Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber 1st Floor, 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 lateness were submitted on behalf of Councillor Shiria Khatun. It was also reported that Councillor Peter Golds would be substituting for Councillor Craig Aston (except for items 7.6 and 8.2 for which Councillor Aston would be sitting on the Committee).
Minutes: Apologies for lateness were submitted on behalf of Councillor Shiria Khatun. It was also reported that Councillor Peter Golds would be substituting for Councillor Craig Aston (except for items 7.6 and 8.2 for which Councillor Aston would be sitting on the Committee).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 49 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 75 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 5th April 2012. Decision:
The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5th April 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 5th April 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 8th May 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Decision: Nil items. Minutes: Nil items. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
136-140 Wapping High Street, London, E1W 3PA (PA/12/00051 & PA/12/00052) PDF 993 KB Decision: Councillor Shiria Khatun did not vote on this application as she had arrived at the meeting after commencement of consideration of the matter.
Update Report Tabled.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 2 against the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/12/00051) be GRANTED at 136-140 Wapping High Street, London, E1W 3PA subject to:
The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report:
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report.
4. That, if within 3-months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
5. That conservation area consent (PA/12/00052) be GRANTED at 136-140 Wapping High Street, London, E1W 3PA subject to the conditions set out in the report.
Note: Councillor Marc Francis left the meeting following the consideration of this item. Minutes:
Update Report Tabled.
Councillor Shiria Khatun did not vote on this application as she had arrived at the meeting after commencement of consideration of the matter.
Jerry Bell, (Applications Team Leader) introduced the application regarding 136-140 Wapping High Street, London, E1W 3PA.
Shona Conacher spoke in objection to the scheme. She stated that she was speaking on behalf of the residents of Gun Wharf. Whilst supportive of development of the site in principle, she was opposed to this particular scheme. Specifically, the height and size of the scheme. She considered that the current building parameters should be retained to protect amenity. She referred to the previous application and the Council’s concerns and recommendations around the size and bulk of the proposal as set out in a letter. The letter had suggested that the previous development needed to be reduced in height by a floor. However the developers had ignored these in preparing the application scheme. English Heritage had stated that this represented a key opportunity to enhance the area. However this failed to do this. There were day light and sunlight issues and the daylight report contained inaccuracies and had been described by a QC as full of errors. The scheme would degrade privacy due to its prominence, cause a loss of light and overlooking to habitable rooms.
Tony Roome spoke in objection. He referred to the Council’s recommendations regarding the previous scheme. Despite this, the development still retained features that were inappropriate for the location. The irregular roof line was out of keeping with the area given Gun Wharf was a listed building. The Officers report stated that it would lead to overdevelopment if expanded by 3 stories. How would this be addressed?
He also expressed concern at the impact on Wapping High Street from the car free agreement. There would also be a significant increase in deliveries. However the application failed to take the full impact of this into account only focusing on the commercial units. Especially, the obstruction to the bus stop and the traffic flow. The affordable housing element was inadequate. The tool kit showed that 50% was possible. In reply to Members, Mr Roome considered that his key concern was the additional 3 floors. This would place significant pressure on the area given the impact from deliveries and the car free agreement.
Councillor Emma Jones spoke in objection. She expressed concern at the impact on infrastructure and the adequacy of the contributions to accommodate this. She disputed that the design issues had been addressed in accordance with English Heritages recommendations. Furthermore, TFL had expressed concerns around the adequacy of the crane design which she explained. Residents of the area already had to rely on water pumps for showers as recognised by the water company. The development would exacerbate this. How would this be addressed? In reply to questions about recent changes to public transport nodes, she stated that the scheme would hamper the traffic flow given the narrow width of ... view the full minutes text for item 7.1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Site at land adjacent to railway viaduct, Gill Street, E14 (PA/10/01826) PDF 92 KB Additional documents:
Decision: Update Report Tabled.
Councillor Md Maium Miah proposed an amendment to condition 14 of the application seconded by Concillor Kosru Uddin that the closing hours during the Ramadan period be extended from 23:30 to 00:30. On a vote of 5 in favour, 0 against, and 1 abstention, this was Agreed.
