To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Shiria Khatun and Rupert Eckhardt for whom Councillor Peter Golds was deputising.

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Shiria Khatun and Rupert Eckhardt for whom Councillor Peter Golds was deputising.

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.

Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:-

Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:-

To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 6^th January 2010.

RESOLVED that the unrestricted minutes of the meeting held on 6^th January 2010 be confirmed as a correct record of the proceedings.

RESOLVED that the unrestricted minutes of the meeting held on 6^th January 2010 be confirmed as a correct record of the proceedings.

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.

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.

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.

To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee.

The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections and those who had registered to speak at the hearing.

The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections and those who had registered to speak at the hearing.

None.

None.

Addendum Updated report tabled.

On a vote of three for and five against, it was -

RESOLVED

That the officers recommendation to grant planning permission for the erection of one two storey and one three storey dwelling houses to provide one x two bedroom and one x three bedroom residential unit and landscaped public amenity space not be NOT ACCEPTED.

The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of the following reasons - 

• loss of housing amenity space;
• loss of sun light/daylight;
• Safety and security issues;  
• Overdevelopment of the site;

Addendum Updated report tabled.

Mr Stephen Irvine, (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal), introduced the report regarding  the erection of one two storey and one three storey dwelling houses to provide one x two bedroom and one x three bedroom residential unit and landscaped public amenity space.

The Chair then invited representations from persons who had registered for speaking rights in accordance with the procedures for hearing objections, as set out in the Council’s Constitution.

Ms Halima Khanom (Local resident) speaking in objection to the application considered that the site provided a valuable access route for residents. There was no play area near the site. If approved, there would be overshadowing, loss of daylight making the area unsafe. She also considered that Poplar HARCA did not carry out a proper consultation exercise. They did not consult her. There were no residents’ signatures on the supporting petition.

Mr Richard Gray spoke in objection to the application on the grounds that the development would impact on adjoining properties, lead to a loss of open space, crime issues within an enclosed space. He also felt that the location of the development was inappropriate.

Reverend James Olanipekun (Local resident ,Vice Chair Poplar HARCA Board) spoke in support of the application. He considered that he was present to represent the many families in Poplar who supported the scheme. It was true that there were some objections, but the community was crying out for better housing conditions. Families needed rehousing but were leaving due to the serious overcrowding. They have waited a long time for this. Poplar HARCA was a non profit organisation. He urged Member to approve the application.

Councillor Rania Khan, speaking in objection to the application, declared that she was a Board Member of the Poplar HARCA Finance Committee. She acknowledged that one of the Council’s key ambitions was to bring more social housing into the Borough. However, the policy also states that any proposals should be sensitive to the local community and this clearly did not meet this criteria given the concerns. It would adversely affect quality of life, so Poplar HARCA should consider locating the development elsewhere. There would be overshadowing, loss of daylight, sunlight and loss of a valuable access route. If this community open space was taken away there would be children on the streets. On balance the application should not be supported.

Councillor Abdul Sardar speaking in objection stated that he shared and wished to support the views voiced by the many objectors. He acknowledged there were housing needs but considered that the application was unacceptable. He urged Members to listen to the objectors as they were living there.

Councillor Ahmed Hussain speaking in objection also considered that Poplar HARCA should listen to the local residents. He considered that the proposal would turn Poplar into a ghetto. He had visited the site and it was regarded as an open space and it should be left as an open space. He considered that the petition in support was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.1

On a vote of 0 for and three against with five abstentions, it was –

RESOLVED

That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for construction of 5 x five-a-side floodlit all weather football pitches and ancillary facilities on the upper levels (5B, 6A, 6B, 7A and 7B) of the existing multi-storey car park not be NOT ACCEPTED.

The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of the following reasons - 

The proposed development would result in: 

• Increased parking and traffic congestion created by the proposed use to the surrounding site;
• Unacceptable light pollution/sightline issues; 
• Increase on noise nuisance created by the proposed use;
• lack of local usage of the proposed facility.

Councillor Harun Miah left the meeting at 7.40pm.

Meeting adjourned at 7.40pm and reconvened at 7:50pm.

Mr Steve Irvine (Development Control Manager), introduced the report seeking planning permission for construction of 5 x five-a-side floodlit all weather football pitches and ancillary facilities on the upper levels (5B, 6A, 6B, 7A and 7B) of the existing multi-storey car park.

The Chair then invited representations from persons who had registered for speaking rights in accordance with the procedures for hearing objections, as set out in the Council’s Constitution.

Mr Ben Kelly (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the application. He advised that the Applicant had sought advice from officers, at the pre application stage, who considered that the scheme would assist the Council’s aim of developing new leisure facilities in the Borough. However, the onus was on the applicant to demonstrate that the application would have no adverse impacts. Officers had also asked the applicant to provide a series of additional mitigation measures. They therefore withdrew their application and wrote to residents and as a result agreed to reduce the hours of operation to the minimum level it could be reduced to make it viable. It was feared that the proposal would result in increased anti social behaviour, but this would not materialise. There was demand for this facility in the area.  There would be a bar in the premises but it would not serve any alcohol. The Applicant’s team of consultants were very experienced. The Applicant managed a similar facility in central London which was well used and there was no adverse issues with floodlighting. There would be free usage for community groups. Mr Kelly considered that the proposal would not have any adverse impact on the surrounding area and therefore considered that it should be granted permission.

