Back to top arrow icon Back to top
  1. Home
  2. Agenda item
 Menu

Agenda item

2021/2491 and 2021/2495: Haggerston Baths, Whiston Road E2 8BN

Decision:

RESOLVED: planning permission was granted subject to conditions and completion of a legal agreement in relation to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Minutes:

5.1  PROPOSAL: Part demolition of the western extension and erection of part three, five and six storey (plus basement and lightwell) extension; demolition of external stair and two-storey side/rear element on eastern elevation and erection of two storey (plus basement) extension and external alterations and refurbishment to provide office floorspace (Use Class E(g)), flexible events space in the former pool hall (Sui Generis), standalone community hall (Use Class F2(b), gym (Use Class E(d)) and retail (Use Class E(a)).

 

5.2  POST SUBMISSION REVISIONS:

? Finalisation of viability information;

? Submission of draft Operational Management Plan, draft Fire Strategy, Flood Risk Assessment, amended BREEAM pre-assessment, amended Daylight and Sunlight Report, a new East/West Section drawing and Design and Access Statement Addendum.

 

A 14 day consultation had taken place with neighbours subsequent to the receipt of the revisions.

 

5.3 The Planning Service’s Senior Planner, Major Projects, introduced the application as set out in the published papers. During the course of his presentation reference was made to the addendum and a number of amendments to the application report were made including the following:

·  Amendments to paragraphs 6.11 and 6.2.13; following a further 16 objections being received and the applicant providing further details on the use of the employment floorspace, respectively;

·  Paragraphs 6.4.41 and 6.4.42 were deleted as they referred to a different scheme;

·  Paragraphs 6.4.3 and 6.4.46 were amended to refer to sections of legislation and specific paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

·  Paragraph 6.6.17 was deleted and paragraph 6.6.18 was amended to refer to 36 visitor cycle spaces on Swimmers Lane;

·  Following comments from independent advisors, in respect of the energy and sustainability of the scheme, an additional condition was recommended and condition 8.1.13 was amended;

·  Following a review of the Fire Strategy information by the Council’s Building Control Officer, an additional condition was recommended;

·  Paragraph 8.13 was amended;

·  Following further discussions with the Council’s Drainage Team, condition 8.1.20 was amended;

·  Following clarification from the Council’s Environmental Protection Team, condition 8.1.39 was deleted.

 

5.4 The Planning Sub-Committee heard from a representative for the residents of London Mills and Basin Mills apartments. They expressed a number of concerns about the impact of the proposals on daylight/sunlight and the character of the area, as well as on  traffic and parking.

 

5.5  The representative for the applicant gave a brief overview of the benefits  of the proposals and how it would bring the site back into public use.

 

5.6  During the discussion phase of the application the following points were raised:

·  The proposed site and the adjacent London Mills and Basin Mills apartments were not parallel to one another. They were approximately 13 to 15 metres apart;

·  The Senior Planner confirmed that the proposals would not exactly mirror the adjacent apartments because the boundary was different for each building. The impact of the proposals on residents in the apartments was exacerbated by the presence of balconies on the apartment building. Where on the building there were no balconies then the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) measurement was found to be within acceptable levels for an inner London location;

·  The Planning Service had concluded that the benefits of the scheme outweighed any harm caused. There were huge benefits in restoring the site, some of which was currently in a poor state. The scheme would also bring the site back into public use with, for example, the installation of a community space;

·  The existing ‘sawtooth’ roofed 1953 element to the north west of the site would be demolished;

·  Discussions on the impact of the scheme on the amenities for the London Mills and Basin Mills apartments were separate from any discussion on the viability of the scheme. The Senior Planner reiterated that the daylight/sunlight impact of the proposals and the outlook of the proposed scheme were found to be acceptable;

·  The Senior Planner had considered that the harm caused to the significance of the listed building by the height of the sixth floor in the proposed scheme was less than substantial and was outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme including the restoration of the existing listed building. It was recognised that the restoration of the retained parts of the listed building involved significant costs and the information provided by the applicant showed that the scheme would not be viable without the sixth floor.  The Viability Officer added that  in order for the scheme to be viable then the sixth floor had to be included;

·  The proposed design for the new office building to the west of the site was based on an integrated “one building” approach with the listed building.  The design was deliberately a muted industrial approach in order not to compete with highly decorated main facades of the listed building;

·  The Senior Planner confirmed that a condition was included in the application report which would provide further details on the installation of the Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHPs) at the next stage of the planning process. The architect explained that in relation to the ASHPs and the Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) guidance because it was a listed building with a new element a bespoke assessment was required. The new element was separate from the existing building so the fabric of that building could be upgraded significantly compared to the heritage elements of the site. The heritage elements would be upgraded as best as possible without causing harm to the significance of the listed building. The ASHPs would be located in a fully enclosed plant room on the fifth floor;

·  The applicant would consider post-occupancy tests as part of an amendment to condition 8.1.13;

·  The Planning Service was satisfied with the details of the materials. A condition was in place for the details to return to a future Planning Sub-Committee meeting for consideration. The Planning Sub-Committee agreed that details on signage and external lighting would be included as part of the materials condition;

·  The three boilers and the other basement plant were being removed from the site  to remove asbestos contamination. Parts of one of the boilers, one of the water heaters, one of the economisers, panels from the rooftop water tank and cast iron columns were being relocated into the new building, following cleaning and restoration, and this would be managed by condition;

·  The Chair of the Planning Sub-Committee recommended that some of the £194,633 allocated for the communal offset should be spent on widening the public footpath at the front of the site. The Council’s Principal Transportation Planner had previously recommended that funds should be allocated to widen the footpath. The Planning Service would examine how the best to achieve a widening of  the footpath;

·  Cross laminated timber would be used as part of the materials in the scheme;

·  There was a condition in place requiring the submission of a draft Operational Management Plan (OMP) at the next stage of the planning process and it would include a guarantee of public access on at least five days per week for at least the hours between 9:00am and 6:00pm. Part of the draft OMP would also include details of a flexible events space, for sui generis use, as well as including details stating that the public could use the cafe toilets without having to purchase items from the cafe. The Planning Sub-Committee agreed that the Operational Management Plan would come back to a future meeting for Members’ consideration;

·  The Planning Sub-Committee noted that the application included discounted, not affordable work space. This was because of the scheme did not reach the 40% threshold in the Local Plan;

·  The Senior Planner would amend condition 8.1.12 so that it would state that the applicant would make the best endeavours to undertake a series of post occupancy tests on site.

 

 

Vote

 

For:  Cllr Bell, Cllr Hanson, Cllr Joseph, Cllr Potter and Cllr Young.

Against:  None.

Abstentions: None.

 

RESOLVED:

 

Planning permission was granted subject to conditions and completion of a legal agreement in relation to S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: