Minutes of previous meeting on 26 November 2013

Minutes of the Meeting of the London Legacy Development Corporation Planning Decisions Committee Venue: Rooms 1, 2 & 3, LLDC, Level 10, 1 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road, London E20 1E

Trang 1

Minutes of the Meeting of the London Legacy Development Corporation

Planning Decisions Committee

Venue: Rooms 1, 2 & 3, LLDC, Level 10, 1 Stratford Place,

Montfichet Road, London E20 1EJ

PRESENT:

Lester HudsonCouncillor Rabina KhanCouncillor Conor McAuleyLord Mawson OBEJoanne MoonCouncillor Geoff TaylorCouncillor Terry WheelerDru Vesty

IN ATTENDANCE:

Anthony Hollingsworth, Director of Planning Policy and Decisions, LLDCAllison De Marco, Senior Planning Development Manager, LLDCRachel Gleave, Planning Development Manager, LLDCSimon Kelly, Planning Solicitor, LLDC

Joanna Brown, Committee Secretary, GLA

1 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 6 - 206-214 Stratford High Street, Stratford, E15;

 Agenda Item 7 – Telford Homes Residential – 13/00322/FUL;

 Agenda Item 9 – 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

2 Apologies for Absence (Item 2)

Trang 2

2.1 There were no apologies for absence.

3 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 anelected 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:

 Agenda Item 6 - 206-214 Stratford High Street, Stratford, E15;

 Agenda Item 7 – Telford Homes Residential – 13/00322/FUL;

 Agenda Item 8 – Stratford City Zone 2 (The International Quarter [TIQ]: Plots S7/

 Agenda Item 10 – 12/000210/OUT

3.3 Resolved:

That the report be noted.

Trang 3

4 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.

5 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 1 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

permission reference: 11/90621/OUTODA The Lighting Strategy covered the 64.68hectares that comprised the LCS site The application covered the entire Queen Elizabeth

provide consistency and sustainability based on national lighting guidelines It divided theQEOP and the emerging neighbourhoods into four environmental zones, with Zone E4being 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, togetherwith 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

5.6 Resolved (unanimously):

Trang 4

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.

6 206-214 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 2 to the minutes and published on the LLDC’s

website:

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.

Trang 5

7 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 3 to the

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 4 to the minutes and published on the LLDC’s website:

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 33storey residential tower (with a maximum height of plus 109.43mAOD (above ordnance

application site lay within the boundary of Stratford City, as defined by the Stratford Cityoutline planning permission The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions stated that theLondon Borough of Newham had raised issues about the context of the proposed tallbuilding and he drew the Committee’s attention to a slide on the townscape, whichillustrated the context in which the building would be located, that is in an area where therewere already buildings of a similar height A booklet setting out the illustrations of theproposed 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 threebedroom family homes and the remainder would be one and two bed units Negotiationshad taken place between the London Borough of Newham, the Legacy Corporation and theapplicants to seek to redress the lack of family homes (as Newham’s Core Strategy policycombination offer of 13.3% shared ownership and the offsite payment of £2,337,666 (to be

Planning Policy and Decisions stated that the issues regarding affordable housing had nowbeen resolved; the GLA was comfortable with the off-site affordable housing provision andthe London Borough of Newham was comfortable with the applicant’s offer and viabilityreview mechanism

Trang 6

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 anunspecified address They had raised objections in respect of the height of thedevelopment; the unspecified wind mitigation measures and the high density of theresidential development However, officers did not consider that the proposed developmentwould have any adverse impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of theapartment building in Gerry Raffles Square, given that it was located 90m away from theproposed 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 closelyscrutinised at all stages Officers were satisfied that the proposed building met all therequirements of the joint English Heritage/ CABE guidance on tall buildings The Director

of Planning Policy and Decisions added that officers considered that the proposal wouldresult in a building that made a valuable contribution to the visual amenity of the area andrecommended the application for approval, subject to the conditions and informatives setout 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 spacewould be limited to residents’ balconies as the focus had been on maximising theaccommodation within the development, making the balconies workable and maximisingthe affordable housing contribution rather than securing amenity space However, thedevelopment 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 beaccess to the rear of the building and the detailed servicing strategy would be dealt withthrough planning conditions Mr Sutton assured the Committee that the applicant hadconsidered service issues and he indicated diagrams that showed how the rear estate roadwould provide access to the development He stated that the road was sufficiently broad toallow access to this development without jeopardising the servicing of other buildings