Councillor Tim Archer spoke in objection to the application. He advised that he was a ward Councillor for the area. He considered that the site was a commercial and residential area and the proposed scheme would be detrimental to both. It was located in an area where professionals from Canary Wharf would commute in to play football.  It would not be a community facility. The facility would be built at eyelevel. The area already had a similar facility and this was sufficient. There would be a noise nuisance and it would create traffic and light pollution which was a huge concern. The local residents had already made complaints about the problems with anti social behaviour around the area and the proposal would add to this, if allowed. The hours of operation would turn the area into a ’24 hour environment’. This was a quite area that usually ‘closes’ at 6pm. People travelling to the site by car would have to use the nearby Controlled Parking Zone. (CPZ) They would therefore be competing with residents for the limited spaces. The size of the pitch was too small and did not meet the requirements of Sports England.

Ms Ila Robertson (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed reported as contained in the circulated report, together with the reasons why planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.2

On a vote of 0 for and 1 against with three abstentions, it was –

Under Part 4, Section 4.8, Rule 5.4 of the Council’s Development Procedure Rules, Councillors Alibor Choudhury, Fazlul Haque and Mohammed Abdullah Salique could not vote on this item as they were not present at the start of the item. 

RESOLVED

That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for the construction of a new build residential block of three storeys on existing car park site to provide 3 x three bedroom flats with associated amenity space

not be NOT ACCEPTED.

The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of the following reasons -

• Potential overdevelopment of the site;
• Loss of car parking spaces;
• Highways and transport issues – loss of permeable access route;
• Loss of light;
• Impact on environment.

Mr Stephen Irvine, (Development Control Manager), introduced the report regarding  the construction of a new build residential block of three storeys on existing car park site to provide 3 x three bedroom flats with associated amenity space

The Chair then invited representations from persons who had registered for speaking rights in accordance with the procedures for hearing objections, as set out in the Council’s Constitution.

Mr M. Shahanur Khan (Local resident) spoke in objection to the application He considered that the application would have an adverse impact on the environment, lead to overcrowding, loss of an access route, increase pressure on facilities, create parking problems and infringe residents rights to privacy. He considered that the Council should prioritise local tenants and that parking spaces should be allocated to local people.  At a recent residents meeting, it was strongly felt that the existing car park should be retained. Nobody supported it. The Council should listed to the views of the residents.

Mr Paul Gendle, (the Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the application. He considered that the existing car park was currently underused. He confirmed that everyone who currently had a right to park there would still be entitled to a space should the application be approved.  This revised scheme included substantial anti social behaviour measures. It would provide much needed social rented unit  and would enhance the local landscape.

Ila Robertson (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed reported. She referred to the material objections and addressed each one in turn. In summary she reported that the proposal would provide much needed social rented units with no adverse impact on the surrounding area. For that reason, the planning permission should be granted.

Ms Robertson addressed each point raised by the objectors and commented that:

• The Application complies with the London Plan which seeks to maximise provision of additional housing in London 

• Confirmed that officers had visited Blount Street and it was considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on that area.
• Members needed to balance the need for affordable housing as set out in the Community Plan against the issues raised in objection.
• The application was a resubmission of the planning application which was withdrawn in August 2009. The same people and the same level of consultation was carried out for both this application and the previous August 2009 scheme. 

Members considered that the access arrangements were inadequate, that the loss of the 10 parking spaces was a significant issue given the difficulties with parking in the Borough and that the proposal would put an intolerable strain on the infrastructure and would significantly increase congestion.  Members noted that 309 people had signed the petition against the proposal and queried whether the residents were made fully aware of the proposals. They felt that there was a lack of consultation.

Consequently after consideration of the representations and the officers report, Members were minded to refuse the application and on a vote of 0 for and 1 against  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.3

Addendum update report tabled.

On a unanimous vote it was -

RESOLVED That the application for the Demolition of toilet block, sports storage block, deer shelter and one o’clock club building be referred to the Government Office for London with the recommendation that were it within its authority to do so this Council would be minded to grant Conservation area consent and that the Head of Planning and Building Control is delegated power to recommend to the Secretary of State the condition set out in the report.

Update report tabled.

Ms Ila Robertson (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the report regarding the application for planning permission concerning the Victoria Park, London. 

Ms Robertson drew attention to the updated report and asked the Committee to consider the recommendations in that report.

The Committee requested that details of time limits be included in future reports.

On a unanimous vote it was -

RESOLVED That the application for the Demolition of toilet block, sports storage block, deer shelter and one o’clock club building be referred to the Government Office for London with the recommendation that were it within its authority to do so this Council would be minded to grant Conservation area consent and that the Head of Planning and Building Control is delegated power to recommend to the Secretary of State the condition set out in the report.