Agenda item

Proposal:Demolition with façade retention and erection of buildings of 4 to 9 storeys with part basement to provide a mix of commercial spaces, warehouse living and C3 residential.

The Committee considered the pre-application briefing for the demolition with façade retention and erection of buildings of 4 to 9 storeys with part basement to provide a mix of commercial spaces, warehouse living and C3 residential.

The applicant team and officers responded to questions from the Committee:

·         It was noted that the site was privately owned and that the proposals involved neighbouring land owners. It was explained that the site was within site allocation number 32 (Omega Works) of the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) 2017 and it was expected that there would be an increase in mixed-use development, including warehouse accommodation, and improved accessibility. It was noted that the proposed site allocations spoke to each other and that the site to the north was part of a different site allocation.

·         It was noted that the proposals would provide 76 residential units and 67 bedspaces within two types of warehouse living, including single level and split level. It was explained that the warehouse living component would comprise eight units, with between two and 15 bedrooms per unit. It was added that the minimum bedroom area would be 12m², which was above London standards, and that the ratio of space per person 42-45m², which was above the standard for a studio unit. It was also noted that there would be communal cycle parking, storage, workspaces, laundry rooms, and bathrooms.

·         In relation to affordable housing, it was noted that the site allocation did not give a position on this concept and so this was open for consideration. It was noted that, based on the initial scoping, the scheme was just considered to be viable but that, if there was any value left in the scheme, some affordable housing might be provided. It was explained that warehouse living was smaller than conventional housing but did meet a housing need and so the proposal would require appropriate consideration.

·         It was commented that there was existing employment use on the site and that existing uses were an important consideration. It was noted that the site allocation discussed affordable workspaces and employment uses and it was important to factor this into the consideration of the scheme. It was explained that a robust viability assessment would be undertaken and that affordable housing would be provided if possible but it was highlighted that there was a requirement for affordable workspaces which would have to be factored into the viability.

·         Some concerns were noted about the height of the blocks at the rear of the Omega A proposals. It was clarified that a sunlight and daylight assessment would be undertaken under the next stage of the process and would involve a more detailed analysis. It was explained that this issue was being considered and that there would be a buffer zone between the site and the Crusader Estate. It was noted that there would be approximately 8 metres between the proposed buildings on the eastern side of the site and that there would be a combination of lightweight, transparent, and frosted glazing and metal panels to allow light and minimise overlooking.

·         The applicant team clarified that, although they would need to temporarily relocate whilst works were undertaken, it was aimed to retain the existing tenants on the site. It was noted that there would be similar levels of rents and that the spaces would be better utilised.

·         It was confirmed that there would be one sustainable roof and two other roofs providing amenity space. It was added that there would be vehicular access to the site but no through route.

·         Members commented that the design of Omega B was welcomed.

·         Some concerns were raised about the number of people that would be sharing bathrooms, health and safety issues, and the levels of natural light. It was noted by some members that they would not want this accommodation to have different standards to Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). It was explained by the applicant team that the bedrooms were designed for one person and that, although they could accommodate couples, only a very small number were used by couples. It was noted that the bedrooms would meet minimum standards for natural light and outlook. It was added that there were spacious communal areas and that the units were based on existing warehouse living sites. In relation to bathrooms, it was explained that this varied but that, at most, a bathroom would be shared by 1-3 people in the smaller units and 1-5 people in the larger units.

·         It was noted that the site was within a Local Employment Area - Regeneration Area and that policy DM38 required developments to maximise employment floorspace. The applicant team noted that the proposal would double the commercial space and that this did not include the working areas within the warehouse living. It was added that there would be an increase in the number of residential units and that these would contribute to the viability of the affordable workspaces.

·         Some members commented that the design of the balconies and the sawtooth element in the Omega B proposals appeared slightly overcrowded and it was enquired whether the balconies could be internalised. The applicant team explained that recessed and pop out balconies had been considered and that there were advantages and disadvantages to both designs. It was commented that recessed balconies generally had reduced natural light. It was considered that the current design worked well for the units whilst trying to retain and incorporate as much of original building as possible.

·         It was clarified that the proposal did not include any cladding.

The Chair thanked the applicant team for attending.