Home
Agenda item

Agenda item

2021/2341: 3 Mandeville Street, Hackney, London, E5 0DH

Meeting of Planning Sub-Committee, Wednesday 6 April 2022 6.30 pm (Item 6.)

Decision:

RESOLVED:

Conditional planning permission was approved subject to conditions and a legal agreement.

Minutes:

6.1 PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building and erection of an 8 storey mixed-use building comprising commercial and/or community floor space (use classes E/F2) and 46 residential units with associated cycle parking and refuse and recycling facilities.

POST-SUBMISSION AMENDMENTS: There have been minor design amendments at roof level post-submission in order to address officer feedback. Some additional information has also been submitted in relation to fire safety and urban greening factors. The extent of the changes and additional information is such that it is not considered to warrant are-consultation. The information is available to view on the Council’s website at the time of report publication.

6.2 The Planning Service’s Deputy Team Leader, Major Projects, introduced the report as published. During the course of the officer’s submission, reference was made to the published addendum in which there were a number of additions and amendments made to the published report. These included one additional submission of support for the application being received, one objection to the scheme being received and two clarifications in relation to paragraphs 6.1.15 and 6.1.22 of the published report.

6.3 No persons had registered to speak in objection to the application.

6.4 A local resident spoke first in support of the application and explained how the proposals would benefit them by providing affordable housing.

6.5 A representative for the applicant, Pocket Living, spoke next about how the proposals would benefit the local area.

6.6 During the discussion phase the following points were raised:

· Proposed units being sold at a discount of 20% below local market value was in line with the NPPF definition of Discounted Market Sale housing and was part of Pocket Living’s business model;

· The business model was compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) definition of affordable housing. However, compared to the market values in the area where the site was located, the model was not considered by officers to represent genuinely affordable housing under LP33 policy LP13;

· The market value of each unit would be arrived at as part of a valuation exercise controlled through the s106 agreement. The Council would ensure that it had sufficient approval powers to ensure that the valuation exercise was carried out appropriately and that the discount was genuine against the local market value;

· In the submitted Viability Assessment it was noted that there was not a directly comparative model as no other developer had a business model like Pocket Living’s;

· Of the proposed pocket units, 31 of them were priced at £292k; which was a 20% discount to their full market value;

· The proposals had been independently evaluated and had taken into account local housing stock which included one to two bedroom properties. There was not a sufficient amount of comparable one bedroom or studio properties in the local area to use as a benchmark;

· The Pocket Living scheme was aimed at occupants who were earning approximately £42k per annum;

· The proposed site, previously a GP practice, had ceased to provide services in June 2019 after which it was left vacant;

· The local area already had a high proportion of family-sized homes in comparison to the borough and London average. The Planning Service had concluded that the proposals were acceptable because they were providing a type of affordable housing which was meeting a specific demand. Therefore the divergence from the housing mix, as set out in the Local Plan, was considered acceptable;

· With the site’s small footprint, a conventional housing mix model would be challenging because it would require a second core to accommodate multiple tenures. The Planning Service had considered whether the site could provide a more conventional scheme with a policy compliant housing mix, however, it was determined that this type of scheme would run at a deficit of £500k;

· There were two lifts proposed; one for firefighting and one for evacuation. Also 11% of the proposed units were wheelchair adaptable;

· A condition had been included for integrated swift nest box bricks or boxes to be installed;

· Two disabled car parking spaces had been conditioned, one of which would contain an electric car charging point. A Parking Design and Management Plan would also be submitted for approval prior to occupation of the site. Due to the constraints of the site the two disabled car parking spaces were placed on the street but every effort had been made to ensure they were as close as possible to the entrance of the site.

Vote:

For: Cllr Bell, Cllr Chauhan, Cllr Levy, Cllr Race, Cllr Stops and Cllr Young.

Against: None.

Abstention: None.

RESOLVED:

Conditional planning permission was approved subject to conditions and a legal agreement.

The Chair of the Sub-Committee would write to the Council’s Head of Planning and Building Control and Pocket Living, recommending that they visit Marcon Place, Pocket Living’s development in the Cllr’s ward. The development had been in place for some time and the Cllr believed a site visit would be useful to identify any issues.

Supporting documents: