16 Elf Row.
4. PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
4.1 The following Unitary Development Plan proposals are applicable to this application:
(1) Archaeological importance or potential
4.2 The following Unitary Development Plan policies are applicable to this application:
(1) DEV1 and DEV2 - General design and environmental requirements (2) DEV4 – Planning obligations (3) DEV12 – Provision of landscaping (4) DEV13 – Planting of trees within landscaping (5) DEV39 – Development adjacent to listed buildings (6) DEV50 – Noise (7) DEV51 – Contaminated Land (8) DEV55 – Waste storage and collection (9) DEV56 – Recycling provision (10) DEV60 – Vacant/derelict land (11) HSG1 - Quantity of housing (12) HSG2 – New housing developments (13) HSG3 – Affordable Housing (14) HSG7 – Dwelling mix and type (15) HSG8 – Dwellings to wheelchair standard (16) HSG9 – Density (17) HSG13 – Internal residential space (18) HSG 16 – Amenity Space (19) T15 – Transport and Development (20) T16 – Traffic priorities for New Development (21) T17 – Planning Standards
4.3 The following Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Document proposals are applicable to this application:
Area of archaeological importance or potential
4.4 The following Core Strategy and Development Control Development Plan Document policies are applicable to this application:
(1) HSG1 – Housing Density (2) HSG2 – Lifetime homes standard (3) HSG3 – Affordable housing provision (4) HSG4 – Calculating affordable housing (5) HSG5 – Affordable housing social rented/ intermediate split (6) HSG6 – Housing mix (7) HSG12 – Housing amenity space (8) HSG13 – EcoHomes (9) TR1 – High density development in areas of good public transport accessibility (10) TR2 – Parking (11) TR3 – Transport Assessments (12) UD1 – Scale and Density (13) UD4 – Accessibility and Linkages (14) UD5 – High Quality Design (15) C1 – Historic sites and their setting (16) SEN1 – Noise/ vibration pollution (17) SEN3 – Energy Efficiency (18) SEN – Water Conservation (19) SEN5 – Disturbance from demolition and construction (20) SEN6 – Sustainable Construction materials (21) SEN7 – Sustainable design (22) SEN9 – Waste disposal and recycling (23) SEN10 – Contaminated Land (24) OSN3 – Landscaping and trees (25) PU1 – Public utility development (26) IM1 – Securing benefits
4.5 The following Community Plan objectives are applicable to this application:
(1) A better place for living safely (2) A better place for living well
5. CONSULTATION
5.1 The following were consulted regarding this application:
(1) Glamis Tenants & Residents Association
Object as follows:
• Access road, Elf Row, has to be entered via Broadlove Lane, which is already heavily congested. • Emergency services would be severely restricted as Elf Row is already used as parking for the Peabody Estate. • One-bedroom dwellings on Elf Row are pensioners’ dwellings and are considered sheltered accommodation and a five storey block would block their light and detract from their quality of life. • Eva Armsy Centre on Glamis Road and houses on Cable Street would also suffer from the loss of light to the rear • There are no parking spaces available on the application. This would add more congestion and likely illegal parking in the area.
(2) English Heritage
No objection to proposed development. Archaeological survey should be conditioned.
(4) Environmental Health
Subject site was occupied by a hospital and adjacent to a Ropery centre and a biscuit factory. Consequently, there may be contamination within the substrate. Potential pathway for contaminants may exist. Site investigation to investigate and identify potential contamination should be conditioned.
Daylight and sunlight report satisfactory.
(5) Head of Building Control
No representations received.
(6) Corporate Access Officer
The access statement does not provide evidence of best practice consulted in the production of it. Entry systems need to consider people who can’t speak, hear or have difficulty reaching high levels. Opening weight of door should not be more than 20 newtons or provision of assisted doors should be considered.
Plans show a winding staircase. This is not acceptable and contradicts Access Statement. Handrails must be provided on both sides of the stair that are continuous and project 300mm at least beyond finished stair at top and bottom of flight.
