Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Amanda Thompson, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4651, E-mail: amanda.thompson@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR Decision: RESOLVED that Councillor Alibor Choudhury be elected vice-chair of the Development Committee for the 2009/2010 Municipal Year.
Minutes: The Chair sought nominations for the election of the vice-chair for Development Committee for the 1009/2010 Municipal Year. Councillor Fazlul Haque, seconded by Councillor Harun Miah nominated Councillor Alibor Choudhury. There being no other nominations it was
RESOLVED that Councillor Alibor Choudhury be elected vice-chair of the Development Committee for the 2009/2010 Municipal Year.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Shiria Khatun, Tim O’Flaherty and Muhammad Abdullah Salique and for lateness from Councillors Shirley Houghton and Helal Abbas.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Shiria Khatun, Tim O’Flaherty and Muhammad Abdullah Salique and for lateness from Councillors Shirley Houghton and Helal Abbas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 25 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 32 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 29th April 2009. Decision: The minutes of the meeting held on 29th April 2009 were agreed as a correct record of the proceedings.
Minutes: RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 29th April 2009 be agreed as a correct record of the proceedings 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 17 KB To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee. Decision: The Committee noted the procedure.
Minutes: RESOLVED that the procedure be noted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
101-109 Fairfield Road, London E3 (DC001/910) PDF 1 MB Decision: This item was DEFERRED to the next meeting of the Development Committee.
Minutes: The Committee Officer advised that the Committee was inquorate for this item and therefore in accordance with Rule 11.4 of the Development Procedure Rules detailed in Part 4 of the Council’s Constitution the matter would need to be brought back to the next Development Committee for consideration.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Charlesworth House, Dod Street, London (DC002/910) PDF 464 KB Decision: On a vote of 3 for and 2 against, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED for the construction of 7 three storey residential units on land to the rear of Charlesworth House, Dod Street, London comprising 6 x 4 bed houses and 1 x 5 bed house together with landscaping and associated infrastructure works, subject to the legal agreements, conditions and informative set out in the report; and
That if by 18 June 2009 any legal agreement had not been completed to the satisfaction of the Assistant Chief Executive (legal services), the Corporate Director of Development and Renewal be delegated the authority to refuse planning permission.
Minutes: Mr Stephen Irvine informed Members that the application was for the construction of 7 three storey residential units on land to the rear of Charlesworth House, Dod Street, London comprising 6 x 4 bed houses and 1 x 5 bed house together with landscaping and associated infrastructure works. Officers were recommending that planning permission be granted subject to certain conditions.
The Chair asked those registered in objection to the application to address the Committee.
Ms Carmen Gaffarena and Mrs Shinda Kudhail stated that they were not against new affordable social housing and realised the need for this. However they considered that the application was not appropriate for the site as the estate was already densely populated and the site was an area that had been well used whilst it was green space. It was accepted that the site was currently used as a builders yard but when this first came into being the residents were informed that this would only be temporary with the site restored to green space in the future. However this agreement could not be found by the Councils Planning department though residents had make requests for this.
The Chair asked those registered in support of the application and the applicants to address the Committee.
The Reverend James Olanipekun welcomed that the objectors were not against new affordable social housing. He considered that there were numerous people living in cramped conditions in the area and any opportunity to alleviate this should be taken. If not then local people would move away and detract from the areas community.
The applicants representative, Mr Kieran Wheeler, advised that this application was coupled with the next application. The proposed units were spacious and with the environmental improvements, improve the quality of life for local residents. The development would had been designed to minimise overlooking with no direct views to other windows, fit in with the surrounding buildings and be managed by Poplar HARCA. The site had been open space for years and was fenced off. Therefore it was difficult to establish that this was an open green space.
The Chair asked those Councillors registered to speak to address the Committee.
Councillor Mark Francis stated that he was in support of the application. The Borough had 23000 households on the housing list. People did not want to live in the bed sits that currently occupied the site but wanted bigger family sized accommodation that the application would provide. He recognised the need for green space and considered that this application would add to that. The site was currently derelict and the Council needed to look to the future housing needs of the Borough. Therefore he urged the Committee to grant planning permission.
Councillor Ahmed Hussain stated that he represented the local residents on both applications and would be addressing the Committee on this in one presentation. The petition against the applications actual contained 162 signatures and not 92 as stated in the reports. Whilst the two applications were linked the Committee had ... view the full minutes text for item 8.1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Shepherd House, Annabel Close, London (DC003/910) PDF 486 KB Decision: On a vote of 3 for and 2 against, the Committee RESOLVED that planning permission be GRANTED for the demolition of the existing bed-sit accommodation (1-18 Shepherd House) and the erection of 30 new dwellings comprising of 12 x 1 bedroom, 11 x 2 bedroom and 7 x 3 bedroom units, including affordable housing, in a building extending to 4 storeys in height, together with associated landscaping and infrastructure works at Shepherd House, Annabel close, London, subject to the legal agreements, conditions and informative set out in the report; and
That if by 18 June 2009 any legal agreement had not been completed to the satisfaction of the Assistant Chief Executive (legal services), the Corporate Director of Development and Renewal be delegated the authority to refuse planning permission. Minutes: Mr Stephen Irvine informed Members that the application was for the demolition of the existing bed-sit accommodation (1-18 Shepherd House) and the erection of 30 new dwellings comprising of 12 x 1 bedroom, 11 x 2 bedroom and 7 x 3 bedroom units, including affordable housing, in a building extending to 4 storeys in height, together with associated landscaping and infrastructure works at Shepherd House, Annabel close, London. Officers were recommending that planning permission be granted subject to certain conditions.
The Chair asked those registered in objection to the application to address the Committee.
Ms Joanne Lilley stated that she represented Mayflower School, onto which the proposed development was adjacent. They had made numerous representations which they considered had not been addressed. They objected to the size and bulk of the development which they considered would be to the detriment of the 400 plus pupils and staff at the school. The current two storey building which had green space would be replaced with a four storey building next to the school playground. The development would overlook the school and had a higher density than that set out in the London Plan. This would result in their being more noise nuisance and possibly increase anti social behaviour in the area. This would not send a positive message to the children at the school. Therefore they asked that the application be refused.
The Chair asked those registered in support of the application and the applicants to address the Committee.
The Reverend James Olanipekun reiterated his earlier comments on the need for more affordable social housing in the area. Shepherd House currently attracted anti social behaviour and he considered that this development would alleviate much of this. There were numerous household in the area that had children and this development would improve their quality of life and attract other families to the area that would want to send their children to Mayflower school.
The applicants representative, Mr Kieran Wheeler, advised that the intention of the application was to regenerate the area and replace the dwellings there with those that met the decent homes standard. There would be a mix of units and whilst the height of the proposed building was higher than that currently there, it was no higher than other buildings in the area. They had spoken to the Head Teacher of Mayflower school and made adaptations to the application in line with the schools concerns. There had been a reduction in the amount of balconies and the windows were now angled to minimise overlooking the school. The daylight and sunlight report showed that there would be no shadow over the school after 10.50am.
The Chair asked those Councillors registered to speak to address the Committee.
Councillor Mark Francis stated that Mayflower school did make a strong case against the application. However whilst it was recognised that granting the application would have an impact on the school, he considered that it was essential that the application was granted. Children were most ... view the full minutes text for item 8.2 |