Trang 7

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

identified that the proposed building had the potential to be of exceptional quality, althoughofficers acknowledged that work still needed to be undertaken to ensure that the qualitywas not eroded should planning permission be granted

7.14 In response to a question, Mr Sutton informed the Committee that the material would be

re-constituted stone In response to another question, he stated that there would be canopiesover 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 buildingjustified the height, particularly as there would be no amenity space for residents TheChair asked the Director of Policy Planning and Decisions about the discussions that hadtaken place with the applicant on that point The Director of Planning Policy and Decisionsresponded 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 aboutthe views of the London Borough of Newham, the Director of Planning Policy and Decisionsstated that Newham officers supported the height of the building but that members hadbeen less convinced The design needed to be exceptional and that would be achievedthrough the details, hence the proposed planning conditions Councillor McAuley confirmedthat Newham members had doubts about the application and were not convinced of theexceptional 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 ordrawings 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 notbelieve there would be grounds for refusing planning permission

Trang 8

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 storageand did not appear to offer anything to the public realm, not even access to views from thetop floor However, he did not consider that would be sufficient grounds to refuse planningpermission The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions responded that it would bedifficult in this development to achieve either a ground floor or a high level activity, as thedesign was the result of a very tight space The scheme should also be considered in thecontext of the permitted and proposed active floor uses along this part of Great EasternRoad However, the architect had tried to create a double height entrance to give thebuilding some animation and thought had been given to making the landscape around thebuilding 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 tocreate an excellent building Mr Sutton pointed out that the application would support thenew 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 wouldestablish a management committee Members noted that plan but referred to blocks offlats where there were large numbers of tenants as a result of buy-to-lets and the ensuingproblems of a high turnover of tenants who might not wish to participate in a managementcommittee Mr Durant responded that a high proportion of owner/occupiers would live inthe flats and he assured Members that Telford Homes had 25 years of establishingsuccessful 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 commentrelated 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 thataffordable housing could be delivered on an alternative site Newham had been very clearthat affordable housing was a priority but had also acknowledged that this site was not thebest location for that The Director of Planning Policy and Decisions added that a viabilityreview 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 theLegacy Corporation was working with Newham with regard to the site for affordablehousing and it was likely that that would not be far from this site, so that a balancedcommunity could be achieved

Trang 9

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 Policyand Decisions informed the Committee that if they were minded to approve the applicationthey could grant permission subject to the receipt of details about the materials to be usedand details of the proposed Section 106 Agreement, which would include the affordablehousing 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 theproposed building, the building lay to the outside of that area Councillor Taylor noted thatthe development would provide some affordable housing He was not certain that theproposal 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 proposedheight of the building in that in his view it was out of context in that location CouncillorKhan stated that she would support deferral as it was important to not create a precedentwithout careful consideration of the application Lord Mawson stated that he would like tosee more details about the quality of the materials Dru Vesty stated that if the Committeedecided 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 bebetter 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 thislocation A Member sought clarification that a building of 33 storeys in this location wouldnot be contrary to planning policy The Director of Planning Policy and Decisionsresponded that officers considered that it would not be contrary because of the high qualitydesign Nick Bitel noted that a 33 storey building would be contrary to planning policy if theCommittee did not consider that the design was exceptional

7.28 Nick Bitel moved, and the Chair seconded, that consideration of the application be deferred

was exceptional, noting that quality of design concerned the design itself, not just thematerials to be used

7.29 Resolved (9 votes cast in favour and 3 against):

Trang 10

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.

