Minutes of previous meeting on 26 November 2013

Minutes of the Meeting of the London Legacy Development Corporation Planning Decisions Committee Date: Time: Venue: Tuesday 26 November 2013 6.00 pm Rooms 1, & 3, LLDC, Level 10, Stratford Place, Montfichet Road, London E20 1EJ PRESENT: Philip Lewis (Chair) Lynda AddisonNicholas BitelPiers GoughCouncillor Lester HudsonCouncillor Rabina KhanCouncillor Conor McAuleyLord Ma wson OBEJoanne MoonCouncillor Geoff TaylorCouncillor Terry Wheeler Dru Vesty IN ATTENDANCE: Anthony Hollingsworth, Director of Planning Policy and Decisions, LLDC Allison De Marco, Senior Planning Development Manager, LLDCRachel G leave, Planning Development Manager, LLDCSimon Kelly, Planning Solicitor, LLDC Joanna Brown, Committee Secretary, GLA Updates, Order of Business and Requests to Speak (Item 1) 1.1 The Chair stated that there were Update Reports for the following agenda items: • • • • Agenda Item - 206-214 Stratford High Street, Stratford, E15; Agenda Item – Telford Homes Residential – 13/00322/FUL; Agenda Item – Monier Road – 13/00204/FUL; and Agenda Item 10 – 12/000210/OUT 1.2 The Chair stated that the order of business would be as set out on the agenda 1.3 The Chair welcomed Anthony Hollingsworth, the newly appointed Director of Planning Policy and Decisions Apologies for Absence (Item 2) 2.1 There were no apologies for absence Declarations of Interest (Item 3) 3.1 The Committee received the report of the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions which set out, for the purposes of transparency, where a Member of the Committee was an elected Member of a Host Borough to which a planning application and/or other matter to be dealt with at the meeting related 3.2 Lynda Addison declared non-disclosable pecuniary interests in the following items which referred to comments received from English Heritage: • • • • 3.3 Agenda Item - 206-214 Stratford High Street, Stratford, E15; Agenda Item – Telford Homes Residential – 13/00322/FUL; Agenda Item – Stratford City Zone (The International Quarter [TIQ]: Plots S7/ S8 and Balcony Park [13/00409/REM]) ; and Agenda Item 10 – 12/000210/OUT Resolved: That the report be noted Minutes of previous meeting on 22 October 2013 (Item 4) 4.1 Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 22 October 2013 be signed by the Chair as a correct record LCS Lighting Strategy Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park - ref 13/00390/AOD (Item 5) 5.1 The Committee considered the report of the Planner 5.2 The Planner made a presentation to the Committee (attached as Appendix to the minutes and published on the LLDC’s website: http://www.london.gov.uk/LLDC/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=273&MId=4742&Ver=4) 5.3 The Planner stated that the application sought an approval of details to discharge the Lighting Strategy condition LCS.33 pursuant to the Legacy Communities Scheme (LCS) permission reference: 11/90621/OUTODA The Lighting Strategy covered the 64.68 hectares that comprised the LCS site The application covered the entire Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park (QEOP) with the exception of Stadium Island (Planning Development Zone 3) The Planner stated that the proposed lighting strategy was a high level framework to provide consistency and sustainability based on national lighting guidelines It divided the QEOP and the emerging neighbourhoods into four environmental zones, with Zone E4 being the most brightly lit and Zone E1 the darkest 5.4 The Planner stated that officers considered that the Lighting Strategy’s objectives of creating a safe, secure and accessible environment for the LCS neighbourhoods, together with adopting a sensitive approach to the character of the QEOP was sound, would create an uncluttered landscape and would adopt a sustainable approach to lighting 5.5 In response to a question, the Planner confirmed that the national lighting guidelines committed to not lighting the night sky The Planner added that Transport for London’s (TfL) guidance on street lighting was concerned with not creating light pollution at night 5.6 Resolved (unanimously): That the LCS Lighting Strategy submitted pursuant to condition LCS0.33 be approved in accordance with the condition and informative set out in the report to the Committee 206-214 Stratford High Street, Stratford, E15 (Item 6) 6.1 The Chair drew the Committee’s attention to an Update Report, which had been circulated to the Committee (attached as Appendix to the minutes and published on the LLDC’s website: http://www.london.gov.uk/LLDC/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=273&MId=4742&Ver=4) 6.2 The Chair stated that the applicant had requested the Committee to defer making a decision on the application and the officers had now also recommended that the application be deferred in order for further discussions and negotiations to take place 6.3 Resolved (unanimously): 6.3.1 That the additional information, which had been submitted to the Committee since the publication of the main report to the Committee, be noted and that a decision on the planning application be deferred to enable: (a) Further discussions to take place with the Greater London Authority (GLA) to establish the strategic need for specialist student housing; and (b) Further negotiations to take place with the applicant, including the Heads of Terms of a S106 Agreement that would ensure the accommodation is let at affordable rents to a named local Higher Education Institution(s); achieves the maximum reasonable financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing; and secures the other planning benefits set out at paragraph 8.65 of the main report to the Committee Telford Homes Residential - 13/00322/FUL (Item 7) 7.1 The Committee considered the report of the Senior Planning Decisions Manager 7.2 An Update Report had been circulated to the Committee (attached as Appendix to the minutes and published on the LLDC’s website: http://www.london.gov.uk/LLDC/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=273&MId=4742&Ver=4) 7.3 The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions explained that the Update Report provided a point of clarification to paragraph 9.2 of the main report to the Committee 7.4 The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions made a presentation to the Committee (attached as Appendix to the minutes and published on the LLDC’s website: http://www.london.gov.uk/LLDC/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=273&MId=4742&Ver=4) 7.5 The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions stated that the report considered an application made by Telford Homes for full planning permission for the erection of a 33 storey residential tower (with a maximum height of plus 109.43mAOD (above ordnance datum) ) to provide 182 dwellings with an ancillary residents’ gym He explained that the application site lay within the boundary of Stratford City, as defined by the Stratford City outline planning permission The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions stated that the London Borough of Newham had raised issues about the context of the proposed tall building and he drew the Committee’s attention to a slide on the