On a vote of 5 in favour and 1 against the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/10/01826) be GRANTED at Site at land adjacent to railway viaduct, Gill Street, E14.
2. That the Corporate Director Development and Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report subject to the amendment agreed by the Committee to condition 14 that the closing hours during the Ramadan period be extended from 23:30 to 00:30.
Councillor Golds requested that his vote against the application be recorded. His reasons being that he did not believe that the proposal adequately addressed the issues around community cohesion. Minutes: Update Report Tabled.
Jerry Bell, (Applications Team Leader) introduced the application regarding Site at land adjacent to railway viaduct, Gill Street, E14.
Margret Bradley spoke in objection. She was opposed to the locating of a place of worship in a residential area. She disputed the accuracy of the projected visitor numbers. They were too low and would far outnumber this. There were already major plans for a large hotel in the area. There would be dust and dirt from the construction and residents had already had to suffer two years of this. The portacabin was donated to the community over 20 years ago and they had happily used it. The previous scheme for a two storey mosque was more favourable as it left the portacabin in place.
She expressed serious concern that the applicant hadn’t spoken to residents about the application prior to the application being submitted to the committee again.
In reply to Members, she reported that she didn’t initiate contact with the applicant about the application and she expected them to contact residents. The mosque was currently facing away from residential properties in a less noise sensitive area. The application and lack of consultation had caused much ill feeling amongst residents. There were worries over its availability to the community.
Robert Leech also spoke in objection. He stated that he was a resident of the estate. He feared that it would cause overcrowding on the estate by bringing people into the area. It would result in additional noise, pollution, vehicles, litter, congregations around the children’s play area that was already run down. It would be dangerous for children at the nearby school. The portacabin was a valuable community facility open to everyone. He feared that in future it might not be available to non Muslim groups. He asked about the measures to prevent the applicant from keeping the current mosque as well as this new one which could mean many more extra worshippers than predicted.
In reply to Members, he felt that the scheme would place additional pressures on Council services to maintain the area. There was a real risk of conflict between religious and non religious celebrations. In terms of notification, he merely received a letter from planning in October 2010 and only received an e-mail less than a week ago that it was going to the Committee. There was nothing in the East End Life newspaper.
Mr Aun Qurashi (Applicant) spoke in support of the application. He outlined the planning history of the scheme. Since the last meeting in January 2011, where the application was deferred, the applicant had formulated a management plan addressing the outstanding issues. At which time, the developer also arranged a meeting with residents that was then rescheduled at their request to June 2011 to allow them to see the management plan. At that meeting, residents questioned the enforceability of the plan and how this would be done. They also requested that two groups be given preferential treatment in using ... view the full minutes text for item 7.2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 Wilkes Street, London E1 1QF (PA/11/02495) PDF 955 KB Decision: Update Report Tabled.
On a vote of 2 in favour 0 against and 4 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at 4 Wilkes Street, London E1 1QF (PA/11/02495) be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning permission because of Members’ concerns over
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Minutes: Update Report Tabled.
Jerry Bell, (Applications Team Leader) introduced the application regarding 4 Wilkes Street, London E1 1QF.
David Gadd spoke in objection. He stated that he lived near the proposed terrace and that it would directly affect the nearby properties amenity. It gave priority to the office workers at the expense of residents. There was no policy support for roof terraces for office workers. There was already large ground floor gardens. Therefore the roof terrace was not needed. It was also feared that it could be turned into a bar area. Boards had been displayed on the premises advertising the space as such. The applicant proposed screening, but his neighbours feared this would impact on their light. If granted, there would be difficulties in controlling use of the terrace for such activities as barbeques. In response to Members, he clarified that hoarding had been put up suggesting it could be a roof top bar. Therefore he expressed unease about the true purpose of the application.
