Island Point row leaves Pride tower in limbo

Developer Glenkerrin had linked the two developments in the hope that it would be able to locate its affordable housing requirements largely onto the Island Point development at 443-451 Westferry Road. This would allow it to maximise the amount of private housing it could sell on the City Pride site, for which it paid £32million last year.

But councillors failed to come to a decision on the first of the two schemes, dragging the prestigious Pride development into limbo until the next meeting next month.

Objector Gill Crawford said: "It's a surprise, but we'll fight on. The issues are still there. We've just got to decide where we go from here."

Glenkerrin has already failed twice to get approval for the Island Point scheme. Residents remain outraged by the positioning of buildings up to eight storeys next to a two-storey conservation area, the terracotta design of the buildings and the loss of light. They are now also angry at plans to devote 91 per cent of the units to affordable housing, leaving the Pride with just five per cent.

Even with this distribution, the affordable housing only makes up 41 per cent over the two schemes, below the council's 50 per cent target. Residents at Julian Place also fear that the use of their space as a cut-through to Mudchute DLR would destroy their "peaceful corner of a stressful and busy area".

The authority received 290 letters objecting to Island Point, while 147 letters of support appeared this week. But councillors and residents accused Glenkerrin of distributing "pre-typed letters" to residents outside the area to drum up support.

Millwall councillor Shirley Houghton, who has supported residents in each of the previous applications, said: "Don't think that this is a war between private and social housing. Everyone in this area is against this scheme.

"People don't want a polarised community. This scheme is proposing exactly that."

Glenkerrin argues that it paid a combined £64.9million for the two sites, and that meeting its 50 per cent council target would lose the developer £17.76million. With a 41 per cent provision, the loss would be reduced to £630,000. But objectors dispute this figure, arguing that Glenkerrin is using the amount it paid in its calculations rather than the actual cost of the land, and that the council should not be concerned with digging the developer "out of a hole".

Millwall councillor Rupert Eckhardt said: "We're being to told to set aside this council's policies of social cohesion just to allow a developer to get out of a hole after overpaying for a site at the top of the Island.

"We're being asked to accept a massive overdevelopment of the two sites, and it's just going to destroy the community."

However, Jim Pool of planning consultants DP9, speaking on behalf of Glenkerrin, argued that the plans had been "well received" by many residents.

A petition of over 100 signatures was delivered to Tower Hamlets this week, while representatives from the Play Association Tower Hamlets backed the plans. And a deputation of young people from the a half-term George Green School volunteering scheme appeared to support the application, although they left halfway through the previous item on the agenda.

Mr Pool said: "The key principle is to bring together two sites with two different characters, to maximise the amount of affordable housing being provided and to put it in the right location.

"Despite what was said by some, we undertook extensive consultation and have responded to many issues along the way. The changes have been well received by most.

"We are providing 40 per cent of affordable housing across two sites which will be the highest achieved on the island in recent times.

"Any further affordable housing will renter the proposal unviable."

Officers recommended the approval of Glenkerrin's application for the two sites. Development control manager Stephen Irvine, who told Islanders last January that a previous application for Island Point "would stick out like a sore thumb", admitted that the developer "had probably overpaid" for the Pride site, but that the latest offer filled a need for family housing in the borough.

He said: "On balance, given the circumstances, the level of provision of affordable housing is considered to be a good deal."

Bow East councillor and cabinet member Marc Francis bristled at fellow committee member Tim Archer's suggestion that Island Point would create "ghettos of the future".

But Cllr Francis called for the application to be deferred to investigate a possible raise in the planning contribution required from the developer.

He had received a letter from the Greater London Authority dated February 12 advising that additional value could be negotiated from the scheme.

He said: "Cllr Archer's comments are disgraceful and his statement that we do not need this much more family housing is delusional.

"I don't want families with children on our waiting list stuck 30 to 40 storeys up a tower block. I think that's completely inappropriate.

"I think it's right that we have an affordable housing policy like this, but clearly we don't always achieve this policy. Officers have done well enough to achieve 40 per cent, which is far in excess of other applications in other areas of London.

But I don't believe we've got enough information in front of us this evening to make a decision on this application."