Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Zoe Folley, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4877, E-mail: zoe.folley@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS PDF 64 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: Councillor Marc Francis declared a personal interest in agenda item 5.2 Hercules Wharf, Castle Wharf and Union Wharf, Orchard Place, London E14 (PA/14/03594, PA/14/03595) and 7.1 Westferry Printworks, 235 Westferry Road, E14 8NX (Tower Hamlets Ref: PA/15/02216, GLA Ref. D&P/3663) as he had received representations from interested parties on the applications.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 133 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 10 March 2016.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 March 2016 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.
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 AND MEETING GUIDANCE PDF 94 KB To NOTE the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Strategic Development Committee.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance.
|
|
34-40 White Church Lane and 29-31 Commercial Road, London, E1 (PA/15/02527) PDF 123 KB Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings at 34-40 White Church Lane and 29-31 Commercial Road and erection of a ground floor plus 18 upper storey building (75.5m AOD metre) with basement to provide 155sqm (NIA) of flexible use commercial space (B1/A1/A3 Use Class) at ground floor and 42 residential units (C3 Use Class) above with basement, new public realm, cycle parking and all associated works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor and the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Application withdrawn from the agenda
The decision was taken after the applicant agreed to enter into further negotiations with officers and is preparing amended drawings that seek to address the reasons for refusal given by Members at March Strategic Development Committee . These amendments will be re-consulted on with the application targeted to return to the June SDC
|
|
Proposal:
Full Planning Application – PA/14/03594 Demolition of existing buildings at Hercules Wharf, Union Wharf and Castle Wharf and erection of 16 blocks (A-M) ranging in height from three-storeys up to 30 storeys (100m) (plus basement) providing 804 residential units; 1,912sq.m GIA of Retail / Employment Space (Class A1 – A4, B1, D1); Management Offices (Class B1) and 223sq.m GIA of Education Space (Class D1); car parking spaces; bicycle parking spaces; hard and soft landscaping works including to Orchard Dry Dock and the repair and replacement of the river wall.
The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment
Listed Building Consent application - PA/14/03595 Works to listed structures including repairs to 19th century river wall in eastern section of Union Wharf; restoration of the caisson and brick piers, and alteration of the surface of the in filled Orchard Dry Dock in connection with the use of the dry docks as part of public landscaping. Works to curtilage structures including landscaping works around bollards; oil tank repaired and remodelled and section of 19th century wall on to Orchard Place to be demolished with bricks salvaged where possible to be reused in detailed landscape design.
Recommendation:
That Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent should be GRANTED in accordance with the recommendation set out in the original report.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Owen Whalley (Service Head, Planning and Building Control) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings on the site and the erection of 16 blocks ranging in height from three-storeys up to 30 storeys providing 804 residential units; Retail / Employment Space; Management Offices and Education Space; car parking spaces; bicycle parking spaces; and associated works.
It was noted that Members previously considered the application at its 10 March 2016 meeting and resolved to defer the consideration of the application pending information on the following:
· The operation of the viability review mechanism. · The viability of the application with different mixes of affordable housing
The Committee also asked that the Greater London Authority be requested to confirm whether their concerns about the application had been addressed.
Jermaine Thomas (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report, reminding Members of the site location and surrounds, comprising three different wharves and the nature of the proposal. The Committee viewed slides showing the scale and mass of the development.
In relation to the first issue, it was noted that details of the review mechanism for the affordable housing (to be secured in the S106) were in the committee report setting out the circumstances in which it would be triggered to secure additional affordable housing. Both the applicant and Officers were satisfied with these arrangements.
In relation to the second issue, it was noted that the delivery of the affordable units with 3-4 bed affordable rents would allow for the provision of 27% such units. However, should the 3 to 4 beds units be delivered at social targets rents, the scheme could only afford 23%. Nevertheless, the applicant had undertaken to provide 27% affordable units with such rent levels absorbing a deficit.
In addition, since the last meeting, the GLA had provided a post stage 1 response stating that their concerns about noise mitigation had been addressed. Any outstanding issues could be addressed at stage 2. Further consultation had been carried out and the Port of London Authority had confirmed that their concerns had been addressed now only raising questions of clarification that had been addressed in the update report. A further 11 objections had been received about the impact of the scheme on Trinity Buoy Wharf but these did not raise any new issues so had not impacted on the recommendation.
In light of above and the information presented to the Committee, Officers continued to recommend that the planning permission and listed building consent was granted permission.
In response to questions of clarification, Officers confirmed that the separation distance to the nearest neighbouring property at the eastern side of TBW measured 0.5 metres. However, it should be noted there were no habitable rooms facing the application site at this point. The separation distance to the nearest residential units measured 2.25 meters. The Council were the freeholder of TBW and its Asset Management Team did not believe that the proposal would impact on that asset. It was noted that the ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
120 Vallance Road & 2-4 Hemming Street, London, E1(PA/15/01231) PDF 6 MB Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings at 120 Vallance Road and 2-4 Hemming Street and erection of two buildings to provide 1,311 sqm (GEA) of commercial space, 144 residential units and new public realm, landscaped amenity space, cycle parking and all associated works
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by The London Mayor, the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure planning obligations and conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Owen Whalley (Service Head, Planning and Building Control) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings at 120 Vallance Road and 2-4 Hemming Street and erection of two buildings to provide 1,311 sqm (GEA) of commercial space, 144 residential units and associated works
Jermaine Thomas (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report explaining the character of the site and the surrounding area and the site designation in policy. The Committee were advised of the key features of the amended scheme. To this end, the Committee noted images of the design, scale, massing, materials and the layout of the proposal. It was reported that one letter had been submitted in response to the consultation.
