Out-Law News 2 min. read
22 Jul 2013, 2:19 pm
The proposed scheme, submitted by Chalegrove Properties, is for the construction of the UK's tallest residential tower on the site of the former City Pride public house at 15 Westferry Road. The residential led, mixed use development would comprise 822 flats, including 37% affordable housing, as well as 162 serviced apartments, a roof terrace, an amenity pavilion with shops and open space.
The application was coupled with a second application for the erection of buildings ranging in height from three to five storeys with rooftop pavilions rising to six storeys, providing 173 residential units at Island Point. The majority of the affordable housing for the two schemes is intended to be provided at Island Point, which is referred to in the first committee report as the 'donor site', and the majority of the private residential accommodation is within the City Pride tower.
The application was considered by members at a committee meeting in June of this year, at which Tower Hamlets officers recommended the scheme for approval. However, members resolved "not to accept" the officers' recommendation, citing concerns relating to height and scale, density, lack of public open space and housing mix, specifically the lack of mixed tenure between the City Pride site and Island Point. Officers were asked to prepare a supplementary report, setting out the proposed reasons for refusal and implications of refusing the scheme.
The officers' supplementary report (Agenda Item 6) set out draft reasons for refusal in accordance with members' recommendation. The report set out officers' view that whilst the "reasons for refusal could be defended at appeal…the likelihood of success may be limited, particularly with regard to the lack of publicly accessible open space".
The report set out further detail of the implications of a refusal, citing Planning Inspectorate guidance relating to members going against an officers' recommendation, and highlighting that on appeal the Inspector was entitled to make an award for costs on the grounds of "unreasonable behaviour". The report also explained that there was a risk that if the proposed scheme was refused by members and instead permitted as a result of a 'call in' by the Mayor or on appeal, planning obligations attached to the development may be reduced; the proposed family sized affordable housing may be permitted as affordable rent at up to 80% of market rents instead of the current proposed offer of social rented accommodation, and the applicant may seek to renegotiate the planning obligations which could result in a lesser s106 package of benefits.
In relation to the proposed ground of refusal relating to the tenure mix of housing, officers explained that with affordable housing provided predominantly in the Island Point site and private housing being largely located in the City Pride tower, an affordable housing offer of 37% was possible. However if tenure was to be mixed across the two sites, or if the two sites were to be 'decoupled' and brought forward separately, the affordable housing provision possible would drop to 27%, against a policy requirement of 35%.
The officers' report also included further information provided by the applicant's agent since the committee's earlier consideration of the proposal. This included a comparison of the proposed scheme's height and dock location against that of the scheme permitted under an extant permission. The additional information also addressed issues of density, submitting that there was no material harm caused by the high density.
In relation to the City Pride Tower application, three members voted in favour of the scheme, whilst three voted against, requiring the Chair to use his casting vote in favour of approving the scheme. The Island Point application was then approved four votes to two. The resolutions to approve are subject to any direction by the Mayor, conditions and a s106 agreement securing planning obligations.