Applicant should be reminded of their duties set out within the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 with regard to employment and service provision.
Following the revision of the scheme the following comments were received:
The provision of a straight stair rather than the original proposal of a spiral stair is welcome. The revised Access Statement has provided information with regard to Reference to accessing the site form local amenities/transport. door entry system. All doors within the development will have 300mm to leading edge. Opening weight of door 20 Newton’s. Mentions colour and contrast, with regard to contact between walls, floors and door fittings.
(7) Horticulture & Recreation
eThe planned site for this development was previously a playground and not Housing land. The Glamis Adventure Playground is a very successful playground and meets the needs of the children and young people aged 5-15 years from the local community. Children play freely and are not currently overlooked.
The playground is floodlit and operates in the evenings, school holidays and at weekends. Children and young people with special needs including those with children on the ‘Autistic Spectrum’ and others with challenging behaviour attend the Playground. Their behaviour can be very loud, noisy and disturbing to members of the public. The Adventure Playground encourages children to construct dens and to build wooden structures; this involves children in noisy activities e.g. hammering and sawing materials.
The playground is extremely well supported by local residents who have worked diligently to ensure the Playground provides a quality play space for its children. They do not want to see a development that would be detrimental or work against children’s use of the Adventure Playground. Proximity to Housing – The NPFA Buffer Zone recommends that Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play (NEAP) for 5-15 year old are located 30 metres from the nearest dwelling. This would not be the case with the current proposed planning application. Concerned that a new Residential Development would potentially introduce new residents who will not be happy to live in a property on top of an Adventure Playground. The children have been using the Playground for a long time but any new residential development could create a conflict between the existing Playground users and new residents. Residents would not be happy with children playing under floodlights in the evenings and at times in daytimes and weekends when shift and regular workers may wish to sleep.
Development would provide housing too close to a children’s play space and would potentially set up a tension between the Playground and residents in a new development. The recommended NPFA buffer Zone of 30 Metres from the residential properties to the playground boundary is not complied with in this application
Horticulturalist
Details of proposed losses and numbers of trees to be retained is required. Details of proposed tree planting also required to take a view. If tree numbers are significant the provision of an arboriculture impact assessment would be essential to inform the planning process.
A land survey, including trees has been submitted in response to these comments.
(8) Arts, Sports and Leisure Services
No representations received
(9) Housing Strategy Group
Original Comments
Affordable housing is accessed from a separate stairwell to the north east of the site.
Overall the scheme provides 26 flats, with a total of 73 habitable rooms:
Affordable units total – 10 or 38.5% of units, or 42.5% of habitable rooms Private sale units total – 16 or 61.5% of units, or 57.5% of habitable rooms.
Will require tenures to be split as follows:
80% (8) of the units to be social rented, and
20% (2) of the units to be intermediate tenure.
Whilst the proposals provide a reasonable match with the Borough’s housing needs for the affordable units, overall the scheme is weighted towards one and two bedroom flats and only provides 15% family units against the Council’s target of 45%.
Family units may not meet the residential space requirements set out in the adopted (1998) Supplementary Planning Guidance. Would require confirmation that the dwellings meet the standards set out in the Housing Corporations Scheme Development Standards, and those within the London Housing Federation’s Guidance: Higher density housing for families, design and specification guide. Further details are also required to clarify the level of private and shared amenity space provided on the scheme, and the lack of provision of suitable space should be addressed.
There is no indication that a Registered Social Landlord (RSL) is identified for this scheme at present. Management and design problems in high density family accommodation are well documented. Whilst we can not insist upon the identification of an RSL at this stage, applicant should be encouraged to take on the recommendations within the London Housing Federation’s publication: ‘Designing for families at high densities’.
Private units are accessed from separate stairwell up to the fourth floor.
Comments received from 1st revisions:
Revisions have increased the number of habitable rooms from 73 to 76. Overall the mix has improved through the reduction in the number of one bedroom flats and an increase in two bedroom flats. This has been at the expense of the larger units in the affordable housing mix (one of the three beds has been reduced to a two bed flat. Indeed the overall quantity of affordable housing as follows:
10 or 38% of units, 39% of habitable rooms affordable units 16 or 62% of units, 61 % of habitable rooms for private sale.
