Agenda item

Approval of Reserved Matters (design, external appearance and landscaping) submitted pursuant to condition (4) of permission Ref. 2007/2889 relating todemolition of 486 dwellings and redevelopment of the sites with a total of 761dwellings (248 rented, 170 intermediate and 343 private for sale), comprising 1-bed, 2-bed and 3-bed flats, 3-bed, 4-bed and 5-bed houses and 4-bed maisonettes; new community centre, including community multi-purpose hall, community offices and meeting room, youth club, classes, IT room, nursery (approximate total area of 1,374 sq. m – Use Class D1), 10No. retail / commercial units: (approximate total area of 548 m2 – within Use Classes A1/A2/A3/A4/A5/B1/D1); structural landscaping, provision of public open space and creation of new vehicular, cycle and pedestrian routes within the estate (55% affordable housing units); and car parking proposed on new roads (approximately 48); undercroft (approximately 213).

(Councillor Buitekant left the Chamber during the discussion of this item).

6.1  The Planning Officer introduced the report, as set out in the agenda and explained that material samples were available at the meeting.

6.2  Graham Girling (Applicant) and Lorna Mead (EDMC) spoke in support of the scheme, their comments are summarised as follows:-

§  Strived for the highest quality construction and materials.

§  They had kept the promises made to residents, following the previous consultations.

§  The phasing was resident lead and the majority of properties being built in Phase 1 would be social housing.

§  The scheme had been looked at by the Design Review Panel, which had deemed the undercroft parking acceptable. They were also focused on crime prevention and working with the police, with CCTV being installed within the car park.

§  The EDMC had worked with the Housing Association and Architects throughout the development.

§  The existing housing is of a poor standard, which contributed to the low moral of residents.

§  The EDMC supports Phase 1 of the development and feel that the previous parking issues had now been resolved.

§  The proposed development will provide improved amenity space, community facilities, shops and improved housing.

6.3  The Chair referred to the issue of undercroft and asked the Applicant whether any other alternative parking arrangements had been considered and also how this would be managed.

6.4  The applicant stated that they had looked at other alternatives and that undercroft parking had been chosen because they wanted to increase the amount of parking available for returning residents.  Approximately 83 residents had vehicles.  He added that it would be secured by design and they sought to gain Park Mark accreditation.  They would provide the necessary lighting and ventilation and provide a commitment for the management of this area.  He added that this would not be a large public car park and that residents would pay to use it.

6.5  The applicant explained that residents had been invited to view a similar scheme in Greenwich Millennium Village, where undercroft parking had worked well.  The landscape architect added that he had designed a podium garden on a different scheme and that the garden would include a mechanical irrigation system and 1m deep soil.

6.6  The Chair also wished to clarify the location of the vents and whether they opened out onto the children’s’ play area.  The applicant explained that the vents formed part of the walls, along the public footway and that propeller fans would be installed to circulate the air.

6.7  Councillor Desmond wished to clarify the lifespan of the aluminium windows and the applicant explained that the windows were timber with aluminium sheeting for reduced maintenance and were tilt and turn.  They had a lifespan of approximately 30 years.

6.8  Their intention was to move residents out into decent housing during the phasing of the development.  Further negotiations would need to take place with the Highways Team at Phase 2 regarding the inter-face with the canal and potential road closure, previously requested.  The Chair confirmed that the Sub-Committee did want to see Phase 2 built out.

Unanimously RESOLVED that:-

REASONS FOR APPROVAL

The London Plan and also the following policies contained in the Hackney Unitary Development Plan 1995 are relevant to the approved development/use and were considered by this Council in reaching the decision to grant planning permission:

Hackney Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (1995)

EQ1  -  Development requirements

EQ31  -  Trees

EQ40  -  Noise Control

EQ48  -  Designing Out Crime

HO3  -  Other Sites for Housing

TR19  -  Planning Standards

Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG)

SPG1  -  New Residential Developments

SPG11  -  Access for People with Disabilities

SPG16  -  Interim Housing Standards

London Plan 2008 (Consolidated with alterations since 2004)

2A.1  -  Sustainability criteria

4A.14  -  Reducing noise

4B.3  -  Maximising the potential of sites

4B.4  -  Enhancing the quality of the public realm

4B.5  -  Creating an inclusive environment

4B.6  -  Sustainable design and construction

4B.7  -  Respect local context and communities

INFORMATIVES

The following informatives should be added:

1.  (SI.1)  Building Control

2.  (SI.2)  Work Affecting Public Highway

3.  (SI.3)  Sanitary, Ventilation and Drainage Arrangements

4.  (SI.7)  Hours of Building Works

5.  (SI.24) Naming and Numbering