townscape, which illustrated the context in which the building would be located, that is in an area where there were already buildings of a similar height A booklet setting out the illustrations of the proposed building was circulated to the Committee 7.6 The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions stated that the development proposed a mix of housing units by size and tenure and that 14% of all on-site units would be three bedroom family homes and the remainder would be one and two bed units Negotiations had taken place between the London Borough of Newham, the Legacy Corporation and the applicants to seek to redress the lack of family homes (as Newham’s Core Strategy policy H1 required 39% to be family homes) Newham had acknowledged that the on-site combination offer of 13.3% shared ownership and the offsite payment of £2,337,666 (to be paid to Newham) was a reasonable offer given the viability of the scheme The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions stated that the issues regarding affordable housing had now been resolved; the GLA was comfortable with the off-site affordable housing provision and the London Borough of Newham was comfortable with the applicant’s offer and viability review mechanism 7.7 The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions stated that five representations had been received from occupiers of apartments at Gerry Raffles Square and one from an unspecified address They had raised objections in respect of the height of the development; the unspecified wind mitigation measures and the high density of the residential development However, officers did not consider that the proposed development would have any adverse impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of the apartment building in Gerry Raffles Square, given that it was located 90m away from the proposed development 7.8 The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions stated that the proposed design of the building had evolved through a process of design and review and had been closely scrutinised at all stages Officers were satisfied that the proposed building met all the requirements of the joint English Heritage/ CABE guidance on tall buildings The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions added that officers considered that the proposal would result in a building that made a valuable contribution to the visual amenity of the area and recommended the application for approval, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the main report to the Committee 7.9 The Chair stated that the following people were attending the meeting in support of the application: • • • • Chris Sutton, lead architect, Suttonca; David Durant, Planning/ Design Director, Telford Homes; Jon Watson, Director, Westfield; and Amit Malhotra, Planning Agent, RPS 7.10 In response to a question about the lack of amenity space for residents of the proposed development, the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions stated that amenity space would be limited to residents’ balconies as the focus had been on maximising the accommodation within the development, making the balconies workable and maximising the affordable housing contribution rather than securing amenity space However, the development was very close to the QEOP and West Ham Park 7.11 In response to a question about the provision of access for service vehicles to the development, the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions stated that there would be access to the rear of the building and the detailed servicing strategy would be dealt with through planning conditions Mr Sutton assured the Committee that the applicant had considered service issues and he indicated diagrams that showed how the rear estate road would provide access to the development He stated that the road was sufficiently broad to allow access to this development without jeopardising the servicing of other buildings 7.12 A Member asked whether the additional five cycle berths required by the GLA had now been included and Mr Malhotra confirmed that that was now the case 7.13 In response to a comment about whether the design was acceptable rather than exceptional, the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions stated that, in the context of the mixed quality of developments across London, the SC Design Review Panel (DRP) had identified that the proposed building had the potential to be of exceptional quality, although officers acknowledged that work still needed to be undertaken to ensure that the quality was not eroded should planning permission be granted 7.14 In response to a question, Mr Sutton informed the Committee that the material would be reconstituted stone In response to another question, he stated that there would be canopies over the entry doors to manage the down draughts 7.15 At the conclusion of questions, the Committee discussed the application 7.16 Nick Bitel commented that a consistent approach was required in respect of tall buildings in terms of quality and design He did not consider that the quality of the proposed building justified the height, particularly as there would be no amenity space for residents The Chair asked the Director of Policy Planning and Decisions about the discussions that had taken place with the applicant on that point The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions responded that there would be no public amenity space within the scheme but there would be private amenity space in the form of balconies Officers considered that the design was of high quality and it was supported by the DRP In response to a further question about the views of the London Borough of Newham, the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions stated that Newham officers supported the height of the building but that members had been less convinced The design needed to be exceptional and that would be achieved through the details, hence the proposed planning conditions Councillor McAuley confirmed that Newham members had doubts about the application and were not convinced of the exceptional nature of the design 7.17 Dru Vesty commented that it was difficult to ascertain the exceptional nature of the design without having had the opportunity to look at samples of the proposed materials or drawings of the details 7.18 Lynda Addison stated that the proposed building did not appear to be out of context with planning permissions granted elsewhere and given the context of this proposal, she did not believe there would be grounds for refusing planning permission 7.19 Piers Gough stated that he considered that the location was suitable for a high building However, he expressed disappointment that the ground floor would be used for bin storage and did not appear to offer anything to the public realm, not even access to views from the top floor However, he did not consider that would be sufficient grounds to refuse planning permission The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions responded that it would be difficult in this development to achieve either a ground floor or a high level activity, as the design was the result of a very tight space The scheme should also be considered in the context of