Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Louise Fleming, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4878, E-mail: louise.fleming@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||
---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Rofique Uddin Ahmed, Councillor Salim Ullah and Councillor Motin Uz-Zaman.
|
|||
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: Councillor Ray Gipson declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5.1, which related to the planning application in respect of 744 Wick Lane and 46-52 Fairfield Road, London E3 (Bow East) on the grounds that he is a Ward Member for Bow East.
Councillor Khaled Reza Khan declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 5.2, which related to the planning application in respect of Sleaford House, Fern Street, London E3 (Bromley-by-Bow) on the grounds that he is a Ward Member for Bromley?by?Bow.
|
|||
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES PDF 19 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 31st August 2005. Minutes: The minutes of the Development Committee held on 31st August 2005 were confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Chair.
|
|||
To receive any deputations. Minutes: With the agreement of Members of the Development Committee the Chair invited Ms Carol Payne, a resident of Sleaford House, to speak against Item 5.2 and Mr Matt Sheldon, representing the applicant, to speak in favour. Each speaker was allocated a maximum of five minutes.
|
|||
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION |
|||
744 Wick Lane and 46-52 Fairfield Road, London E3 (Report No DC018/056) PDF 187 KB Minutes: Mr Stephen Irvine (Planning Applications Manager) introduced the report, noting that the proposed development consisted of 146 flats and one commercial unit. It now achieved the requirement of 35% of the residential floorspace being affordable housing. The net residential density of 722 hrh was marginally over the guidelines in the London Plan, but was considered acceptable in this particular location which had good access to transport and other amenities. The original application had been substantially amended following consultation initiated by the developer, including by measures to make it more acceptable within the conservation area. There had been objections to the original scheme but the residents responsible had not notified their intention to sustain them at the committee.
In response to Members queries, it was confirmed that while the scheme had been subject to local consultation and revision as outlined, it had not been considered by the committee before. It was also confirmed that approximately 38% of the affordable units were family-sized. Although officers had pursued options for increasing the proportion of family-sized accommodation with the applicant, it had not been considered reasonable to require any more within the constraints of this particular site.
It was unanimously AGREED that planning permission be GRANTED for the demolition of the existing two buildings, and construction of new residential development of five connected blocks of three, four, five, six, seven and eight storeys, comprising 146 flats with a 217.5sqm A2/B1 commercial unit fronting Fairfield Road together with associated car parking and landscaping. The planning permission is subject to the following conditions and legal agreements:
Conditions
(1) Permission valid for 5 years. (2) Details of external materials to be submitted for the Council’s written approval prior to the commencement of construction of the development. (3) Details of hard and soft landscaping treatment to be submitted for the Council’s written approval. The approved landscaping shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any part of the proposed development of any part of the development. (4) All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season. (5) Details of any proposed walls, fences and railings to be submitted for the Council’s written approval. (6) Site investigation regarding any potential soil contamination to be carried out and any remedial work required to be agreed in writing by the Council and carried out as per agreement before construction works begin. (7) Details of sound insulation/attenuation measures, to protect future residents from noise and vibration shall be carried out as specified in the applicant’s consultant’s supplementary information submitted to the Council unless otherwise agreed in writing. (8) Building, engineering or other operations including demolition shall be carried ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|||
Sleaford House, Fern Street, London E3 (Report No. DC019/056) PDF 92 KB Minutes: Mr Michael Scott (Interim Head of Development and Building Control) introduced the report, drawing particular attention to the site plan at the back, and the floor plan and photographs which had been tabled and displayed. The proposal was to convert a vacant workshop unit on the ground floor of Sleaford House to provide a crèche with external play area, and a hairdressing salon. The crèche would be operated by the local Surestart scheme to provide a facility for young children currently attending the Linc centre opposite. It would represent a substantial improvement on the present facility which was too small and had no outside space. The crèche would be regulated by OFSTED and a summer scheme on the site appeared to have gone well. The hairdresser wished to relocate her business from Gayton House nearby, where there were no known complaints about its current operation.
The Chair then invited Ms Carol Payne, a resident of Sleaford House to address the committee on behalf of the objectors. Ms Payne stressed that she spoke on behalf of a number of residents. They had not been directly consulted on the proposal by HARCA to whom control of the block had recently transferred from the local authority. They believed that use of the base of a tower block in this way was inconsistent with it’s residential purpose and would cause nuisance. Many residents felt that the crèche provision at the Linc centre and another new local scheme should be adequate, and were concerned at the potential disruption caused by parents dropping off and picking up children, as well as lack of parking. They were also concerned by potential misuse of the play space by older children until late in the evening. Finally they felt that there were sufficient other hairdressers nearby, and that residents should have priority for use of the vacant space.
In response to Members’ queries, it was confirmed that Sleaford House was 17 storeys high, and that all the objections had come from residents.
The Chair then invited Mr Matt Sheldon to address the committee on behalf of the applicant. Mr Sheldon first explained that he was the manager of Bromley to Burdett SureStart and would speak primarily about that component of the application. He emphasised that the provision would be intended for local families, who also often suffered from a lack of outdoor space at home. The crèche was intended to help them access employment, training and other facilities at the Linc centre in particular. They had run a summer scheme from the site and knew of no complaints arising from that. There would be 2.4m high fencing around the outdoor play space to help avoid the potential for anti-social behaviour.
In response to Members’ queries, he confirmed that HARCA allowed a similar facility to operate from Butler House, which had not given rise to any known complaints. SureStart believed that the vast majority of parents using the crèche would be local, and if necessary would ringfence places to ensure ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |