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 68 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.
|
|
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 87 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.
|
|
DEFERRED ITEMS None Minutes: None.
|
|
Site Bound by Raven Row, Stepney Way Sidney Street, London E1 (PA/15/01789) PDF 15 MB Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of three blocks ranging from 4 to 25 storeys in height comprising 564 residential units, commercial floorspace, 70 off-street car parking spaces, communal courtyards, associated landscaping and associated ancillary works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of three blocks ranging from 4 to 25 storeys in height comprising 564 residential units, commercial floorspace, 70 off-street car parking spaces, communal courtyards, associated landscaping and associated ancillary works.
The Chair invited the registered objector to address the meeting and it was noted that they were not present at the meeting. The Chair then invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee. Maxine Powell highlighted the applicant’s track record in delivering similar schemes. She also explained the regeneration benefits of the proposal, the level and quality of the affordable housing, the generous levels of communal amenity space and landscaped public open space. The plans had been amended to reduce the impacts and to maximise the level of affordable housing.
In responding to questions, she outlined the outcome of viability assessment and that the costs of delivering the affordable units would exceed the anticipated profits from the scheme. However, the applicant was willing to forgo profit in the short term in the hope that the margins would improve over time. In response to questions about the 1-2 bed affordable rent properties, it was noted that initial consideration had been given to reducing the rent levels further, but the view was that reducing the rents any further would impact on the overall level that could be provided and might require a significant redesign of the application. In relation to the car parking spaces, she stressed the need for the number of car parking spaces for the private sale units to help fund the 30.7% affordable housing. She also answered questions about the changes to the application to protect the development potential of the neighbouring site including the repositioning of the proposed buildings away from that site to address objections.
Beth Eite (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. The Committee were advised of the site location, the aims for the site in the Whitechapel Vision Master Plan SPD and how the scheme complied with this. It was explained that the application had been carefully designed to facilitate the development of the neighbouring Cavell Street site. Consultation on the application had been carried out and the results were noted. The land use complied with policy and would result in a net increase in employment opportunities.
The Committee noted the key features of the scheme including the design approach, the amendments to reduce any impacts and the heritage assessment. They also noted details of the housing mix and that the level of amenity space and the child play space exceeded the policy requirements.
In terms of the amenity impact, the development would cause a loss of light to neighbouring properties. How it should be noted that the majority of windows most affected by the building did not serve habitable rooms and in many instances, the issues partly stemmed from the design of existing developments. Overall it was considered ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Redundant Railing Viaduct North of Pooley House, Westfield Way, London (PA/16/00425) PDF 1 MB Proposal:
The erection of two separate four storey podium blocks of Student Apartments – the easterly block flanked by two eight storey towers rising from the podium level and the western block by an eight storey block and a ten storey tower at the western end terminating the view along the Campus Access Road to the south. 412 student rooms are proposed which include 344 en suite single rooms, 32 self-contained studios, 36 rooms designed for students with disabilities, 67 kitchen/diners and communal facilities on the site of a redundant railway viaduct running along the northern boundary of the Queen Mary College Campus in Mile End, London.
Application for variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission reference APP/E5900/A/12/2173692, dated 26/03/2013, for a minor material amendment to the approved scheme including;
· Amended unit type and room design – changed from 332 en-suite and 80 studios to 334 cluster rooms and 78 studios; · Amended internal layouts to improve the entrance / security arrangements and communal facilities; · Provision of roof top plant (within the envelope of the approved scheme); and · Elevational changes to reflect the internal arrangements and Scape’s design aspirations, including a reduction, in part, in the overall massing of the building.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to a deed of variation to link the current S.73 application to the previous S.106 agreement dated 26th June 2012 (as amended by a deed of variation dated 14th February 2013), conditions and informatives in relation to the matters set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Paul Buckenham introduced the application for a minor material amendment to the approved permission for a student apartment block APP/E5900/A/12/2173692, dated 26/03/2013.
Christopher Stacey – Kinchin (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. He explained the application site and the consent scheme. He then explained the proposed changes to the appearance of the building, the massing to reduce the impacts. He also explained the changes to the accommodation mix, the layout to improve the entrances and security of the apartments and the proposed provision of the roof top plant (that would fit within the original building envelop). Consultation had been carried out and the outcome of this was explained.
Turning to the assessment, it was considered that the revised proposal would improve the standard of accommodation, improve the appearance of the building therefore the building would be more in fitting with the immediate context. The impact on the amenity continued to be acceptable and it was required that details of the energy efficiency measures be submitted. Officers were recommending that the planning permission was granted. In response to questions about the energy efficiency measures, Officers outlined the conditions in the application requiring that the building achieve the highest possible BREAM standards. Overall it was considered that the proposal provided a good example of a sustainable development.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission be GRANTED at Redundant Railing Viaduct North of Pooley House, Westfield Way, London for
The erection of two separate four storey podium blocks of Student Apartments – the easterly block flanked by two eight storey towers rising from the podium level and the western block by an eight storey block and a ten storey tower at the western end terminating the view along the Campus Access Road to the south. 412 student rooms are proposed which include 344 en suite single rooms, 32 self-contained studios, 36 rooms designed for students with disabilities, 67 kitchen/diners and communal facilities on the site of a redundant railway viaduct running along the northern boundary of the Queen Mary College Campus in Mile End, London
Application for variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission reference APP/E5900/A/12/2173692, dated 26/03/2013, for a minor material amendment to the approved scheme including;
· Amended unit type and room design – changed from 332 en-suite and 80 studios to 334 cluster rooms and 78 studios; · Amended internal layouts to improve the entrance / security arrangements and communal facilities; · Provision of roof top plant (within the envelope of the approved scheme); and · Elevational changes to reflect the internal arrangements and Scape’s design aspirations, including a reduction, in part, in the overall massing of the building. (PA/16/00425)
Subject to:
2. A deed of variation to link the current S.73 application to the previous S.106 agreement dated 26th June 2012 (as amended by a deed of variation dated 14th February 2013).
3. That the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal is delegated authority to recommend the following conditions and informatives in ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
99 Mansell Street & 31-33 Prescot Street, London E1 (PA/16/00757) PDF 3 MB Proposal:
Mixed-use development in a part 6, part 8 and part 11 storeys block with lower ground floor comprising 67 serviced apartments (Use Class C1) on the upper floors and 1,115sqm of office floorspace (Use Class B1) at basement, ground and first floor and a 103 sqm of flexible retail/financial services/restaurant/cafe/drinking establishment floorspace (Use Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5) at ground floor level.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report. Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for mixed-use development in a part 6, part 8 and part 11 storeys block with lower ground floor comprising 67 serviced apartments on the upper floors and 1,115sqm of office floorspace at basement, ground and first floor and a 103 sqm of flexible retail/financial services/restaurant/cafe/drinking establishment floorspace at ground floor level.
The Chair then invited the registered speakers to address the meeting.
Dr David O’Neil (Londinian Tower Residents Association) and Dr Maria Salichou spoke in objection the application. The speakers stated that they were speaking on behalf of the residents who have raised concerns about the proposals. They objected to the impact of the proposal on residential amenity in terms of loss of privacy, sunlight and daylight, overshadowing and overlooking from the development due to height and the inadequate separation distances. The speaker’s stated that their standard of living had already been affected by development. The proposal would worsen these current issues. They also considered that the plans would be out of keeping with the neighbouring buildings disturbing the street pattern and would be visually overbearing due to its height. Concern was also expressed about the developer’s consultation exercise with neighbours. In response to Members questions they clarified their concerns about the impact on neighbouring amenity.
Simon Smith, Applicant’s representative, spoke in support of the application. He drew attention to the positive aspects of the proposal in terms of the design, and its relationship to the church. The setting down design towards Prescot Street would provide an appropriate transition to the surrounding area. The proposals complied with the tests in policy as set out in the Officers report and would not harm amenity. He also highlighted the similarity between the scheme and the approved scheme. They were broadly similar save for the provision of the new Mansell Street elevation that would be slightly taller than the consented application. In response to questions from the Committee he commented on similar developments in London
Beth Eite, (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. She explained the site location and the similarities between the new scheme and the consented scheme Whilst comparable, changes had also been made to the design of the elevation and to provide a new 11 storey building at Mansell Street. Consultation on the plans had been carried out and the concerns raised were noted. The proposed land use complied with the tests in policy applicable to the site, and it was not considered that it would result in an overprovision of short term accommodation. The proposal, whilst higher in part, would preserve the setting of the nearby church and the listed buildings.
It was considered that the impact on the neighbouring amenity (in terms of sunlight/daylight and privacy) were predominantly negligible. It was however recognised that a small number of properties would experience a modest loss of light and the separation distances marginally fell short of the policy requirements. However, these were fairly common issues for a dense ... view the full minutes text for item 5.3 |
|
Other Planning Matters None. Minutes: None.
|
|