the permitted and proposed active floor uses along this part of Great Eastern Road However, the architect had tried to create a double height entrance to give the building some animation and thought had been given to making the landscape around the building attractive even though the space was limited 7.20 In response to the above points, Mr Sutton agreed that much would be in the detail and that a great deal of attention had been paid to how relatively simple materials could be used to create an excellent building Mr Sutton pointed out that the application would support the new pedestrian tree lined route at the front of the building 7.21 Members asked how the building would be managed and Mr Durant informed them that there would be a concierge on site 24 hours per day In addition Telford Homes would establish a management committee Members noted that plan but referred to blocks of flats where there were large numbers of tenants as a result of buy-to-lets and the ensuing problems of a high turnover of tenants who might not wish to participate in a management committee Mr Durant responded that a high proportion of owner/occupiers would live in the flats and he assured Members that Telford Homes had 25 years of establishing successful management committees over many blocks of apartments 7.22 The Chair referred to the comment from the GLA that the proposal did not comply with the London Plan The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions explained that the comment related to the need to maximise affordable housing and there would be off-site provision to be negotiated with the London Borough of Newham in order to satisfy the Council that affordable housing could be delivered on an alternative site Newham had been very clear that affordable housing was a priority but had also acknowledged that this site was not the best location for that The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions added that a viability review had been undertaken which demonstrated that the development maximised viability 7.23 Councillor Wheeler stated that there was a need to ensure that the community in Stratford remained balanced and the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions responded that the Legacy Corporation was working with Newham with regard to the site for affordable housing and it was likely that that would not be far from this site, so that a balanced community could be achieved 7.24 In response to a comment that the Legacy Corporation should require certainty on the issue of affordable housing in relation to applications in general, the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions informed the Committee that if they were minded to approve the application they could grant permission subject to the receipt of details about the materials to be used and details of the proposed Section 106 Agreement, which would include the affordable housing provisions 7.25 Councillor Taylor stated that he did not like the design and considered that it was not exceptional He noted that whilst there were tall buildings behind and to the side of the proposed building, the building lay to the outside of that area Councillor Taylor noted that the development would provide some affordable housing He was not certain that the proposal could be refused on planning grounds 7.26 The Chair concluded by seeking the Committee’s views on whether consideration of the application should be deferred He explained that he had concerns about the proposed height of the building in that in his view it was out of context in that location Councillor Khan stated that she would support deferral as it was important to not create a precedent without careful consideration of the application Lord Mawson stated that he would like to see more details about the quality of the materials Dru Vesty stated that if the Committee decided to defer, it would be important to be clear about why it had taken that decision, that is, for instance that the Committee required more details about the materials to be used However, if the Committee had concerns about the principles of the building it would be better to refuse the application 7.27 The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions referred to the Stratford Metropolitan Masterplan which stated that buildings over 20 storeys would be appropriate for this location A Member sought clarification that a building of 33 storeys in this location would not be contrary to planning policy The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions responded that officers considered that it would not be contrary because of the high quality design Nick Bitel noted that a 33 storey building would be contrary to planning policy if the Committee did not consider that the design was exceptional 7.28 Nick Bitel moved, and the Chair seconded, that consideration of the application be deferred in order for officers to obtain more details about: (i) how the application would enhance the public realm; and (ii) the materials in order for the Committee to assess whether the design was exceptional, noting that quality of design concerned the design itself, not just the materials to be used 7.29 Resolved (9 votes cast in favour and against): That consideration of the application be deferred in order for officers to obtain more details about: (i) how the application would enhance the public realm; and (ii) the materials in order for the Committee to assess whether the design was exceptional Stratford City Zone (The International Quarter [TIQ]): Plots S7/ S8 and Balcony Park [13/00409/REM] (Item 8) 8.1 The Committee considered the report of the Planning Development Manager 8.2 The Planning Development Manager made a presentation to the Committee (attached as Appendix to the minutes and published on the LLDC’s website: http://www.london.gov.uk/LLDC/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=273&MId=4742&Ver=4) 8.3 The Planning Development Manager stated that the report considered a Reserved Matters Application for the construction of two residential buildings, which would be located within Zone of Stratford City The application was in respect of development plots S7 and S8 in Zone The Planning Development Manager stated that Plot S7 extended to 30 storeys in height, whilst Plot S8 extended to 17 storeys in height The buildings would comprise 333 residential units that would be a mix of one, two and three bedroom apartments and 20 units would be for affordable housing The application sought approval for the siting, design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping elements that related to residential Plots S7 and S8 The application also sought approval for new public open space, Balcony Park, which included a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) and Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) 8.4 The Planning Development Manager stated that the principle of redeveloping the site had been established by the Outline Planning Permission and that Site Wide Strategies for Zone had also been approved The RMA application for Plots S7 and S8 was the first reserved matters application submitted for Zone 8.5 The Planning Development Manager recommended the Committee to approve the application (clarifying that the application is for reserved matters) , as overall the proposals were in conformity with the development structure set out in the conditions and parameters 8.11 Resolved (unanimously): 8.11.1 That the application be approved, as follows: (a) The full discharge of conditions B1, B8 and Q1 in relation to reserved matters for residential Plots S7 and S8, and landscaping for Balcony Park; and (b) The partial discharge of condition Q4, with details in relation to part (d) ‘signage, lighting’ and part (e) ‘features of artworks’, still required for residential Plots S7 & S8; For the reasons given in the report to the Committee and subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report to the Committee and additional conditions relating to the management of the bins and the landscaping of the car parking; and 8.11.2 That authority be delegated to the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions to grant planning permission for the reserved matters application, subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act and subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report to the Committee; and to make any refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions to conditions and informatives as the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions considers reasonably necessary Monier Road - 13/00204/FUL (Item 9) 9.1 The Committee considered the report of the Senior Planning Development Manager 9.2 An Update Report had been circulated to the Committee (attached as Appendix to the minutes and published on the LLDC’s website: http://www.london.gov.uk/LLDC/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=273&MId=4742&Ver=4) 9.3 The Senior Planning Development Manager made a presentation to the Committee (attached as Appendix to the minutes and published on the LLDC’s website: http://www.london.gov.uk/LLDC/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=273&MId=4742&Ver=4) 9.4 The Senior Planning Development Manager stated that the application was for full planning permission for comprehensive mixed use redevelopment, comprising the erection of three blocks ranging from four storeys to part six and part seven storeys, which would provide 71 residential units In addition the application proposed up to 483sqm of non-residential floorspace (Use Class A1-A5 and Class B1) The Senior Planning Development Manager added that 15 affordable housing units would be provided on the ground level as family units 9.5 The Senior Planning Development Manager stated that the principle of development of the site was supported and the proposal would maximise the use of previously developed land and would significantly contribute to creating a sustainable residential development and would have an acceptable impact on the setting of the Fish Island Conservation Area The application was supported by the Quality Review Panel 9.6 The Senior Planning Development Manager stated that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets had now withdrawn its objection, subject to securing a section 106 Agreement Three objections had been received from neighbours and one letter of support, which were included in the main report 9.7 The Senior Planning Development Manager drew Members’ attention to the amended recommendation set out in the Update Report and she recommended the Committee to approve the application 9.8 The Chair welcomed Austin Mackie, Director, Austin Mackie Associates and Owen O’Carroll, Stock Woolstencroft Architects, in support of the application, to the meeting 9.9 In response to a question about whether the applicants had given careful consideration to the type of commercial space included in the scheme, the Senior Planning Development Manager stated that the Neptune Group had a large commercial holdings portfolio and specialised in letting accommodation to small and medium sized businesses Mr Mackie stated that the applicant had tried to maintain the existing character of Fish Island through the design of the scheme The Neptune Group’s portfolio was almost entirely commercial and the applicant was confident that the commercial spaces would be successful The unit size had been designed to suit local need rather than attracting new commercial uses 9.10 The Committee noted that the applicant was the freeholder for the land at Neptune Wharf (Agenda Item 10) Mr Mackie stated that the two schemes had always been considered as one masterplan by the applicant and would form a single cohesive scheme 9.11 A Member commented that the proposed Use Classes were quite wide ranging 9.12 In response to a question, the Committee was informed that the residential units in Blocks B and C would have their own private amenity space and that the units in Block A would have their own private amenity space and communal space It was noted that there would be storage for bins next to, but separate from the bike store 9.13 Resolved (11 votes cast in favour and one abstention): 9.13.1 That the Committee is minded to approve the application for the reasons given in the main report to the Committee and to grant planning permission subject to: (a) The satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers to secure the planning obligations set out in the recommended heads of terms which are set out in the main report and the Update Report to the Committee; and (b) The conditions set out in the Update Report to the Committee 9.13.2 That authority be delegated to the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions to: (a) Finalise the recommended conditions as set out in the Update Report to the Committee including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions (including to dovetail with and where appropriate, reinforce, the final planning obligations to be contained in the section 106 legal agreement) as the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions considers reasonably necessary; (b) Finalise the recommended legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers as set out in the report to the Committee, including refining, adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms set out in the Update Report to the Committee (including to dovetail with and where appropriate, reinforce the final conditions and informatives to be attached to the planning permission) as the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions considers reasonably necessary; and (c) Complete the section 106 legal agreement referred to above and issue the planning permission 9.14 Piers Gough stated that he had abstained from voting on the application because he considered that this site would have been a better location for the proposed school than the Neptune Wharf Site (see Agenda Item 10) 10 Neptune Wharf - 12/000210/OUT (Item 10) 10.1 The Committee considered the report of the Senior Planning Development Manager 10.2 An Update Report had been circulated to the Committee (attached as Appendix to the minutes and published on the LLDC’s website: http://www.london.gov.uk/LLDC/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=273&MId=4742&Ver=4) 10.3 The Senior Planning Development Manager made a presentation to the Committee (attached as Appendix to the minutes and published on the LLDC’s website: http://www.london.gov.uk/LLDC/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=273&MId=4742&Ver=4) 10.4 The Senior Planning Development Manager stated that the outline application was for a comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the site known as “Neptune Wharf” in up to four phases / zones containing up to 18 buildings to provide for a mix of land uses The proposal would provide up to 522 new residential units (which would be approximately 18% of the London Borough of Tower Hamlet’s annual target) 10.5 The Senior Planning Development Manager stated that the key priority for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets had been to safeguard the site for a primary school through the Fish Island Area Action Plan (FIAAP) The Neptune Wharf Position Statements that Tower Hamlets had prepared as part of the Examination in Public (EIP) for the FIAAP had concluded that a scheme, which included a school as part of a mixed use building, could not be policy compliant and remain viable The EIP Position Statements were considered to form material considerations in considering this application, being publically available and written in support of the adopted FIAAP, and made it clear that safeguarding land for a future primary school was Tower Hamlet’s key priority above all others, including affordable housing The Senior Planning Development Manager informed the Committee that, as set out in the Update Report, Tower Hamlets had objected to the current proposals due to the low affordable housing provision and questioned the mechanism for securing the school site However, LLDC officers had taken advice from their viability consultants and were satisfied that the contributions sought in respect of the affordable housing provision was the maximum that was achievable, given that the school site was safeguarded The Senior Planning Development Manager stated that the safeguarding required circa 0.5ha of land for a school which exceeded the total site area of the application considered under the previous item (Item - Monier Road 13/00204/FUL) She further stated that the area required to safeguard a school site had in part informed the FIAAP selection process which concluded that Neptune Wharf was the appropriate location She stated that the Council had acknowledged the need to select a site which contained sufficient land within single ownership in order to allow sufficient enabling development to offset the viability impact of the school safeguarding 10.6 The Senior Planning Development Manager stated that the Quality Review Panel supported the revised planning application The Planning Policy and Decisions Team considered that the development would have an acceptable impact on the setting of the Fish Island Conservation Area and the proposed White Post Lane Conservation Area 10.7 The Senior Planning Development Manager stated that, on balance, officers considered that the proposed development would make a significant contribution towards convergence objectives by the provision of 0.44 hectares of land for a school site, the provision of public realm space and the development of creative work space She stated that the scheme would make a significant contribution to regenerating Fish Island and therefore, on balance, officers recommended the Committee to approve the application, subject to the amended conditions set out in the Update Report 10.8 The Chair welcomed the following objectors to the application to the meeting: • • • • 10.9 Richard Brown, HWFI (Hackney Wick Fish Island) Planning and Development Subgroup; Martin Richman; Daren Ellis; and Tim Francis The Chair, with the consent of the Committee, invited Mr Brown to speak for up to five minutes on behalf of the objectors 10.10 Mr Brown thanked the Regeneration Team for encouraging the applicant to engage with the residents of HWFI He stated that he objected on seven grounds: (i) design quality and sense of place; (ii) open space and sense of amenity; (iii) work space provision: (iv) commercial space; (v) the Lofthouse artists studios; (vi) Phases and 4; and (vii) the general opportunities for local artists 10.11 On the issue of design quality and sense of place, Mr Brown stated that the very special creative quarter of Fish Island had been highlighted by the FIAAP Neptune Wharf was a vast opportunity site but he considered that the proposed buildings were generic and mediocre and not sufficiently distinctive to create a high quality environment Mr Brown was concerned about the massing and he stated that the detailed elements of Phases and seemed very bulky He noted that part of the proposal was for development above six storeys which was contrary to the FIAAP Mr Brown stated that it was important to protect the legacy of Fish Island as an environment of gritty urban grain and not to set precedents for monolithic buildings 10.12 Mr Brown did not consider that the plans for the apartments reflected the ethics of high quality design He noted that the majority of apartments would be single aspect and, in his view, the proposed materials to be used in their construction were disappointing 10.13 Mr Brown referred to the issue of open space and amenity space He considered that the proposed Lofthouse Square seemed an oversized area of hard landscaping and would be difficult to make work, especially given the adjacent commercial space Mr Brown thought that there would be a good opportunity for green space but he stated that it was hard to see where the planting strategy lay 10.14 Mr Brown expressed concern that the management arrangements for the workspaces did not appear to be clear He stated that the workspaces would need to be affordable in order to make them viable Mr Brown noted that it was proposed to have a substantial amount of commercial space adjacent to the Lofthouse He stated that he was content that the proposals for the Lofthouse were reserved matters but that it would be important that the design was sensitive to the creative area and took account of the views of the local artist community 10.15 Mr Brown stated that in respect of Phases and 4, he agreed with Piers Gough’s view that he did not feel that the site was suitable for a primary school He considered that Block Q was insensitive in scale 10.16 In conclusion, Mr Brown stated that Fish Island contained the most densely occupied concentration of artists’ studios in Europe and he hoped that the development would provide opportunities for local artists 10.17 The Chair thanked Mr Brown for his comments 10.18 A Member noted that the applicant had agreed to allow flexibility by reducing the minimum height parameters and he asked what the maximum height parameters would be The Senior Planning Development Manager responded that the maximum height would be up to 11 storeys but the applicant had agreed to reduce the number of units to 45 and therefore the issue was about the volume that the applicant would build up to In response to a further question, the Senior Planning Development Manager confirmed that it would be possible for the development to include an 11 storey building The Member referred to the London Borough of Tower Hamlet’s Core Strategy and the FIAAP, which stated that Fish Island was not