The housing secretary has overruled the recommendation of a planning inspector and refused plans for the 471-home mixed-use redevelopment of a Sainsbury's supermarket site, after attaching "substantial weight" to the harm caused by the loss of daylight arising from the proposal.
Sainsbury’s had appealed against the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ failure to decide on the application within statutory time limits.
The application sought consent for works including the demolition of the existing store and decked car park to allow for a replacement Sainsbury's store; a learning facility; flexible retail/office/community floorspace; 471 flats arranged in eight blocks; an energy centre and plant at basement level; 240 'retail' car parking spaces and 40 disabled car parking spaces for use by the proposed residential units.
According to the inspector’s report, which recommended that the plans be approved, the council had resolved to refuse the application on grounds including concern over affordable housing and viability; harm to the setting of the listed Albion Yard Brewery and the Whitechapel Market Conservation Area; and the scheme’s unacceptable impact on daylight and sunlight to surrounding properties.
In his decision letter, housing secretary James Brokenshire said he disagreed with the inspector’s recommendation.
The letter said Brokenshire agreed with the inspector that the proposed affordable housing offer "would make a significant contribution to the Borough’s needs, and that it represented the maximum reasonable amount that could be delivered by the scheme".
According to application documents, 65 of the homes (13.8%) would be classed as affordable. This compares to the borough's target of securing 35-50% affordable homes on such schemes.
However the minister considered that the scheme would be in conflict with local planning policies regarding heritage and with a policy on daylight and sunlight impacts.
He said that there were "clear conflicts with these policies, which are of central importance to the proposal".
The letter said that, "given the great weight attaching to harm to heritage assets, and the substantial weight attaching to the harm from loss of daylight and sunlight, he disagrees with the inspector that there is ‘limited tension’ with these policies, and considers that the proposal is not in accordance with the development plan overall".
Whilst attaching "substantial weight" to the scheme’s provision of new homes, the minister concluded that the proposal failed to meet the National Planning Policy Framework’s "aims of creating an inclusive place, and that this attracts substantial weight against the proposal".
The minister also found that harm from loss of daylight and sunlight attracted "substantial weight against the proposal"; while the harm to heritage assets attracted "great weight" against it.
The appeal was refused.
Last month, plans for 427 homes in eight buildings rising up to 22 storeys on a site abutting a Tesco store in west London were refused, in line with a recommendation from planners who raised concerns about the scheme's height, design and level of affordable housing provision.
In December, the London Borough of Lambeth approved plans for the redevelopment of a south London supermarket site to include a replacement Tesco store, 571 homes and 2,638 square metres of office space, despite the scheme being 'beyond the upper limit' of residential density guidelines.
Article & Image Source : Planning Resource
Comments