Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Zoe Folley, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4877, E-mail: zoe.folley@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Md. Maium Miah and Councillor Marc Francis and for lateness from Councillor Shiria Khatun.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Md. Maium Miah and Councillor Marc Francis and for lateness from Councillor Shiria Khatun.
|
|||||||||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 48 KB To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992. See attached note from the Chief Executive. Decision:
Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||||||
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES PDF 80 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 8th March 2012. Decision: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8th March 2012 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8th March 2012 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
|
|||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDATIONS To RESOLVE that:
1) in the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and
2) in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
Decision: The Committee RESOLVED that:
1) In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and
2) In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED that:
1) In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes is delegated to the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and
2) In the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions/informatives/planning obligations or reasons for approval/refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Corporate Director, Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
|
|||||||||||||||||
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS PDF 42 KB To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee.
The deadline for registering to speak at this meeting is 4pm Tuesday 3rd April 2012.
Decision: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.
The Chair added that he had used his discretion to allow Councillor Peter Golds to address the meeting, although his request to do so had been out of time, in view of the large amount of public interest in the application and Councillor Golds’ position as a Ward Member.
|
|||||||||||||||||
DEFERRED ITEMS Decision: Nil Items.
Minutes: Nil Items.
|
|||||||||||||||||
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION PDF 56 KB Decision: Nil Items.
Minutes: Nil Items.
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 7.05 p.m., as explained earlier, to allow for the arrival of Councillor Shiria Khatun (Vice-Chair). The meeting reconvened at 7.10 p.m., when Councillor Khatun arrived. At this point, Councillor Shiria Khatun confirmed that she had no declarations of interest to make. |
|||||||||||||||||
Land at Virginia Quay off Newport Avenue, Newport Avenue, London, E14 (PA/11/01426) PDF 1 MB Decision: Update Report Tabled.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That the officers’ views in objecting tothe revised proposals for land at Virginia Quay, off Newport Avenue, London, E14, (PA/11/01426) be agreed for the reasons set out in the circulated report.
(2) That, if LTGDC are minded to approve the application, officers seek to secure an affordable rent level of £242 for the 4 bed affordable rent unit, as well as the conditions as set out in the circulated report. Minutes: Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, introduced the circulated report and Tabled update regarding the application for planning permission for land at Virginia Quay off Newport Avenue, London, E14.
Mr Smith confirmed that the application had been heard by the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) on 9th February 2012 with the Corporation’s Officers recommending the application for approval. Members of the Board had resolved to defer the application so that officers could consider possible reasons for refusal and a further report on this basis be prepared. Mr Smith advised that following the meeting on 9th February 2012 the applicants had revised the application and provided further information in support. The amendments and information had been considered by Officers and Mr Smith recommended that the Committee resolve to ratify Officers’ view that the reasons for objection formerly put forward should be amended to read as follows:
“1. The proposal constitutes over-development of the site by virtue of impacts associated with excessive density, these being loss of daylight and sunlight as well as increased overshadowing for existing residents and poor levels of public transport accessibility. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies 3.4 and 3.5 of the London Plan (2011), SP10 of the Core Strategy Development Plan (2010), saved policy DEV2 of the Unitary Development Plan (1998) and policy DEV1 of the Interim Planning Guidance (2007).
2. The proposal provides an unacceptable amount of affordable housing. As such, the proposal does not accord with policies 3.8 and 3.12 of the London Plan (2011), saved policy HSG7 of the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (1998), policies HSG2 and HSG3 of the Council’s Interim Planning Guidance (2007) and policy SP0 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2010) which seek to ensure that new developments offer a range of housing choices.”
Additional consultation had resulted in further objections from the public as detailed in the update report.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Mr Cliff Prior, speaking in objection to the application, stated that some 800 objections had been received from 80% of households in the area of the proposed development. It was unclear to local residents and Councillors as to why the scheme was again put forward for consideration. LTGDC had arranged another meeting to consider the matter in Easter week, without awaiting the Borough’s further comments, and would not release details of legal advice sought by them. The application now contained further information regarding car parking but it was not helpful that concierge staff did not live on the estate. There would be severe problems as a disabled space was needed and all six proposed spaces were actually owned by another block. The PTAL score of 2 meant that the site was hard to access by public transport. The proposal was felt to be a piecemeal, infill development that would take away a prime and very important site from the Borough.
In response to queries from a Member, Mr Prior added that the ... view the full minutes text for item 8.1 |
|||||||||||||||||
Decision: RESOLVED
That the details and outcomes as set out in the report be noted.
Minutes: Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, introduced the report which provided details of appeals, decisions and new appeals lodged against the Authority’s Planning decisions.
RESOLVED
That details and outcomes of the appeals as set out in the report be noted.
|