Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Brian Bell, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4878, E-mail: brian.bell@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Julian Sharpe and from Councillor Ray Gipson, for whom Councillor Janet Ludlow deputised. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 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.
Minutes: None were made. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MINUTES of 9th November 2005 PDF 20 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 9th November 2005. Minutes: The minutes of the Development Committee held on 9th November 2005 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Chair. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DEPUTATIONS To receive any deputations. Minutes: The Chair advised that, with the agreement of the committee, he would be accepting the following deputation requests:
- agenda item 5.1, Jeff Jones for the objectors, and Shirley Karat for the applicant
- agenda item 5.3, Kate Webber for the objectors and Charles Cheesman, Corporation of London, for the applicant.
- agenda item 5.7, Councillor Alan Amos, Millwall Ward and Shirley Houghton for the objectors
He also advised that he would be taking item 5.7 immediately after 5.1 to facilitate the large number of members of the public in attendance for that item. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minutes: Mr Stephen Irvine (Strategic Applications Manager) introduced the report, and drew attention to the additional information, representations and recommended conditions contained in the tabled Addendum report. A previous permission for a similar vessel known as the ‘Chrome Castle’, which had been larger than the current application, had been granted in October 2000. He pointed out that many of the issues raised during consultation were in fact commercial and legal ones between the applicants and adjoining landholders, rather than planning matters. Although the scheme was highly unusual, Canary Wharf and Docklands were well known for contemporary design, and the proposal would bring an additional attraction with associated employment, to the area.
Mr Jeff Jones addressed the committee on behalf of the objectors and in particular the freeholders and residents of Meridian Place, a development to the immediate southeast of the application site. They had had previous experience of disturbance caused by naval and other visiting vessels, and feared even more from a permanently moored one. On several of these occasions they had received assurances from the relevant parties but these had proven ineffective. They were particularly concerned that whatever the operators intentions, significant numbers of staff and guests would access the site through their property. This would severely affect their amenity and security, and he urged the committee to reject the application.
In response to Members’ queries, he acknowledged that the applicants had made some efforts to address their concerns including by the construction of a new service road and pontoon as the principal means of access. Nevertheless they still believed that it would lead to much greater congestion and nuisance on their estate, as guests and staff were dropped of on Marsh Wall and elsewhere and cut through to the hotel.
Ms Shirley Karat addressed the committee on behalf of the applicants, stressing that they had tried to address all those matters which were within their power. Her clients planned to operate a 5 star hotel and to attract the requisite guests. It was therefore in their interests to minimise noise or other nuisance on board, or originating from, the vessel. They intended to provide consistently high levels of management and security. It had been agreed that most servicing would be via the water, and this was covered by both the proposed conditions and legal agreement. Alternative direct means of access would be provided for vehicles and pedestrians, so they could not foresee many visitors choosing to approach it through Meridian Place or other neighbouring sites.
In response to Members’ queries, she argued that the proposal would not be out of character with the area, as very little of the traditional dockside was left and all of the adjacent developments were of modern design. She confirmed that a new swing bridge would be constructed across Millwall Cutting to provide easier pedestrian access to South Quay DLR and Canary Wharf. The hotel would have both patrolling security and a 24 hour staffed entrance, as set out in the legal agreement. She ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minutes: Mr Stephen Irvine (Strategic Applications Manager) introduced the report, explaining that the main amendment was to reduce the number of affordable housing units in order to provide a better mix with more family sized units, as detailed in paragraph 6.6.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Billingsgate Market, Trafalgar Way, London E14 (Report number DC029/056) PDF 111 KB Minutes: Mr Richard Humphreys (Planning Applications Manager) reported that since the application had been deferred at the last meeting, the required site visit had now taken place. The applicants, the Corporation of London, had clarified several matters including that the number of vehicles quoted in the report was a maximum, and that it was their aim to keep as many as possible in use or at their current transfer station. They had agreed to provide a contact number for complaints, which was to be an additional condition. They had also stated that traffic congestion at the gates of the market was extremely rare, happening on only a few occasions each year.
Objector Ms Cate Webber addressed the committee. She continued to be of the view that use of the site as a temporary vehicle park would generate unacceptable additional levels of noise and traffic. She also queried why this particular part of the site, which was the only one with residential neighbours, was being proposed and urged the committee not to agree the application.
