Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Chair referred to paragraph 3.24 of the minutes. She said that it should be amended to read ‘The proposal would use evergreens in the 5 metre height range. With this amendment it was:

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of Strategic Planning Committee held on 13 July 2022 be confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

None.

The following recommendations were agreed subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

RECOMMENDATION (A)  To agree the proposals and refer the application, this report and any other required documents to the Mayor of London (Greater London Authority) under Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008.

RECOMMENDATION (B)  Subject to no direction being received from the Mayor of London, authorise the Head of Law to complete a legal agreement under Section 106 of the 1990 Act (and other appropriate powers) to cover the principal matters as set out in Section 12 of this report, including other such amendments as considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development.

 RECOMMENDATION (C)  Subject to completion of a satisfactory legal agreement, authorise the Head of Planning to GRANT PLANNNG PERMISSION subject to conditions including those set out below and such amendments as considered appropriate to ensure the acceptable implementation of the development

3.1       The Planning Officer, gave an illustrative presentation recommending the grant of planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and comprehensive redevelopment to provide 3 new buildings ranging in heights of 3 to 19 storeys to provide 220 residential units (C3 Use Class) and 1,132sqm of commercial floor space (Use Class E) plus 311sqm of commercial floor space (Use Class E) in a container building, together with associated wheelchair accessible vehicle parking, cycle parking, landscaping, play areas, public realm, improvements to river wall and public riverside walkway and associated works at Sun Wharf, Creekside SE8

3.2.      The Committee noted the report and that the main issues were:

 · Principle of Development

· Housing

 · Employment

· Urban Design and Impact on Heritage Assets

 · Transport Impact

 · Living Conditions of Neighbours

· Sustainable Development

 · Natural Environment

 · Public Health, Well-being and Safety

 · Environmental Impact Assessment

· Planning Obligations

3.3      Following questions from members, the following points were discussed.

·      The container building would be in place for some time, it was not a temporary structure

·      There was demand for commercial property space, but there would be a condition which required details of the marketing strategy.

·      There was a request for more detailed information regarding the impact of sunlight and daylight and the detriment it would have on neighbouring residences.

3.4       The Principal Planning Officer said that sunlight/daylight had been an issue throughout this application and one of the main reason for residents’ objections. Block B2 was in close proximity to the Kent Wharf development; a distance of 20 metres. Some neighbours would be severely affected. A plan of the blocks mostly affected by the development was shown. In an effort to explain the severe harmful effects that the development would have on those residents and how many households would be affected, the Council’s adviser on sunlight/daylight was asked for a detailed explanation.

3.5       Mr Cosgrave was then asked for more information regarding the level of effect of sunlight/daylight on residents and the number affected. He said that the applicant had updated their analysis and a report was produced on 25 February 2022. The report set out the number of window/rooms in the various blocks that would be affected by the development. Out of 553 window in Kent Wharf, 482 would be impacted within the BRE guidelines for vertical sky components. 71 windows would be impacted to a greater degree than the BRE would normally recommend. Of those, 19 would have a minor impact, 24 moderate and 28 major magnitude impact. The second daylight test looked at how much of the room could have a view of sky. Out of 407 rooms tested, 376 were within the guidelines, 31 were outside these guidelines. Of those 31, 9 had minor, 7 moderate and 15 major magnitude impact on daylight. The applicant had then addressed sunlight; out of 139 windows, 118 impacted within the guidelines. Of the remainder, 17 would have adverse impacts to annual sunlight, 14 would have adverse impacts on winter sunlight. Mr Cosgrave used this information to calculate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.