an area for tall buildings The Senior Planning Development Manager stated that the policy wording did allow scope for buildings taller than six storeys, but that those buildings would be subject to a much more rigorous assessment The Member responded that he could not see that the building made a positive contribution to the skyline, as required by the policy The Senior Planning Development Manager stated that the application before the Committee was for outline planning permission and if permission were to be granted the applicant would be required to undertake a competitive design process to select an architect to develop and design a brief for Block Q which would refine the height and volume Officers considered that a quality block could be designed and built 10.19 A Member noted that in respect of the proposed school, the QRP had commented that the location would suffer from noise and pollution The Senior Planning Development Manager stated that the main report to the Committee clearly set out the air quality and noise characteristics of the site and although there were challenges, they would be mitigated for example, by mechanical ventilation inside the school and that the entire site, together with the Borough, was located within an Air Quality Management Area She added that although the air quality on the school site did not meet the NO guidance in that the annual mean objective would be exceeded, being up to 44ug/m3 (the annual objective was 40ug/m3) , however as children would be in the playground for limited periods the applicable objective was the hourly objective and in this respect proposed external play areas are capable of complying with the relevant NO guidance She added that although the NO annual mean objective was exceeded on the school zone that this was also the case within other areas of the site and that NO levels across the site were predicted to be within a range of 39ug/m3 - 44 ug/m3 across the application site Members noted that children might spend a significant amount of their school years at the proposed school and then at Bow School, which was also adjacent to the A12 In terms of noise, the Senior Planning Development Manager stated that the correct noise levels could be achieved if the school was designed appropriately She further stated that officers had seen Tower Hamlet’s early feasibility studies which demonstrated that the school could be designed in such a way that the challenges of air quality and noise would be dealt with 10.20 A Member referred to the letter received from Tower Hamlets (appended to the Update Report) which stated that there was no certainly that an education provider could deliver a school on the terms offered by the developer The Senior Planning Development Manager stated that since receiving the letter on 25 November 2013, she had sought further assurances from the applicant The first option was that the developer would offer the land to Tower Hamlets to deliver a school within five years, and if Tower Hamlets was not able to that, the option to deliver a school would be passed to the Legacy Corporation The Committee noted that it was therefore possible that the proposed residential units could be occupied before the school was built 10.21 The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions advised the Committee that officers had to negotiate extensive Heads of Terms with the applicant The Heads of Terms would make it clear that Tower Hamlets would have the option of first refusal in the site, and as soon as Tower Hamlets was ready to develop the site, it would be released to the Council He noted that the early delivery of the school would be dependent on Tower Hamlets securing funding to build it 10.22 In response to a question, the Senior Planning Development Manager explained that Section 106 contributions had not been sought for the cost of building the school as the priority was to safeguard the land 10.23 In response to a question about the amount of affordable housing that would be included, the Senior Planning Development Manager stated that there would be 11 family housing units However, she reminded the Committee that Tower Hamlets had clearly stated that affordable housing on that site was a lower priority than safeguarding the land for the school Councillor Khan referred to the letter from Tower Hamlets’ Service Head – Planning and Building Control, Ms Whalley, in which she stated that Tower Hamlets had “not been party to the final negotiations regarding the provision of affordable housing and social infrastructure …” The Senior Planning Development Manager stated that she had contacted officers at Tower Hamlets almost on a weekly basis to inform them of the developments in negotiations with the applicant and the Heads of Terms She added that the amount of affordable housing had been maximised but it was constrained because of the need to safeguard the school She had not received any substantive feedback from Tower Hamlets about the contents of the Heads of Terms In response to further questions, officers confirmed that they met with officers from Tower Hamlets and they welcomed the input of Tower Hamlets officers in the drafting of the Heads of Terms 10.24 Mr Mackie, Director, Austin Mackie Associates, requested an opportunity to speak on behalf of the applicant in support of the application The Committee indicated its consent for him and Mr Owen O’Carroll, Stock Woolstencroft Architects, to speak for a combined time of up to five minutes 10.25 Mr Mackie explained the background to the school site He stated that at the EIP for the FIAAP Tower Hamlets had expressed a view that the Neptune Wharf site was their preferred location for a school and they had resisted any other location Tower Hamlets had acknowledged that the site could not deliver both a school and affordable housing and Tower Hamlets had made it clear to the inspector that the Council’s priority was for a school on the site The inspector had accepted that point and recommended that the school should be the first priority and the level of affordable housing should be tested to ascertain what could be brought forward Mr Mackie stated that the development was a policy led, policy compliant scheme Mr Mackie stated that he understood fully the environmental concerns raised by Members, an issue which had been discussed at the EIP The applicant had suggested that other sites should be considered but Tower Hamlets had insisted on this site 10.26 Mr O’Carroll, spoke in support of the application He stated that the design of the development reflected the heritage aspects and the character of the conservation area The architects had sought to develop an urban quarter, whose key characteristics would be the creation of new streets and yards The proposed Lofthouse Square would act as a link between the existing buildings Mr O’Carroll stated that there would be much play space, roof gardens and safe routes Parking for cars was in the basements Connectivity would be provided by a new canal front pathway Mr O’Carroll stated that although Fish Island was surrounded by water, at the current time there was no sense of that and the design of the development with large open spaces would allow the relationship between