Jason Zeloof (Applicant) spoke in support. He disputed that the roof terrace was a new development. In relation to the fire door, he considered that it was an unauthorised development. The applicant had consulted residents and had as a result made changes to the design and size. There was screening to protect overlooking and conditions protecting amenity. No amplified music would be permitted on the terrace. Office uses tended to be quite. The sunlight report was considered acceptable as stated in the report. It would regenerate a disused building, create employment and provide a high quality amenity space for staff. In response to Members, he envisaged that the terrace would act as a break out area for employees - for eating lunches and smoking etc. This was better than people standing on the street to smoke that would cause more pollution at street level. It was planned that the building would be multiple occupancy and each would have their own amenity area. The office space was currently empty but there was a lot of demand for office space in the area. He was satisfied that the proposed conditions could be enforced by the Council and they would be included in any lease granted. It was noted that they could use the existing building for offices without planning permission being required.
Richard Murrell (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report assisted by a power point presentation. He described the site location and details of the scheme. Overall it was considered that the proposal would fit in with the area and the surrounding mansard roofs. Officers had carried out an in depth assessment of the impact on amenity and light levels. It was considered that the impact from use of the terrace to the neighbouring properties was acceptable. There was also measures to prevent overlooking.
A key issue was the impact on the adjacent fire door of 6 Wilkes Street. Officers had carefully considered this and had visited the property. Whilst the ... view the full minutes text for item 7.3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Change in Order of Business The Chair moved and it was unanimously agreed that Agenda item 8.1 (Legacy Community Scheme Outline Planning Application (PA/11/03186)) be the next item of business.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
254 Hackney Road, London, E2 7SJ (PA/12/00072) PDF 927 KB Decision: On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That planning permission (PA/12/00072) be REFUSED at 254 Hackney Road, London, E2 7SJ for the reasons cited in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of the report.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell, (Applications Team Leader) introduced the application regarding 254 Hackney Road, London, E2 7SJ (PA/12/00072)
Gary Hedgecock (Applicant) spoke in support of the application as the landlord of the premises. He outlined the major concerns and considered that the applicant had taken steps to address these and would continue to work with planning to do so. Hackney Road carried around 2000 vehicles at peak hours per day. The noise levels from the proposal could be restricted to less than rush hour levels. The licensing regime would also regulate activity and could place additional conditions on the application to allay the concerns. The premises had an excellent track record with licensing. He referred to a similar scheme that worked well. In summary, the applicant would work with planning and licensing to overcome the concerns.
Adam Williams (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report supported by a power point presentation. He explained in detail the scheme. He explained the site history and the previous reasons for refusal. It was considered that the scheme failed to overcome these issues. He explained the main issues for consideration. The proposed glazed screen would be clearly visible from the highway. Therefore failed to protect the Conservation Area. There were also concerns around the use of the first floor flat for outdoor seating adding to the visual impact. Planning Services had limited powers to enforce this. The consultation had generated 3 objections. The terrace was located in close proximity to neighbours and was considered that its use would have an undue impact on amenity.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That planning permission (PA/12/00072) be REFUSED at 254 Hackney Road, London, E2 7SJ for the reasons cited in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of the report.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Decision: Update Report Tabled.
Councillors Shiria Khatun, Kosru Uddin and Helal Uddin left the meeting for the consideration of this item in accordance with their declarations of interest.
Extension to time
At this stage of the meeting (9:55 p.m.) the Chair Councillor Helal Abbas proposed and it was
RESOLVED that, in accordance with Procedural Rule 9.1, the meeting be extended for one hour to enable consideration of the remaining business on the agenda.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/11/02257) be GRANTED at Brownfield Estate, Infill Sites 1 and 2 located on Brownfield Street and Infill Site 3 located at the junction of Lodore Street and Adderley Street subject to:
The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report.
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
4. That, if six weeks from the date of the committee meeting, the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission. Minutes: Update Report Tabled.
Councillors Shiria Khatun, Kosru Uddin and Helal Uddin left the meeting for the consideration of this item in accordance with their declarations of interest.
Extension to time
At this stage of the meeting (9:55 p.m.) the Chair Councillor Helal Abbas proposed and it was
RESOLVED that, in accordance with Procedural Rule 9.1, the meeting be extended for one hour to enable consideration of the remaining business on the agenda.