8 Stratford City Zone 2 (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 5 to the minutes and published on the LLDC’s website:

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 withinZone 2 of Stratford City The application was in respect of development plots S7 and S8 inZone 2 The Planning Development Manager stated that Plot S7 extended to 30 storeys inheight, whilst Plot S8 extended to 17 storeys in height The buildings would comprise 333residential units that would be a mix of one, two and three bedroom apartments and 20units would be for affordable housing The application sought approval for the siting,design, external appearance, means of access and landscaping elements that related toresidential Plots S7 and S8 The application also sought approval for new public open

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 forZone 2 had also been approved The RMA application for Plots S7 and S8 was the firstreserved matters application submitted for Zone 2

8.5 The Planning Development Manager recommended the Committee to approve the

were in conformity with the development structure set out in the conditions and parametersplans for Zone 2, as well as the Zonal Masterplan The proposed design and appearance ofthe buildings was of a good architectural standard and the proposed landscaping wouldenhance the overall quality of the development as well as provide beneficial open space.8.6

Trang 11

8.7 In response to a question about the opening hours of the MUGA, the Planning

Development Manager stated that the opening hours had not been finalised yet but shebelieved that they would be confined to the opening hours of the QEOP, that is it would beopen from dawn until dusk The Member stated that he hoped the MUGA would havelighting so that it could be used when people returned from work

8.8 A Member expressed disappointment that the ground floor on Westfield Avenue appeared

to be used to provide bin storage, which would not present an attractive nor invitingappearance to passers-by The Planning Development Manager stated that it was an issuethat officers had continually raised with the applicant as a concern and as a result there hadbeen some improvements in the design The architect had taken care over the visualappearance of the ground floor and the Planning Development Manager referred to a pack

of detailed base studies that she had circulated to the Committee, which illustrated thearchitectural language of the ground floor

8.9 In response to a Member’s comment about not wishing to see car parking at grade level on

the site, the Planning Development Manager stated that a small car park only at grade levelwas proposed She explained to the Committee that wherever possible officers tried toachieve car parking at basement level but in this case it had not been possible because ofthe presence of underground utilities Thus officers and the architect considered that theapplication had utilised the best solution in that the proposed landscaping would maximisethe planted edge so that a person’s attention would be drawn away for the car park

8.10 A Member suggested that a pergola could be used to reduce the impact of the car park

The applicant commented that the proposed motorcycle bays would be under an ivypergola and the applicant was willing to consider something similar for the car parking ThePlanning Development Manager stated that, should the Committee decide to grant planningpermission, it would be possible to include an additional condition requiring furtherlandscaping details about the car parking and relating to bin management

8.11 Resolved (unanimously):

8.11.1 That the application be approved, as follows:

Trang 12

(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.

9 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 6 to the

9.3 The Senior Planning Development Manager made a presentation to the Committee

(attached as Appendix 7 to the minutes and published on the LLDC’s website:

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 threeblocks ranging from four storeys to part six and part seven storeys, which would provide 71residential units In addition the application proposed up to 483sqm of non-residentialadded that 15 affordable housing units would be provided on the ground level as familyunits

Trang 13

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 landand would significantly contribute to creating a sustainable residential development andwould have an acceptable impact on the setting of the Fish Island Conservation Area Theapplication 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 wereincluded 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 toapprove 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 DevelopmentManager stated that the Neptune Group had a large commercial holdings portfolio andspecialised in letting accommodation to small and medium sized businesses Mr Mackiestated that the applicant had tried to maintain the existing character of Fish Island throughthe design of the scheme The Neptune Group’s portfolio was almost entirely commercialand the applicant was confident that the commercial spaces would be successful The unitsize 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

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 wouldhave 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):

Định dạng
Số trang	26
Dung lượng	206 KB