Agenda item

Proposal: Demolition of existing houses and erection of a three to six storey mixed-use development including a café at ground floor, office space on ground and first floors and thirteen flats on the floors above.

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of the existing houses and erection of a 3-6 storey mixed-use development including a café at ground floor, approximately 690 sq.m. of office space on the ground to first floors and 13 flats on the floors above. The scheme would be a ‘car free’ development with 1 accessible parking space provided approximately 100 metres from the main residential entrance on Hale Village. The proposal would provide an Estate Management Office for Hale Village to replace the existing temporary office on Millmead Road.

The Planning Officer and representatives for the applicant gave a presentation on plans for the scheme.

The Chair thanked the representatives for their presentation and requested more detailed and tailored visuals for the scheme be made available before any future applications. The Chair then invited Committee Members to raise any comments or questions. The following was discussed:

·         The Committee had serious concerns over the wheelchair accessible car parking space for the site. The Committee was not convinced by the proposal for the single car parking space that was required for the wheelchair accessible unit being provided off-site within the existing Hale village development. This was considered too unreasonable and too far from the development. It was noted that it was a policy requirement for a development of this size to provide a wheelchair accessible unit.

·         There was concern the area was already over developed.

·         The representatives noted that the primary purpose of the scheme was to provide Lee Valley Estates with a head office so that they could continue employing people in the area. The secondary purpose was to provide estate management. However, the scheme was only viable with the residential element. 

·         There was concern surrounding entrances to the towpath and also the balconies over the towpath. The representatives noted there was some overlap onto the towpath on the eastern elevation, but this would only be by around 800milimetres, with none of the balconies hanging over the canal.

·         The representatives noted they had worked closely with the Canal and River Trust over this development, who they claimed were supportive of the scheme. It was suggested that the developers contribute to the refurbishment of the lock. The representatives responded that they had held discussions with the Canal and River Trust and would provide written confirmation of any agreements made between the two before any future application. They claimed there had been an assurance from the Trust that, were the development to go ahead, then the locks would become a priority to be fixed.

·         The representatives accepted the plans were close to the set boundaries, but this was done to utilise all the available space.

·         There was concern over the usage of green walls in the scheme.

·         The Committee sought to see the Applicant’s individual responses provided to each recommendation raised by the QRP. The representatives agreed and informed they had already adopted some of the proposed changes by the QPR, such as moving access from the tow path to Ferry Lane for the residential properties.

·         The representatives advised that the scheme was not able to support affordable housing as it was not viable.

·         Regarding the shared lift for the café and residential properties, the representatives informed this would be fob operated and only residents with a fob could access the properties.

·         There was concern over the design and how the development fitted into the surrounding area, with the absence of any rationale for the colour scheme criticised. The representatives claimed the development had been designed with the surrounding area considered.

·         The yellow window frames would be aluminium, with the yellow cladding also likely to be aluminium.

·         The absence of any parking close to the development was criticised as not being practical.