Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Alan Ingram, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 0872, E-mail: alan.ingram@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Kabir Ahmed.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Kabir Ahmed.
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 46 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: There were no declarations of interest.
Minutes: There were no declarations of interest.
|
|
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES PDF 68 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 14 April 2011.
Decision: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 April 2011 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 April 2011 be agreed as a correct record 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 41 KB To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee.
Please note that the deadline for registering to speak at this meeting is:
4.00 pm on Tuesday 10 May 2011
Decision: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.
|
|
Decision: Nil items.
Minutes: Nil items.
|
|
Land bounded by Norton Folgate, Fleur De Lis Street, Blossom Street, Folgate Street, London PDF 2 MB Decision: On a vote of three for and three against, with the Chair’s casting vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission and conservation area consent at land bounded by Norton Folgate, Fleur De Lis Street, Blossom Street, Folgate Street, Norton Folgate, London, be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of Members’ concerns over:
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision. Minutes: At the request of the Chair, Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, introduced the circulated report concerning the application for planning permission and conservation area consent at land bounded by Norton Folgate, Fleur De Lis Street, Blossom Street, Folgate Street, Norton Folgate, London. He added that the application had been withdrawn from the agenda for the meeting of the Committee held on 14th April 2011 by the applicant, in view of the need for additional discussions relating to Crossrail contributions, which had now been concluded.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Mr Peter Dunne, a local resident speaking in objection to the proposals, stated that the application was likely to result in him and 30 employees of the Water Poet public house losing their jobs. Many of these staff were East End residents. The pub had been a source of support for community projects and its employees could manage the street and direct customers to the pub garden. Over a six year period a relationship had been built with the pub’s neighbours and the use of the garden space helped with this. The new project would result in the pub frontage being lengthened and the garden would be shorter. This garden was historic and formed a quirky open space that families could use. The application sought to demolish large areas of the rear of Victorian houses. It was claimed that the project would have complementary uses but it was difficult to see how the two very different uses of a pub and housing accommodation could be married together. In this case, everyone would suffer except the developers.
Mr Mike Osman, Planning Consultant, stated that he had met Mr Dunne to discuss the matter and believed the proposals opened up opportunities for him. Only half of the garden area was included in the Water Poet lease and the rest was leased from the City of London, so there was no security of tenure. In addition, there was a right of way over the garden. As part of the scheme, the tenancy at the rear of the pub would replace space that was being lost and it was necessary to balance the needs of the pub with Blossom Place. Four public exhibitions had been held over a four year period and the proposals had been generally supported by residents, especially those with families. He was convinced it would be technically feasible to install a floating floor above the pub to insulate residential accommodation from pub noise and it would be possible to specify exactly the required decibel level that would emanate. The design of the balconies and terraces would ensure that the disturbance anticipated by Mr Dunne would not occur.
At the request of the Chair Ms Elaine Bailey, Strategic Applications Planner, made a detailed presentation of the application, together with a powerpoint display of relevant plans. She added that a number of events had influenced the shape ... view the full minutes text for item 7.1 |