Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Antonella Burgio, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4881, E-mail: antonella.burgio@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS PDF 67 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 Monitoring Officer.
Minutes: No declarations of interest were made
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) - to follow To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 20 June 2018. Minutes: For administrative reasons it was not possible to present the minutes for approval. The Committee therefore agreed that the minutes be deferred for approval at the following meeting.
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE PDF 87 KB 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 Place 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 Place is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
3) To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and meeting guidance.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED to note the following recommendations and procedures:
1) That 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, Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and
2) That 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, Place is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision
3) The procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and the meeting guidance as set out in report.
|
|
Lamb Court, 69 Narrow Street, London, E14 8EJ. (PA/18/00074) PDF 2 MB Minutes: An update report was tabled.
During the consideration of the item, the Committee heard from the following registered speakers Councillor James King, Ms L Carr and Mr P Patel spoke against the application which was recommended for approval. Mr Peter Camp representing the applicant spoke in support of the application.
Jerry Bell (Area Planning Manager (East) Planning Services) introduced the report which concerned an application for the erection of a four-storey building comprising a reception and concierge area on the ground floor and three residential units above.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee
Residents speaking in objection asserted that there were several concerns relating to the proposed development:
Councillor King, in addition to these concerns argued that · the development did not propose any provision of social housing as required under Council policy · by excluding such provision the proposal does not incorporate diversity or social inclusion in it design · it did not identify with its neighbourhood as prescribed in S3.9 of the London Plan, nor did it provide evidence of social cohesion as prescribed by Infrastructure Levy DC1 · the proposed development was detrimental to the local environment
In response to Members’ questions the speakers offered the following additional information on areas of concern:
Ecological Matters The removal of four mature trees and their replacement with four immature trees did not offer equivalent replacement since it would take 30 years for the environment currently provided by the mature trees to be restored. This position was argued on the basis that: · Tower Hamlets was one of 13 London boroughs with poorest air quality · according to studies, maple trees provide the best outcomes in terms of air purification · the trees were accessible to residents of the development and to those of Albert Mews as this formed a public walkway
Consultation The Committee was informed that residents had for many years sought to secure an amenity for a part-time caretaker. Recently the freeholder had indicated that there might be some amenity but no information had been provided in writing. Enquiries from Lamb Court Management Company for written details had not been responded to ... view the full minutes text for item 4.1 |
|
Entrance To Claire Place Between 46 and 48, Tiller Road, London E14 (PA/17/02781) PDF 2 MB Minutes: An update report was tabled.
During the consideration of the item, the Committee heard from the following registered speakers. Councillor Kyrsten Perry, Mr L Tanswell, a local resident and Ms C Apcar, representing the applicant spoke in support of the application. No persons had registered to speak against the application.
Jerry Bell (Area Planning Manager (East) Planning Services) introduced the report which concerned an application for the installation of automated vehicular and pedestrian entrance gates at the vehicular entrance to Claire Place
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee
Councillor Perry, Ward Councillor for Canary Wharf spoke in support of the application to install gates at the entrance to the development setting out the following reasons:
Mr Tanswell and Ms Apcar, each addressed the meeting setting out their arguments for the approval of the application. They contended that: · the application was located in a private development which was wholly residential and did not form part of a thoroughfare, in fact the gates at the rear of the development in Caravel Close caused the development to be secluded except for the entrance at Tiller Road
Responding to Members’ questions the following additional information was provided:
|
|
Update Report for Items 4.1 and 4.2 PDF 121 KB Minutes: RESOLVED
That the tabled updates be noted.
|