Provision still exceeds the policy requirement for a minimum of 35% affordable, however would prefer to retain the top floor affordable unit as a three bedroom flat. There is still no proposal for the split of tenures, and will have to impose a requirement that at least 80% of the affordable housing provision should be for social rent.
Comment in response to housing
Revisions were received in April 2006 following concerns from Officers that the proposal did not provide sufficient family housing overall and in particular, within the market element of the proposal. Subsequently the revisions resulted in a significant reduction in the provision of two bed flats and a generous increase in the provision of 3 bedroom family accommodation, in accordance with emerging LDF policies.
(10) Cleansing Officer
No representations received
(11) Crime Prevention Officer E1/E2 areas (All areas w.e.f. 23/04/02)
Concerned that the decorating wall for children may be used as seating, annoying the residents, could it be topped with something to discourage its use as a seat?
The boundary does not seem secure to the site anywhere. Any reason why? Flat 20 seems to show a recessed area to the front and back - this will restrict views to the flat/building.
(12) Thames Water Authority
No representations received.
(13) Highways Development
No objection to proposal subject to: a. Section 106 car free agreement b. Section 278 agreement to carry out off site highway works which include reinstatement of footways, crossovers, etc. c. A contribution of £20,000 towards traffic calming and provisions for cyclists and pedestrian routes in the area.
5.2 Responses from neighbours were as follows:
No. Responses: 75 In Favour: 0 Against: 74 Petition: 1
Petition contains 14 signatures.
Complaints were raised that the consultation period overlapped with the Christmas holidays. Presently, the planning system does not make allowance for public holidays. Representations were acknowledged after the advertised consultation period.
1. Intense over building of the local community giving the impression the developers nor the Council are concerned with the actual well being of a community but obsessed with building new homes in a neighbourhood which is already one of the most overcrowded in Britain; 2. Development undertaken without a thought about the infrastructure needed to sustain a community of thousands of people; 3. Proposal removes significant part of a play area; 4. No thought to the open space people need to live healthy lives. Occurrence mental health problems is high in Shadwell, one unarguable factor is the sense of claustrophobia sensed in the locality and the lack of open space. Also contributes to children experimenting early with drugs and alcohol; 5. Shadwell park feels very inaccessible to local people on the north of the highway because of the busy road and therefore it is not appropriate for the children to walk or play there on their own so adventure playground is a lifeline to them; 6. There is no other green play area north of the highway before you have to cross commercial road; 7. The playground is built on land which was previously the sight of a children’s hospital. The land was allocated strictly for continuing use by children after the hospital’s closure; 8. On the plans the land is described as waste land; 9. The access road, Elf Row, has to be entered through Broadlove Lane, which is already heavily congested, being used as a rat run from the Highway to Cable Street; 10. The emergency services would be severely restricted as the access way is already used as parking for the Peabody Estate; 11. Several residents of the ground floor of the Peabody block have windows directly on to the road. There is no pavement. Decapitation is highly likely, vehicles passing within inches of their windows; 12. The one bedroom dwellings on Elf Row are pensioner’s dwellings and are considered shelter accommodation and a five storey block of flats would block their light and detract from their quality of light. Convenient that they have been missed out of the design statement; 13. The Eva Armsby Centre on Glamis Road and the houses on Cable Street would also suffer loss of light to their rear; 14. No car parking spaces available on this application. This would add more congestion and likely illegal parking in the area; 15. More noise, pollution and harassment to an already over crowded area; 16. Any materials or chemicals used in the building process may leak over into the adjacent allotments and contaminate the soil. The dust that will inevitably be created by the work might contain damaging elements that will settle on the fruit and vegetables that are grown for personal consumption; 17. Concerned that the building works do not impact upon the ground level in the allotments; 18. Concerned about changes to the boundary between the site and the allotments; and 19. Objection to fact consultation period overlapped with Christmas holiday and any allowance for delay in postage etc.