the buildings and the water to be re-established again 10.27 In relation to the Committee’s concerns about the air quality within the school grounds, Mr O’Carroll stated that the area had been tested three times and had passed the environmental tests To mitigate the effects of the noise from the A12 a 5m deep conservatory wall would be built, which would act as a buffer to the noise 10.28 In conclusion, Mr O’Carroll stated that the proposed school was policy compliant and that the Committee should not refuse the scheme because of their concerns about the school 10.29 A Member noted that the NO2 concentrations across the application site were expected to exceed the annual mean objective at all locations and that mechanical ventilation measures would not deal with that when children used the external facilities of the school Mr Mackie stated that the Neptune Group had produced plans for the school site and tested them to assist Tower Hamlets in demonstrating that a school could work on the site both in physical and environmental terms 10.30 A Member expressed the view that whilst he did not consider that the site was ideal for a school, he considered that the applicant had responded to the requirements of Tower Hamlets Other Members stated that they did not understand why Tower Hamlets considered this site to be suitable for a school but accepted that that was the view of the Council 10.31 A Member asked what would happen to the development if the applicant was not permitted to develop the rest of the site without the school being built Mr Mackie responded that it would make the development unviable and the school undeliverable The design for the site was predicated on a long-term view about Fish Island, whose population would increase over time If the school were to be built before the population required it on Fish Island, Tower Hamlets would fill the places with children from other areas of the borough The Neptune Group had clearly stated that it would all it could to assist with the delivery of the school and although a 99 year lease for the school site might seem short, in reality the lease would be in perpetuity 10.32 In response to a question about how important it was for the applicant to be able to build up to 11 storeys, Mr Mackie responded that the applicant would like to have the ability to explore viability options by reaching 11 storeys in Block Q He added that a taller building would need to be narrower and more elegant 10.33 A Member commented that he would wish the sport facility of the school to be available for community use after school hours Mr Mackie confirmed that in theory it would be possible to bring forward the sports facility (which would be in Phase of the development) and build that in advance of the school However, it would require the agreement of Tower Hamlets because it lay in the parcel of land that was safeguarded for the school Mr O’Carroll stated that the footprint for the school was very flexible and it would be possible to attach a condition to the planning permission which required the sports facility to be flexible 10.34 The Committee discussed the proposed materials to be used in the construction of the residential and commercial parts of the development The Committee noted that many artists resided on Fish Island and could be asked to contribute to the design Mr Mackie confirmed that the applicant would be pleased to undertake pre-engagement with the local community and that they would be able to contribute to the brief for the selection process for an architect 10.35 Councillor Khan stated that Tower Hamlets was very keen to see the regeneration of Fish Island She confirmed that Tower Hamlets needed sites for new schools but that the Council also wished to secure as much affordable housing as possible She referred to a site where a secondary school was going to be constructed but where it had also been possible to achieve 30% affordable housing 10.36 A Member sought assurances that the rents of the affordable workspaces (75% of market rent) would be viable financially Mr Mackie stated that the Neptune Group took a long term view on the commercial workspace and had submitted a detailed strategy to officers The Neptune Group would seek to avoid vacancies Mr Mackie stated that rents on Fish Island were already very low, even the market rents The Committee noted that once the development was completed rents might rise and therefore 75% of the market rent might become unaffordable for local people Mr Mackie explained that the applicant had agreed with officers that the annual review of rents would be based on historical rents for the previous year, which would be capped for three years That meant that the Neptune Group would have to follow the traditional market trend and would not add to market rent creep Members noted that the requirement for a reduced rent would be for seven years 10.37 Following the conclusion of questions to the applicant’s representatives, the Committee had a lengthy debate about the application 10.38 Piers Gough expressed concern about the lack of sunlight for some of the residential units, noting that 26% of living rooms would fail to receive recommended levels of sunlight and that the proposed recessed balconies would reduce sunlight He considered that this rendered the accommodation sub-standard, together with the over-looking distances, and was a fundamental flaw in the scheme 10.39 Councillor Taylor stated that he was uncomfortable with the location of the proposed school being next to the A12 He also considered that a development of up to 11 storeys on Fish Island was not policy compliant He considered that if planning permission were to be granted there would need to be robust conditions to preserve the character of Fish Island, particularly in relation to ensuring rents for the commercial units remained affordable 10.40 In response to a question, the Senior Planning Development Manager confirmed that whilst Tower Hamlets wanted the school to be on the Neptune Wharf site, from her review of the public documents supporting the FIAAP EIP that the school safeguarding adopted by the Council though the FIAAP had not been specific to the western half of the site, but rather related to the whole Neptune Wharf site The Senior Planning Development Manager noted that the same public documents however stated that the Council had confirmed it would be flexible about the design and layout of the school 10.41 Lynda Addison stated that she would support the officer’s recommendation because: the location of the school had been discussed at a public inquiry and was supported by Tower Hamlets; the design of the whole scheme was accepted by the QRP; and the Legacy Corporations’ advisors on the viability analysis had assessed the maximum amount of affordable housing which was viable She proposed, however, that the Section 106 Agreement should include provisions to ensure the deliverability of the school and that discussions should involve Tower Hamlets 10.42 Nick Bitel commented that there was much to like about the scheme, for instance car parking would be in the basement and there would be a new canal walkway Whilst he shared other Members’ concerns about the location of the school, he noted