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

Councillor Helal Uddin declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in respect of item 5.1 in that he was on the Board of Tower Hamlets Homes and employed at the Bromley-by-Bow Centre.  He absented himself from the meeting during the discussion and decision of this application.

Councillor Mukit declared a personal non pecuniary interest in respect of item 5.3 in that Mr Sundor Miah, a resident who spoke in favour of the proposal to redevelop the public house, was a Member of the Labour Party and was known to him.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee meetings held on  20 June and 19 July 2018.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meetings held on 20^th June and 19^th July 2018 be approved as a correct record of 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 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.

The Committee RESOLVED that:

1.            The procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance be noted.

2.            In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes be delegated to the Corporate Director, Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

3.            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 be delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

It was noted that Councillor Mufeedah Bustin had not participated in this decision and therefore she absented herself from the meeting during the consideration of the item.

The Development Manager, Planning Services introduced the report and summarised that the application had been heard at the meeting on 19 July 2018.  At this time the Committee had refused the application.  He advised that it was a practice that where  the Committee made a decision contrary to recommendations in the report, a report would be brought back to a future meeting to provide a commentary on the position relating to the Committee's reasons for refusal.

The Planning Case Officer then presented the report outlining which of the reasons for refusal which had been identified by the Committee would provide robust grounds in planning terms.  The Committee was informed that the reasons concerning impact on conservation area and impact on neighbouring amenity were defensible in planning terms.

In accordance with Council procedure no further speaking rights were afforded to applicants or objectors since the Council's Constitution does not allow further speaking in cases where the Committee has already heard arguments and where no new information relating to the application is submitted.

Responding to Members’ questions Officers advised that the weighting attributed to each of the reasons for refusal was not related to the order in which they were published but related to the defensibility of each of the reasons offered.

The Committee discussed the impact of the loss of the mature trees in the context of the current and increasing poor quality issues in the borough and noted that these matters were given a low priority in the context of policies handed down by government

The Legal Adviser directed that, in considering its decision, the Committee should refer to the recommendations at paragraphs as 6.1 and 6.2 of the report.

The Committee then moved to vote on the officer recommendations set out at 6.1 and 6.2 of the report. 

Recommendation 6.1 - On a vote of 0 in favour, 5 against and 1 abstention the Committee affirmed that it did not agree with the officer recommendation to grant planning permission

Recommendation 6.2 - The Committee then moved to consider and vote on  reasons for refusal as set out in paragraph 4.2 of the report:

• On a vote of four in favour, one against and one abstention the Committee voted to include  the reason for refusal relating to a net loss of biodiversity as set out in paragraph 4.2.1 of the report.

• On a vote of four in favour and two against Committee voted to include the reason for refusal which concerned the restriction of access to Lamb Court and Albert Mews.
• On a vote of five in favour, and one abstention t the Committee voted to include the reason for refusal related to failure to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Narrow Street Conservation Area resulting in significant harm to the character of the street scene.
• On vote of six  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

It was noted that Councillor Helal Uddin did not participate in this decision.

An update report was tabled.

Councillor Pierce proposed, Councillor Ruhul Amin seconded and on a vote of 6 in favour and 0 against it was

RESOLVED

That the application for the Demolition of existing Jolles House and vacant Blue Anchor public house and Affordable housing led redevelopment comprising two linked 6 storey residential buildings comprising x64 affordable units and x6 private units; with associated landscaping and play provision enhancements BE GRANTED subject to the obligations and conditions set out in the report.

It was noted that Councillor Helal Uddin did not participate in this decision.

An update report was tabled.

The Development Manager, Planning Services introduced the report, which concerned an application to demolish Jolles House and the vacant Blue Anchor Public House and erect an affordable housing-led development comprising two linked six-storey residential building comprising x64 affordable units and x6 private units with associated landscaping and play provision enhancements.

The Committee was advised that no objectors had registered to speak on this application.  Therefore, in accordance with Council’s Constitution, that where a planning application has been recommended for approval by officers and no objectors or Members have registered to speak then, the applicant or their supporter will not be expected to address the Committee.

The Planning Case Officer then presented his technical report which outlined key features of the application.  He advised that six letters of objection had been received concerning issues of loss of light and loss of the public house.

Consideration was given to these representations. Concerning loss of light it was assessed that this was not significant and effects had been mitigated in the design by assigning affected rooms as bedrooms. Concerning the impacts of the loss of the public house and it had been assessed that the demolition of the premises was acceptable in the context that the premises were of limited historic significance and had been vacant for a long period against the benefits of the proposed scheme in terms of quality of the build and the provision of affordable housing.

Officers responded to Members’ questions providing the following information:

Noting a Member’s concern that the representative images showed the development in pale brick, while the surrounding area was characterised by red London brick, the Committee was advised that a request to incorporate red London brick into the design could be taken back to the developer since brickwork had yet to be conditioned.

Concerning daylight testing, this had been undertaken with and without the existing balconies and it was found that the most severe impacts were  due in part to balconies of existing development overhanging windows below rather than the proposed development.