` 5.3 Date officer site visit undertaken: 7th December 2005
6. ANALYSIS
Land Use
6.1 In view of the predominately residential nature of the surrounding area, in principle the proposal for residential use is considered acceptable. Whilst the site is adjacent to ‘open space’ (both the adventure playground and allotments) as classified within the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998), the application site is classified a brown field site, and not a protected ‘open space’. Consequently the proposal is in accordance with policies HSG2 of the adopted (1998) Unitary Development Plan.
6.2 The adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) density policy (HSG9) is now superseded by the London Plan and in accordance with the latter publication, the proposed density of the development at 778 habitable rooms per hectare is considered acceptable. The proposal is within a high accessibility index range as set out by the London Plan that requires a density for central settings of between 650-1100 habitable rooms per hectare.
6.3 In total, twenty six flats are proposed. The overall floor area of the one-bed affordable housing units fall just below the Councils minimum standards, as do the southernmost one-bed and three-bed market housing units. However, all room standards are met and it is the circulatory space that results in these flats falling just short of the requirements. Consequently, in this instance, the residential standards proposed are considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the space standards set out within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential Space Standards, 1998.
Affordable housing provision
6.4 A total of 10 units are proposed for the affordable housing element of the site, which would be accessed separately from the market housing. The following table presents the proposed affordable housing mix at the site.
Unit size Scheme units Scheme % Target %
1 bedroom 3 30 20
2 bedroom 4 40 35 3 bedroom 3 40 30 4 bedroom 0 0 10
5 bedroom 0 0 5 Total 10 100 100
6.5 In view of the above the proposed mix is considered to be in accordance with Council policy HSG3 and HSG6 of the preferred options Local Development Framework 2005. Council officers welcome the above target provision of family sized units in an area of Tower Hamlets that eagerly requires such affordable provision, as noted in the Council’s Housing Survey, 2004.
Market housing provision
6.6 Sixteen market units are proposed providing the following housing mix split:`
Unit Size Scheme units scheme % Target % 1 bedroom 6 38 25
2 bedroom 6 38 50
3 bedroom 4 25 25 4 bedroom 0 0 0 Total 16 100 100
6.7 Whilst the proposed number of two bedroom units falls slightly under the 50% target as identified in policy HSG6 of the preferred options Local Development Framework 2005, the number of family sized units for both the affordable and private housing market meets the target provision. Given there is an identified shortage of family housing within the Borough, the proposed housing mix is on balance considered acceptable and in accordance with Council policy HSG7 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) and HSG6 of the emerging Local Development Framework, as well as being in line with the London Plan (2004).
Design
6.8 The design and orientation of the development has been carefully considered in order to overcome a number of constraints that prejudice this site. There is no uniform design or massing evident in the surrounding area. To the east of the application site is Peabody Estates which is a six storey apartment block with a pitched slate roof. To the south east of the site there is a twenty one storey apartment block on Glamis Road. The proposed five storey height of the new development is not considered to be unreasonable in this case given the urban context of the site and also the height of neighbouring developments. Part of the proposed building that is closest to the northern boundary has been reduced to three storeys in height due to the Eva Armsby centre being at a lower ground level than the application site. A monpitch roof is also proposed to the three storey element of the proposal to further minimise the bulk and scale of the development when viewed from the adjoining centre and its grounds.
6.9 The proposed contemporary design of the new building will add to the architectural interest of the area as well as providing a development that is sensitive to the capabilities of the site. The proposal is considered to be sensitive to the character of the surrounding area in terms of bulk, scale and use of materials and visually appropriate for this location. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Council policy DEV1 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 1998 and UD1 and UD5 of the emerging Local Development Framework 2005. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal would have no detrimental impact upon the setting of the listed status of the neighbouring Peabody buildings. Consequently, the proposal is in accordance with Council policy DEV39 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and UD C1 of the emerging Local Development Framework (2006).
