2 pier road initial representation by 3l7Z72aU

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 2

									Policy & Partnerships Directorate                                                  City Hall
                                                                                   The Queen’s Walk
                                                                                   More London
                                                                                   London SE1 2AA
                                                                                   Switchboard: 020 7983 4000
                                                                                   Minicom: 020 7983 4458
                                                                                   Web: www.london.gov.uk
Stefan Sanctuary
                                                                                   Our ref: PDU/0613c/SG/03
Newham Council                                                                     Your ref: 08/01605/FUL
Development Control                                                                Date: 30 October 2008
Town Hall Annex
330-354 Barking Road
East Ham
London E6 2RP




Dear Mr Sanctuary,

Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London
Authority Acts 1999 and 2007; Town & Country Planning (Mayor of
London) Order 2008
2 Pier Road, planning reference 08/01605/FUL
I refer to the copy of the above planning application which was received from you on 25
September 2008. On 30 October 2008 the Mayor considered a report on this proposal,
reference PDU/0613c/01. A copy of the report is attached, in full. This letter comprises the
statement that the Mayor is required to provide under Article 4(2) of the Order.

The Mayor considers that the application does not comply with the London Plan policies on
housing, urban design/tall buildings, climate change mitigation and adaptation, transport,
economic development/employment for the reasons set out in paragraph 89 of the above-
mentioned report; but that the possible remedies set out in paragraph 91 of this report could
address these deficiencies. The possible remedies are as follows:

      Housing: Further justification is required to support the proposed tenure split and unit
       mix. The financial toolkit appraisal requires revision and independent verification due to
       the financial complexities arising from the viability issues. Amenity space and unit mix
       should be reconsidered to compensate for the increased density.
      Urban design/tall buildings: Further information should be provided to demonstrate
       that the proposal responds to and reflects its context, whether alternative options have
       been explored to provide the same quantum of development on site, or that the enlarged
       version of the previously approved scheme maintains the same high quality of design as in
       the previous scheme. Further development of the design should be explored to better
       integrate and enhance the public realm, connections to the water and to the park.



Direct telephone: 020 79834803   Fax: 020 7983 4706    Email: shelley.gould@london.gov.uk
        Climate change mitigation and adaptation: A full revised energy strategy is requested
         to be submitted before this application is referred back to the Mayor. Further information
         is required to demonstrate how the application meets the Mayor’s essential, and where
         possible, preferred standards as listed in the ‘Sustainable Design and Construction’
         Supplementary Planning Guidance.

        Transport: Further information is required on the impact of the development on the
         highway network and level of S106 contributions.

         Economic development/employment: Initiatives to create training and employment
         opportunities for local people and address other barriers to employment should be
         formalised through a Section 106 agreement, these initiatives should complement existing
         projects in the area. A contribution towards community facilities should also be considered.

        Flood risk: The issues of escape/function during a flood event should be addressed before
         the application is referred back to the Mayor.

The Mayor noted in the meeting his serious concern about the design of the proposed building,
the lack of amenity space and the suitability of a tall and high density building in this particular
location. He also expressed reservations about the shadowing impact on the Royal Victoria
Gardens and the ability of contributions to mitigate such an effect.

If your Council subsequently resolves to make a draft decision on the application, it must
consult the Mayor again under Article 5 of the Order and allow him fourteen days to decide
whether to allow the draft decision to proceed unchanged, or direct the Council under Article 6
to refuse the application, or issue a direction under Article 7 that he is to act as the local
planning authority for the purpose of determining the application and any connected
application. You should therefore send me a copy of any representations made in respect of the
application, and a copy of any officer’s report, together with a statement of the decision your
authority proposes to make, and (if it proposed to grant permission) a statement of any
conditions the authority proposes to impose and a draft of any planning obligation it proposes
to enter into and details of any proposed planning contribution.


Yours sincerely,



Giles Dolphin
Head of Planning Decisions

cc       John Biggs, London Assembly Constituency Member
         Nicky Gavron, Chair of London Assembly Planning and Housing Committee
         John Pierce and Ian McNally, GOL
         Colin Lovell, TfL
         Helen Wood/Dean Williams, LDA
         Mike Ibbot, Indigo Planning




                                                     -2-

								
To top