Concerning loss of daylight, testing had been carried out and 101 of 157 windows, on assessment, met the BRE guidance.  Of the windows that failed, the design had been adapted to ensure that these windows were assigned as bedroom windows in the units affected.  Testing undertaken concerning daylight, sunlight and overshadowing was discussed in full at paragraph 7.10 of the report.

Councillor Bustin asked for the impacts of daylight on dwellings, not just windows, to be reported to Committee in all future application reports.

Concerning what assurances officers had been able to obtain relating to the reuse of the public house:

·         Members were advised that there had been some offers in advance of the redevelopment however the works that would be required rendered the option to reinstate the public house unviable. 

·         Discussions around the reinstatement of a public house within the development did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

The Development Manager, Planning Services introduced the report which concerned an application by the Council for the refurbishment and reconfiguration of the existing community facility at Raine House.  No change of use was proposed.

An update report was tabled

The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.

Representations against the proposal were made by two members of the public having connections with the premises and the community services provided there.  They addressed the Committee presenting the following arguments:

• The proposed development would harm the character of the building; while it was not disputed that the premises needed refurbishment the design proposed was modern and out of keeping with building.
• The proposed relocation of the bar was felt to be unnecessary and poor use of money.
• The proposals did not include plans to refurbish the basement.  This was a missed opportunity; since if the basement were to be brought in to use, it would provide facilities to meet the need for community services into the future.
• The application also ignored the potential income that could be generated through the refurbishment of the basement.
• The users of the premises had not been consulted about the refurbishment because the officer involved had been absent due to illness.  They reported however, that a community group operating from the first floor of the premises had been offered opportunities to have their requirements fulfilled.  Given this situation, the elderly persons social club which utilised the ground floor of the premises felt disadvantaged.
• An objector suggested that members undertake a site visit to appraise themselves of the situation.
• The proposal contravened the direction of Commissioners that the proposal should offer value to the community and value for money.
• The requirement to vacate the building during refurbishment adversely affected the community services that operated from the building.
• Total closure of the facility was not necessary if a phased refurbishment were undertaken.

Objectors responded to Members’ questions providing the following information:

• A number of users of the facilities were unaware that refurbishment was being undertaken.  There had been little notice of the proposal as the officer required to post the public notices was absent due to illness.
• There would be an impact on the community in terms of costs and loss of some services which would not survive the relocation and refurbishment period.
• Many services used the building and objectors felt that the approach taken to the development which is based on relocation to other areas was detrimental to the services themselves and the communities they served.
• Failure to bring the basement into use would result in some services being forced out of operation.  Additionally the proposed investment did not create substantially more opportunities for community use.  However if the basement were incorporated into the refurbishment brief this would mean that more services could be delivered from the premises; hence community organisations felt that inclusion of the basement refurbishment was a necessity.
• There was concern that the community voice over essential matters was not being heard and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

The Development Manager, Planning Services introduced the report

After receiving specific requests from two members of the public and to permit full consideration of the matter, the Chair agreed to vary public speaking rules to allow Mr Miah and Ms McGlynne to make representations before the Committee.

The Development Manager, Planning Services introduced the report which concerned a proposal for the demolition of an existing building and redevelopment of the site for mixed-use purposes in the form of a six story building comprising of x7 residential apartments and non-residential floor space at ground and basement floors (use class aA4/D1/B1), cycle parking and associated works.

The Chair then invited the objectors Ms Day and Ms McGlynne to each make their presentation to the Committee.

The objectors put forward the following arguments against the grant of planning permission:

• The present building was attractive, well maintained and well used by the local community.
• The report did not indicate that reasonable efforts had been taken to preserve the public house facilities.
• The proposal did not include any provision to reinstate a public house but offered other potential speculative uses such as a health facility – this was unnecessary since a GP surgery was located a short distance away.
• The development did not incorporate any disability access, facilities for parking or social rent element.
• Ms McGlynne further informed the committee that she had been the lessee of the premises for three and half years.  She had worked much to ensure the premises were pleasant and to ensure the public house was viable.
• Hers was the last public house of five in in the area to remain operational; the others nearby had closed down.

Responding to Members’ questions the objectors informed the Committee that:

·         The public house remained viable.

·         Regarding consultation there had been no community meeting of the developer.  There had been poorly executed consultation – Ms McGlynne stated that seven leaflets at once had been posted into her premises; however she received no letter from the Council informing her of the application.

·         The proposed re-provision of space was, for potential use as a public house was unsatisfactory since the present building was pleasant and well maintained.

The Committee then heard from the Applicant’s Representative who outlined that the purpose of the application was to make better use of the land occupied by the Dean Swift public house.  He advised that:

·         Consultation with the Council and residents had been undertaken.

·         It was intended that the ground floor would be for community use.  He alleged that the public house did not trade well and that the lease would not be renewed.

·         The community use space incorporated any D1 use and was designed to be flexible.

·         Officer feedback had been supportive.

·         The proposed development sat well its surroundings.

The Committee then heard from Mr Miah a resident of the borough who supported the application.  He informed Members that:

·         He supported the proposal since redevelopment was happening throughout the world.

·         A new building would provide new facilities that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3