Landscaping
6.10 Four trees are proposed to be removed, with the larger more substantial tree in the south eastern corner of the site being retained. In order to assess the impact of the removal of these trees an arboricultural impact assessment will need to be undertaken by the applicant, with replacement trees planted if necessary. It is recommended that the applicant enter into a Section 106 Agreement to undertake an arboriculture impact assessment and provide replacement trees, pending the outcome of the assessment.
A suitably worded condition is recommended for full details of hard and soft landscaping to be submitted for the written approval prior to commencement of development.
6.11 The Council’s Horticulture and Recreation section raised concerns that the proposal was within the NPFA recommended 30 metre buffer zone in respect of development in close proximity to children’s playgrounds. Whilst it is accepted that the proposal is within the 30 metre buffer guidance it should also be noted that there are a significant number of residential development surrounding the playground within this buffer. It is particularly noted that the site to the south of the playground on Glamis Place is a relatively new development, located directly opposite the playground. Overall, because of the urban, high density context of this site, it is not considered that a reason for refusal based on NPFA buffer zone grounds could be sustained in this instance.
Amenity
External Amenity Space
6.12 All units, except 2x 2bedroom market units on the fourth floor, have some ‘exclusive amenity space’, as defined within the emerging Local Development Framework (2005). Given the constraints of the site, and the proximity of nearby parks and playgrounds, this is considered acceptable in accordance with Council policy HSG16 of the adopted (1998) Unitary Development Plan.
6.13 Nonetheless, with respect to the site’s inability to provide play space for the family sized units, and the below minimum amenity space provision it is pertinent that any approval be subject to open space contributions.
Overlooking/ Privacy
6.14 The site is situated so as to require consideration of four neighbouring sites in this regard.
6.15 The building footprint has been designed to prevent direct overlooking of both the Eva Armsby Centre to the north and the adventure playground to the west. Obscure glazed high level windows are proposed on the north elevation of the building that is closest to the Eva Armsby building. Windows on the west and south west elevations of the building have been set at an oblique angle, with extended solid wings to the balconies to prevent direct overlooking. On the southwest corner of the building, a curved rendered wall with louvers is proposed to provide both a design feature and screening to balconies that overlook the adventure playground. The use of louvers will allow sufficient light and provide an outlook for the flats that the screen affects whilst at the same time preventing direct views onto the playground.
6.16 Whilst there are no ‘habitable rooms’ on the south side of the Eva Armsby Centre, in discussions with the centre it has emerged that there are counselling rooms with fully glazed windows to this side of the site. Furthermore, the site is 0.8 metres lower than the application site. However, the proposed design would mitigate against potential overlooking or any sense of lost privacy that is required for the services provided at the centre. Additionally, the design also ensures that the playground within the centre’s grounds would not be overlooked by the development.
6.17 Concern has been raised with regard to the potential for overlooking of the adventure playground. The site is currently overlooked by both the Peabody building and 84-130 Glamis Place. Furthermore, the design of the proposed development would overcome any potential for overlooking.
6.18 The nearest habitable room on the eastern elevation of the building is set at an acceptable distance away from the dwelling houses to the east of the site at no. 1-16 Elf Row. The separation distance from habitable room to habitable room is 16 metres and is therefore in accordance with Council policy DEV2 of the adopted (1998) Unitary Development Plan.
Daylight/Sunlight
6.19 The Council is satisfied that the proposed development will have no detrimental impact upon the existing daylight and sunlight to neighbouring occupiers. The daylight and sunlight report prepared by Waterslade Ltd (February 2006) illustrates that the proposal would be in accordance with the guidelines of the British Research Establishment. Consequently, the proposal is in accordance with policy DEV2 of the adopted (1998) Unitary Development Plan.
6.20 In terms of overshadowing, the applicant has submitted detailed drawings that demonstrate there will be no significant overshadowing of neighbouring properties, with no material deterioration to their daylighting/sunlighting conditions.