It was considered that the introduction of a retail and commercial development at the site was acceptable. Given the limitations on the A1/A3 uses and low vacancy rates in the Town Centre, it was not considered that it would harm the viability of the Town Centre. The scheme displayed no signs of overdevelopment and both the Council and the GLA considered that the density of the scheme was acceptable given the location.
The applicant had undertaken to provide 35% affordable properties with social rent units, (in excess of what the scheme could afford), benefiting from a high quality entrance on Hemming Street. Other benefits of the scheme included: the provision of high quality public realm, policy complaint levels of child play and community space and a good quality design that would enhance the local town scape with no harm to local views. In addition, due to the design and scale of the scheme, the impact on internal and neighbouring amenity (in terms of sunlight daylight and overlooking) would be acceptable.
Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning consent.
Members asked questions about the quality of the affordable housing. In particularly they asked about the design of the ground floor entrances and the quantum of play space available to these dwellings (given the high number of family units within this tenure).
Members also sought assurances that all children in the scheme would have access to the play space in the interests of social cohesion.
Members also asked about the overall quantum of child play space given the child yield and the impact of the scheme on social infrastructure and the measures to mitigate this
The Committee were informed that all of the dwellings were of a good quality design and would benefit from private amenity space and appropriate levels of communal space. A point to note was that the ground floor maisonette (that was within the affordable rented tenure) would have its own private garden. In terms of the ground floor entrances, it should be noted they would be of a similar quality.
Both the entrances for the private and affordable units would front onto the street, so there were no issues about ‘inferior doors’.
As explained above, the proposed child play space complied with policy. The plans included ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|
Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings and structures and the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment including buildings ranging from 4 - 30 storeys in height (tallest 110 m. AOD) comprising: a secondary school (Class D1), 722 residential units (Class C3), retail use (Class A1), flexible restaurant and cafe and drinking establishment uses (Classes A3/A4), flexible office and financial and professional services uses (Classes B1/A2), Community uses (Class D1), car and cycle basement parking, associated landscaping, new public realm and enabling work.
The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment and represents EIA development for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. Both the Council and the Mayor of London as local planning authority must take the environmental information into consideration in formulating their decision.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolves to inform the Mayor of London that were it empowered to determine the application for planning permission the Council would have REFUSED permission for the reasons in the Committee report:
Additional documents: Minutes: Update report tabled.
Owen Whalley (Service Head, Planning and Building Control) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings and structures and the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment including buildings ranging from 4 - 30 storeys in height (tallest 110 m. AOD) comprising: a secondary school (Class D1), 722 residential units (Class C3), retail use (Class A1), flexible restaurant and cafe and drinking establishment uses (Classes A3/A4), flexible office and financial and professional services uses (Classes B1/A2), Community uses (Class D1), car and cycle basement parking, associated landscaping, new public realm and enabling work.
It was reported that by letter dated 4th February 2016, the Mayor of London directed the Council that he would act as the local planning authority for the purposes of determining the planning application. The Council was consequently unable to determine the application. The Mayor of London intended to hold a Representation Hearing on 27th April 2016 when the application would be determined. Officers were recommending that the Council informs the Mayor that objection was raised to a grant of planning permission given the concern around the impact on the use of the dock for water sports and the level of affordable housing given the results of the viability assessments.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Dr Mike Barraclough (Chair, East London Marine Venture) Leila Moore, (a sailor at the Docklands Sailing and Waters Sports Centre), Councillor Dave Chesterton (Ward Councillor and a Trustee of the Centre) and Councillor Andrew Wood (Ward Councillor) addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. Whilst noting the merits of the scheme, they stated that the application would adversely affect the wind sailing conditions around the dock, due to the proposed building heights and their proximity to the water’s edge as set out in expert reports. This would particularly affect sailing conditions around the north west corner of the outer dock. This in turn would seriously jeopardise the club’s attractiveness to sailors and potential sailors putting the clubs future at risk. Whilst it was noted that the application would deliver new social infrastructure, this should not be delivered at the expense of existing sporting facilities. Accordingly, the scheme should be redesigned in conjunction with wind engineers to maintain present wind conditions to enable this highly regarded sailing club to continue to operate.
The speakers also commented on the popularity of the club, its unique features and potential, its charity status, the opportunities that it provided to young people and the shortage of sporting facilities in the area.
Concern was also expressed about a lack of affordable housing within the scheme and the credibility of the viability assessment saying that only 11% affordable housing could be afforded and also about the proposed school
In response to questions, the speakers clarified their concerns over the wind impact from the scheme, explaining it would make sailing conditions unpredictable causing crafts to capsize. To lessen the impact, it would be necessary to move the buildings back further from ... view the full minutes text for item 7.1 |
|
Other Planning Matters PDF 514 KB Minutes: Bishopsgate Goods Yard, Braithwaite Street, E1
The Committee were reminded that at its December 2015 meeting, the Committee considered the above application that had been called in by the London Mayor. The Committee resolved to inform the Mayor that should it be in a position to decide the application, it would have refused the application for a number of reasons. It was reported that Officers have subsequently been provided with the GLA stage 3 report on the application. In which the GLA were recommending refusal. The Council would be attending the representations hearing to present the Council’s views on the application.
|