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader) introduced the proposal.
Mandip Dhillon (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report assisted by a power point presentation. She explained the 3 main elements of the scheme and the key issues for consideration. She addressed the concerns over the loss of car parking. However it was considered that there was sufficient parking in the area to accommodate the scheme given the car free plans and the results of the parking survey. In terms of the housing mix, it was proposed that 100% be affordable units. All of which complied with POD levels.
She also explained the s106 agreement. The scheme lacked the ability to provide full mitigation due to the 100% affordable housing offer as shown by the viability assessment. However on balance this was considered acceptable. At the request of Members, Officers outlined the S106 allocation process.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/11/02257) be GRANTED at Brownfield Estate, Infill Sites 1 and 2 located on Brownfield Street and Infill Site 3 located at the junction of Lodore Street and Adderley Street subject to:
The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report.
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
4. That, if six weeks from the date of the committee meeting, the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wood Wharf, Preston's Road E14 (PA/12/00430) PDF 1 MB Decision: Update report tabled.
Councillor Peter Golds left the meeting for the remaining items of business.
Councillor Craig Aston subsequently replaced Councillor Golds for the consideration and voting on the remaining items.(Items 7.6 and 8.2)
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/12/00430) be GRANTED at Wood Wharf, Preston's Road E14 subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the obligations at paragraph 3.4 and the conditions and informatives set out in the report.
2. That the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Councillor Peter Golds left the meeting for the remaining items of business.
Councillor Craig Aston subsequently replaced Councillor Golds for the consideration and voting on the remaining items.(Items 7.6 and 8.2)
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader) introduced the proposal regarding Wood Wharf, Preston's Road E14. The scheme sought to extend the hours of operation for plots A-D up to 00.00 during the Olympic period only.
The application was previously agreed by the Committee in August 2011. The proposed extension related to one part of the site situated furthest away from noise sensitive areas for the Olympic period only. Environmental Health had no objections and no representations had been received from residents. Furthermore there were conditions to safeguard amenity including noise levels at night. Therefore, Officers considered that the scheme was acceptable.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/12/00430) be GRANTED at Wood Wharf, Preston's Road E14 subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the obligations at paragraph 3.4 and the conditions and informatives set out in the report.
2. That the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Legacy Community Scheme Outline Planning Application (PA/11/03186) PDF 780 KB Decision: On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
1. That the officers views on the outline planning application be AGREED based on the recommendations set out in the report.
2. That the ODA Planning Decisions Team should also consider the views, issues and further recommendations of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets as set out in the report.
2. That the Corporate Director of Development and Renewal be given delegated powers to make further observations and/or recommendations to the ODA.
(The agenda order subsequently reverted to the order on the agenda) Minutes: Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader)introduced the proposal regarding the Legacy Community Scheme Outline Planning Application.
Duncan Brown (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and the power point presentation. The Committee were asked to endorse the recommendations to the ODA Planning decision team as set out in the report.
He explained the scheme specifically the plans for the Tower Hamlets area(Planning Delivery Zone 4). He described the affordable housing offer that would help address housing need in the Borough. Officers were proposing that the housing mix be revised to provide additional 1 and 2 bedroom affordable units (in addition the 3 bedroom units), as set out in the report. He also outlined the education, the transport and highways provision, for Tower Hamlets alongside the other key issues in the report.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
1. That the officers views on the outline planning application be AGREED based on the recommendations set out in the report.
2. That the ODA Planning Decisions Team should also consider the views, issues and further recommendations of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets as set out in the report.
2. That the Corporate Director of Development and Renewal be given delegated powers to make further observations and/or recommendations to the ODA.
(The agenda order subsequently reverted to the order on the agenda) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Planning Appeals Report PDF 87 KB Decision: On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the details and outcomes as set out in the report be noted.
Minutes: Jerry Bell, (Applications Team Leader) introduced the report which provided details of appeals, decisions and new appeals lodged against the Authority’s Planning decisions.
RESOLVED
That that details and outcomes of the appeals as set out in the report be noted.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the details and outcomes as set out in the report be noted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||