6.21 Whilst the design results in ensuring no significant over looking to neighbouring occupiers, the proposal would not be detrimental in terms of outlook to prospective occupiers nor would it create an increased sense of enclosure to adjoining properties as the distance between the proposed building and nearest neighbouring dwelling is significant.
Noise
6.22 It is envisaged that potential occupiers will be aware of the adventure playground and the associated use that takes place, deterring those who would not be keen on living within close proximity to such a use. Consequently, it is considered unreasonable to suggest that tensions would arise between new occupiers and the adventure playground.
6.23 It is envisaged that the proposal will have no detrimental impact upon existing noise levels within the surrounding area in accordance with Council policy DEV50 of the adopted (1998) Unitary Development Plan. Hours of construction are controlled by condition to ensure these are not carried out within unreasonable time periods.
Rubbish and Recycling Provision
6.24 Full details are to be requested to ensure that the design of the refuse storage is sensitive to the setting of the listed Peabody buildings and in keeping with the area in general.
Highways
6.25 The proposal site is located within a ten minute walk from Shadwell East London Line and Docklands Light Railway station and Limehouse Docklands Light Railway station. The D3 (Docklands to London Chest Hospital) and 100 (Elephant and Castle to Glamis Road) buses serve Cable Street. Within a ten minute walk to the north, along Commercial Road, run the 15 (Blackwall to Paddington) and the 115 (East Ham to Aldgate). Furthermore, the site falls within a public transport accessibility level range of 4.
6.26 In view of the proximity to good transport links, the proposal would benefit from being a car free development, in accordance with policies DEV4 of the adopted (1998) Unitary Development Plan, and policies TR1 and TR2 of the emerging Local Development Framework (2005).
6.27 In addition, storage provision for 20 bicycles exceeds the minimum requirement of 20% as set within the emerging Local Development Framework (2005) and is in accordance with Council policies T17 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998) and TR7 of the emerging LDF.
6.28 Council officers have no objection the proposed entrance off Elf Row. The width of the road is considered sufficiently wide enough for emergency vehicles and pedestrians and accords with parking standards within the adopted Unitary Development Plan (1998).
7. SUMMARY
7.1 On balance the proposal is considered acceptable in land use terms. The provision of above target affordable housing units is welcome. Furthermore, it is considered that all amenity issues have been overcome through the design, without having a negative impact upon the setting of neighbouring listed buildings. Therefore, the Council is minded to approve the application subject to the conditions set out in section two above, and subject to a car free development, ensuring affordable housing, tree replacement, traffic calming and open space contributions.