that Tower Hamlets had identified that site for a school However, he did have real concerns about the height of Block Q as Fish Island did not currently have tall buildings and he considered that a building of 11 storeys would be a departure from the existing character The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions informed the Committee that the FIAAP would require further testing of a building which was taller than four to six storeys, but would permit a quality building taller than six storeys, which would be tested on its merits Nick Bitel noted that as part of the test a building would be required to make a positive contribution to the area but he could not see evidence in the report to the Committee that this proposed block would that 10.43 The Chair stated that he liked the scheme and although he also had concerns about the height of Block Q, he was minded to accept the officer’s recommendation, subject to their being very robust conditions 10.44 The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions stated that he thought that any reduction in units (by limiting the height of Block Q for instance) would affect the viability of the scheme and thus its ability to deliver any affordable housing He informed the Committee that one option would be for it to agree to defer making a decision on the application in order for the applicant to revise it The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions noted the comments that Members had made and stated that he believed that the Committee needed to be able to consider more detailed Heads of Terms than it currently had before it, which would address issues such as what would happen to the land allocated for the school in the event that the school was not built within the five year period offered by the applicant (for example, Members had asked if it could be used to provide affordable housing) 10.45 The Legal Advisor to the Committee stated that the Committee could agree that it was minded to grant planning permission, subject to a Section 106 Agreement to be agreed and approved by the Committee within a specific time limit It would mean that if the Section 106 Agreement was not agreed, the planning permission would fall 10.46 The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions stated that he had been advised by the Committee’s Legal Advisor that it would be possible to include a condition to restrict the height of the development and that the applicant’s representatives had indicated that the applicant would be willing to accept a condition 10.47 The Chair moved the recommendation set out in the Update Report to the Committee, subject to the amendment to the condition to restrict the height of Block Q to no more than storeys and subject to the Section 106 Agreement being submitted to the Committee for approval 10.48 Resolved (8 votes cast in favour and against): 10.48.1 That the Committee is minded to approve the application for the reasons given in the main report to the Committee and the Update Report and to grant planning permission subject to: (a) Referring the application to the Mayor of London and any direction of the Mayor of London; (b) The satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers, which is to be agreed prior to completion by the Committee, to secure the planning obligations set out in the recommended heads of terms which are set out in the report to the Committee; (c) A condition restricting the height of Block Q to eight storeys; and (d) The conditions and informatives set out in the main report and Update Report to the Committee 10.48.2 That it be confirmed that the Committee’s decision has taken into consideration the environmental information submitted in relation to the application as required by Regulation 3(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and it be agreed that following the issue of the decision a statement be placed on the Statutory Register confirming the details as required by Regulation 24(1)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 2011 including that the main reasons and considerations on which the Committee’s decision was based were those set out in the Planning Officer’s report to Planning Decisions Committee; 10.48.3 That authority be delegated to the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions to: (a) Consider any direction from the Mayor of London and to make any consequential or necessary changes to the recommended conditions and/or informatives and/or recommended section 106 heads of terms as set out in this report; (b) Finalise the recommended conditions and informatives (including relevant definitions and annexes) as set out the main report and Update Report to the Committee including such refinements, amendments, additions and/or deletions (including to dovetail with and where appropriate, reinforce, the final planning obligations to be contained in the section 106 legal agreement) as the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions considers reasonably necessary; (c) Finalise the recommended legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and other enabling powers, for submission to this Committee for approval before its completion, including refining, adding to, amending and/or deleting the obligations detailed in the heads of terms set out in the report to the Committee (including to dovetail with and where appropriate, reinforce the final conditions and informatives to be attached to the planning permission) as the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions considers reasonably necessary; and (d) Complete the section 106 legal agreement referred to above, only once it has been approved by the Planning Decisions Committee, and issue the planning permission 11 Decisions Made Under Delegated Authority (Item 11) 11.1 The Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning Policy and Decisions The report appended a list of all decisions taken by officers from October to 31 October 2013 11.2 Resolved: That the report and attached Appendix be noted 12 Any Urgent Business (Item 12) 12.1 The Chair stated that the next meeting of the Committee was scheduled to take place on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 at the Legacy Corporation’s offices, Stratford Place, Monfichet Road, London E20 1EJ The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions stated that at the current time there was not much business for that meeting and if there was no business requiring a decision he would cancel the meeting, and the Committee indicated its support for that proposal 13 Close of Meeting 13.1 The meeting ended at 9.37p.m Chair Date ... the form of balconies Officers considered that the design was of high quality and it was supported by the DRP In response to a further question about the views of the London Borough of Newham,... the on- site combination offer of 13.3% shared ownership and the offsite payment of £2,337,666 (to be paid to Newham) was a reasonable offer given the viability of the scheme The Director of Planning... about the contents of the Heads of Terms In response to further questions, officers confirmed that they met with officers from Tower Hamlets and they welcomed the input of Tower Hamlets officers