Mr Charles Cheesman addressed the committee on behalf of the Corporation of London. He repeated that it was their intention to keep as many vehicles as possible either in use, or at their original depot as much as the renovation programme there allowed. This depot had residential accommodation immediately adjacent to it so they were well used to minimising the disruption to neighbours.
In response to a member’s query, officers advised that the Corporation had made a convincing case that the rest of the site was needed for it’s main use as London’s fishmarket, and that this corner was the most suitable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
East End Mission, 583 Commercial Road, London E1 (Report number DC030/056) PDF 120 KB Minutes: Mr Stephen Irvine (Strategic Applications Manager) introduced the report, and drew attention to the fact that since the applicant had already appealed against non-determination, it was therefore a “minded to approve” recommendation. The percentage and mix of affordable housing to be provided was far from ideal, but the applicant had used the GLA “toolkit” to contend that the development was only viable at that level, and it was therefore recommended on balance.
On a vote of
4 IN FAVOUR 2 ABSTENTIONS
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5-10 Corbridge Crescent, London E2 (Report number DC031/056) PDF 136 KB Minutes: Mr Stephen Irvine (Strategic Applications Manager) introduced the report, which assessed amendments to a permission granted in December 2004. The site was now to be entirely acquired by a housing association who wished to increase the affordable housing provision to 100% and change the unit mix to reflect their requirements and planning policy.
Members urged that as this was a canalside development, particular attention be paid to the quality of design and materials on the canal frontage during condition approval.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stour Wharf, Stour Road, E3 (Report number DC032/056) PDF 135 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Mr Stephen Irvine (Strategic Applications Manager) introduced the report which contained a “minded to refuse” recommendation as the applicant had already appealed the case to the Planning Inspectorate. The application had originally been considered and deferred in October 2004. Subsequent to this greater safeguarding of employment use in this area had been introduced as part of the East London Sub-regional Framework of the draft London Plan. The London Development Agency had also pointed out that part of the site had been earmarked for a bridge to provide emergency access to the Olympic precinct.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mooring, West India Pier, Cuba Street, E14 (Report number DC033/056) PDF 80 KB Minutes: Mr Richard Humphreys (Planning Applications Manager) introduced the report, which assessed an application for the permanent mooring of a 4-berth residential vessel, and change of use of the pier to provide access. The pier had been disused since a riverbus service had failed in 1993 and had fallen into disrepair. The pier entrance was 10m from the nearest residential development, and the vessel itself would be 45m away. The more recently constructed Canary Wharf Pier would be the one used in any relevant emergency, but in any event it would be possible to move the vehicle moored there if West India Pier was required. Others matters had been dealt with by condition, and on balance he recommended the application as acceptable.
He also highlighted a recent letter from GLA member John Biggs reiterating the concerns of the Environment Agency and Port of London Authority, copies of which had been laid round.
Councillor Alan Amos addressed the committee in opposition to the proposal, referring to a previous refusal in Millennium Harbour and stating his belief that the vessel would cause nuisance to adjoining residents. Emphasising the current lack of parking provision in Cuba Street, he felt that any servicing from the pier would exacerbate this. He queried whether it would in fact be possible to enforce against holiday lets, and wished to allow for the possibility of alternative proposals to bring the pier back into use. Drawing attention to the comments of the EA and PLA, he argued that the issues were too serious to be addressed by way of conditions or a temporary permission, and urged the committee to reject the application.
Objector Ms Shirley Houghton addressed the committee, stressing the scale of local opposition to the application and again underlining the comments of the EA and GLA. She understood that use of riverbus services was now increasing, and therefore thought that West India Pier should be protected as an asset for the future. Disagreeing with the planners view that the London Plan “Blue Ribbon Network” policy supported reuse of the pier in this manner, she felt that a thorough environmental impact assessment should have been required. She believed that the proposed vessel’s impact on neighbouring properties would be substantial, and also urged the committee to reject the application.
In response to Members’ queries, officers stressed the requirement to determine the current application properly rather than speculate about possible alternative proposals. It was for a 4-berth vessel intended to accommodate a single family. Holiday lets were expressly forbidden as one of the recommended conditions of the planning permission, and this could certainly be enforced against if breached. They repeated that the vessel itself would be 45m away from the nearest neighbour, and so the potential for nuisance was very low. Parking was restricted along the length of Cuba Street, and this would apply to the applicant as much as any other resident. In relation to its possible reuse as a riverbus station, although this was not strictly a relevant consideration, ... view the full minutes text for item 5.7 |