Site Map
W Pla yg rou nd s 16
O 1 D 11 . 8 m 7 d d E d R
B V d
R M O 8 d E d N 3 T 1 d 2 P d d 2 2
S 7 d dd
d . O
Y 1 2 2 R d
O d m T d d d 10. 8m POONAH ST
44 10. 7m
H
6 d A 4 R d
d D r O S S B BARNARD I S N
T
G d R
E E
E
S T d T R
E
E d TREET E E R ST SON JOHN T
Masters Lodge 61 D Allotment Gardens 11 . 8 m C w 2
o 1
9 Barnardo Garde e
b t
o o
l t
l u
2 1
o t i
1 1 d 7 n r
6
g g
3
65
4
t o
1 7 s
4 1
2
d o
6
4 t 67 d D C D
w Barnardo Gardens d o 89 to E 3 d e b
d d d V
l u
95 4 l 1 3 O i
n r 7 4
6 d g N
g
to o t H 05 t
o 4 s P
2 A
2
11 2 d
4 9
O
4 R
4
30 o
2 o 5 3
to to t t
1 11 . 6 m 25 R 0 D
1 to 1 2 4 3 1
t o
3 se d I 31 T d 7 6 4 ou Clu b N
H 3 d oore S d M d T 14 to 17 d G T h E o Con ven t R Mas ters r of S Com mun ity E n T E Lo d g e J Me rcy 03 BM e 1 O R o 4 t T
97
t d 8 3 H 11 . 8 7 m o E Ga rde ns
w do 423 8 3 t El 1 i 3 N E l 4 43 2 o 4 11 . 6 m l 71 T t Su b S t a S 33 H 4 d LB Hall
O K o
u N n 5 o s S d d 6 w e T
R 11 . 8 m l d E
e 2 E
n 1
T h
o H rc t u
ry'ds Ch PH 11 . 2 m
1
0
do a d 5 1 to 1 4
M 4
2 5
t 0
u S
5 0 0
4 4 9 9 2
d 87 6
s 3
0 4 9
8 4 9
8 4 8
All Saints 5 0 4 8 4 9
e 4
6 4 6 4 8 4
1
o t
o t 4 8 6 5
4 6 8 Cou rt 4 2 2 4 4 5 8 2
82m 11 . 1 m d
1. d o
1 4 t M d
B 4 d
6 1 0 4 5 R
5 d 0
o 13 37 4 d
3 o t 4 4 4 1 d 8 77 4 8 d s use 3 3 d o 2 l
H i
r dd d n 4 4 3 shed 0 d 2
i 11 . 7 m d 2
F 2 H
dd dd 5 t
o 0
d 1 1
d d 9 5 o
1 6
4 1
4 1
6 0 u 4
2 2 o t
se 19 dd s d
u o
o t e
H 1
n d
d 0 1 0 4
2 5
0 6
o
11 . 2 m t 0
2
1 4
6
2
9
3 d 0
1 Pla yg rou nd
6 o
t Hal l d
4 0
0 d
3 7 9
8 d
0
t
o d d d
d d 1 3 8
8 d 3 6
o
7 6
d t 18
o t
1
1 d 4 3 7 6
m d d 0 E d1
4 L
8 1 3 d 7
d 4 7 F 1
d 3 8
5 d Glamis Estate
3 R
d 2 2 Ev a A r ms by dd
d d O 1
4 3 5
t
o W
3 6
4 d d d Famil y Cent re 2 3 4
o
t B d
2 3
5 2 d24 d
0 3
3 2 R o t 6 21 1 d O d 9 d LF ROW d 1 E D d d 0 d L dd 2 d 5 1 11 O dd d1 11 . 0 m 5 2 d V
28 a E d 0
8 d 1 d 2
No r t h
d L 1
6 7 d o
3 1 A
4 d k t
9 th Bl oc Bloc 3 6 kto 1 W
N
d d5 6 or a
2 N E
1 t
o d 1 3 7 6 E 5 2 d a 4 9 d d d d 1 3 7 D s 5 t
d d A o t
7
B 5 3
O 6
7 3 3 4 W l
5 3 1 2 3 o
d b 3 R
6 1 Peabody
d 3 c
e 0
1
S k 2 d 7 5
4 5 s Es tat e I 3 o
5 t
t
3 Peabody Estate
d d M B d
d 3 b 3 6
31 A l 4 1 65 o to
L
o 1 t c
d
49 G k d d1
ddd51 d
Ad ve ntu re Play gro un d 32 d d
alk Bath
rbert W Bl ock South Bl ock d
t
1 o
6 3 2
6 South d Co u r t 1 t
3
o
d dd 6 d 3
d 8 LAMIS PLACE 2 4 G
4 2
4 3 LACE
GLAMIS P 0 2
3
d6 9. 6 m
3 6
1 8
4 6 5 0
d 74 66 2
1 to 97 8 dd
3 1
t o
8
d 4 d d 0 d d TLE CLO SE Gordon d d d d REDCAS dddddddd d d d
Hoduse ddddddddd d
1 t
2
o 1 d d SM LB S
u
ADWELL b
w
a
y 9. 8 m 9. 7 m GHWAY
Mo nu me nt
6. 9 m
320 6 3 BM 10.45m d0 ddd dddd St Paul's Chu rch d 1 2d King Edward d Memorial Park Dock Co tta ges Playground d Bow ling 12 ddddd2 d 14 Pa v i l i o n Green 1:2000 d King Edward d 0 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
Land West Of Elf Row And South Of 6 Glamis Road, Elf Row, London