Agenda 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 | |
---|---|---|
Election of Vice-Chair for the Committee for 2017/18. To elect a Vice-Chair for the Committee for 2017/18. Minutes: It was proposed that this item be deferred for consideration at the next Committee meeting. On a vote of 3 in favour and 2 abstentions, this was agreed. |
||
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: Councillor Maium Miah declared an interest in agenda item 7.2 Land south east of Cuba Street and north east junction of Manilla Street and Tobago Street, E14 (PA/15/02528). This was on the basis that the application site was within the Councillor’s ward and he had received representations from interested parties on the application. |
||
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 96 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 25 April 2017.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 25th April 2017 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
|
||
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 Strategic Development Committee. 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
3) To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and the meeting guidance.
|
||
Recommendation
To note the Strategic Development Committee’s Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and Dates of future meetings as set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to this report. Additional documents:
Minutes: On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Strategic Development Committee’s Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and Dates of future meetings as set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to the report be noted.
|
||
DEFERRED ITEMS None Minutes: None. |
||
116-118 Chrisp Street, Poplar London, E14 6NL (PA/14/02928) PDF 3 MB Proposal:
Demolish Public House (Class A4) and Former Tyre and Exhaust Centre Building Class B1/B2), Erect Mixed-Use Development Comprising Part 5, Part 10, Part 13 Storey residential development comprising 53 Flats (Class C.3) with Ground Floor Commercial Unit (Flexible Permission - Classes A1/A2/A3/A4), and Associated Cycle and Refuse Storage Facilities, Lay Out Amenity Areas and Electricity Sub-Station, Stop Up Existing Accesses, Form New Vehicular and Pedestrian Accesses onto Chrisp Street, and Create 3 Accessible Parking Spaces on Chrisp Street
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to: Any direction by the London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives. Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the demolition of the Public House (Class A4) and Former Tyre and Exhaust Centre Building Class B1/B2) and the creation of a mixed-use development comprising Part 5, Part 10, Part 13 storey residential development, 53 Flats (Class C.3) with Ground Floor Commercial Unit (Flexible Permission - Classes A1/A2/A3/A4), and associated works.
Brett McAllister (Planning Services)presented the report. It was reported that the application had been presented to members on two separate occasions on 28th July 2016 and 20th October 2016. On both occasions, members were minded not to accept officer recommendations to grant planning permission for the redevelopment of the site. Concerns were raised about the height, bulk massing, density and daylight /sunlight impacts of the plans. The application had been amended to address these concerns.
The Committee were advised of the site context, that had good transport links and was characterised by high density residential developments. They also noted the revised layout, height, massing, housing mix and the improved relationship with the nearby buildings. Consultation on the proposals had been carried out and the results were noted.
It was considered that the redevelopment of the brownfield site for a residential led development would optimise the land use and comply with policy. Furthermore, the loss of the public house could be supported in view of the finding of the viability study and that the plans now included a drinking establishment.
The development would provide a suitable mix of housing types and tenures with a generous percentage of affordable units (34% of the residential units) and family sized units. The quality of the residential dwellings would be high. All of which would be served by private amenity space. The proposals could also be considered acceptable in terms of the height, scale, design and appearance. The density of the scheme would exceed the recommended London Plan density range for the site. However it was felt that the site could support this.
The development would have a significant adverse impact on the Equinox building opposite the development, in terms of daylight and sunlight. However this was to be expected given the existing low rise nature of the application site. It would also impact on the Parkview Apartments, albeit to a lesser extent than the previous applications. The rooms affected would continue to be adequately lit. Overall, given the regenerative benefits of the application, the impact was considered to be acceptable.
Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.
In response to questions, it was reported that there was nothing in the planning regime to specify that the A4 drinking establishment remained a particular type of public house. The viability of the existing public house had been tested. The assessment indicated that the public house was no longer viable and that there were a number of public houses in the area. The updated study, (prepared for the October application), had a reduced catchment area and would not ... view the full minutes text for item 7.1 |
||
Proposal:
Recommendation:
Subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, planning permission be REFUSED for the reasons set out in the Committee report
Additional documents:
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the redevelopment of the site to provide a residential-led mixed use development comprising two buildings of up to 41-storeys and 26-storeys. The application sought the provision of 434 residential units, 38 m2 of flexible retail / community uses together with public open space and public realm improvements. The application was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment and represents EIA development for the purposes of the EIA Regulations.
He drew attention to the update report, containing further information on the EIA assessment, additional representations and comments from the applicant.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Andrew Wood spoke in opposition to the application. He welcomed the redevelopment of the site. However, given the site constraints and density, he felt that the development would be too big for such a small site. He explained that there were many developments in the area and plans for new developments. This proposal would result in the overdevelopment of the site. He also expressed concerns about the construction impact on the local area given existing problems with servicing in terms of access and parking stress.
Mark Gibney, Applicant’s representative, spoke in support of the application. The developer had a good track record in delivering similar development in the Borough and the plans would deliver a number of public benefits. The Greater London Authority were generally supportive of the plans. Since receiving their feedback, the applicant had increased the level of affordable housing. There was a meeting planned to take place with the GLA in the near future. This would provide an opportunity for the applicant, LBTH Officers and the GLA to consider and resolve the issues including the discrepancies in the sunlight and daylight reports. In view of this, he requested that the application be deferred pending the meeting with the GLA.
Mr Gibney then responded to questions from Members and with the permission of the Chair, was assisted by a colleague. It was reported that the applicant had worked hard to resolve the issues and had raised concerns about how the sunlight and daylight impacts had been reported. The offer of 34% affordable housing had been on the table since April 2017. They stressed that it would be premature to consider the application tonight before the meeting with the GLA.
The applicant had met with a number of the Tenants and Residents Associations to seek feedback on the design of the building and discuss their requirements. They had also met with a local nursery to discuss the proposals.
Richard Humphreys (Planning Services) presented the report. The Committee were advised of the history of the application. The application had been with the Council since 2015, and a committee report was prepared for January this year, but withheld at the request of the applicant. A further report was then ready to be submitted to the Committee in April and deferred again at the applicant’s request. The applicant was now requesting ... view the full minutes text for item 7.2 |
||