Agenda, decisions and 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 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 Shafi Ahmed declared a personal interest in agenda item 5.1 Enterprise House, 21 Buckle Street, London E1 8NN (PA/16/03552), as the application was within his ward and he had received representations from interested parties.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 104 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 13th July 2017. Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13th July 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, 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 the meeting guidance.
|
|
DEFERRED ITEMS None. Minutes: None. |
|
Enterprise House, 21 Buckle Street, London E1 8NN (PA/16/03552) PDF 2 MB Proposal:
Demolition of existing office building and erection of a 13 storey building (plus enclosed roof top level plant storey) rising to 56.32m (AOD) containing 103 unit aparthotel (C1 Use) with B1 Use Class office workspace at ground and mezzanine level with an ancillary café (A3 Use Class) and hotel reception space at ground floor, together with ancillary facilities, waste storage and associated cycle parking store.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by the Mayor of London, the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives Minutes: Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of existing office building and erection of a 13 storey building (plus enclosed roof top level plant storey) apart hotel lead scheme.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Peter Park and Sumaiya Begum (local residents) spoke in objection to the application. They considered that the proposals would harm the amenity of local residents, especially the properties at Goldpence Apartments due to the separation distances through the loss of sunlighting and daylighting, privacy, overlooking and disturbance during the construction phase. The light levels to these properties were already compromised. The development would also create a sense of enclosure and increase pressure on the local highway due to the servicing arrangements, and therefore put at risk pedestrian safety especially child safety. They also questioned the need for additional hotel units in the area given the number already located in the vicinity and spoke about the lack of public amenities in the area. In response to questions, they expressed concern about the developer’s consultation, the land use, the lack of green space in the immediate area, the height and massing and the road access issues.
Charles Cresser (Applicant’s representative) spoke in support of the application. He recognised the site constraints and reported that the applicant had worked hard to address the reasons for refusing the previous application in 2015. The height had been reduced to minimise the proposal’s impact. Amendments had also been made to introduce further measures to reduce overlooking. The developer had carried out a lot of consultation with residents including representatives of the Grade II St George’s German Church who had influenced the design and were now supportive of the application. Whilst he was mindful of the close separation distances to properties, he considered that the light analysis showed that the breaches would be minimal. He also highlighted the benefits of the proposal in terms of the provision of serviced hotel apartments, flexible office work space to be offered at a discount to local business and the potential for community events within the development. In response to questions, he discussed the changes made to the plans at the pre-application stage, the developers consultation and the measures to minimise overlooking. The developer was willing to introduce further mitigation measures if the Committee felt this necessary. He also stressed the need for further hotel/serviced units in the area catering for longer term guests to meet the needs of businesses. He explained that the development would cater for a different type of guest to a tradition hotel and judging by the marketing evidence, there was clearly a need for these types of units. He also discussed the similarities between this proposal and the previous proposal in terms of their proximity to neighbouring properties.
Gareth Gwynne (Planning Services) presented the detailed report explaining the site location, the surrounds, the site designation in policy, the relationship between the site and the existing developments such as Altitude ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
562 Mile End Road & 1a, 1b, 1c Burdett Road (PA/16/00943) PDF 8 MB Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development comprising part 3-storey, part 8-storey and part 12-storey building, 46 residential units, up to 832sqm (GIA) flexible commercial floorspace (A1, A2, B1 and sui generis nightclub), landscaping, public realm improvements, access and servicing (including 1 disabled car parking space; 92 cycle parking spaces; and associated highway works) and other associated infrastructure.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to any direction by the London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, conditions and informatives. Minutes: Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a mixed use development comprising part 3-storey, part 8-storey and part 12-storey residential led building including flexible commercial floorspace and associated infrastructure.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Ms McGinley, Nigel Whitfield and Councillor Peter Golds spoke in opposition to the application. They felt that the previous reasons for refusal of the application had not been overcome in terms of the height, bulk and massing of the development, the impact on the townscape, the density and overdevelopment of the site, the design, the servicing arrangements and the air quality issues. Nevertheless, Mr Whitfield and Councillor Golds welcomed the inclusion of the nightclub within the development and to secure this it was requested that there should be an obligation offering first right of refusal on the lease to a LGBT operator in line with the proposed agreement for the Joiners Arms venue at Hackney Road and that the existing opening hours of the venue be retained. It was felt that the present nightclub had not caused any issues in terms of residential amenity and the reintroduction of a mainstream club could act as a magnet for crime based on past experience. Concern was also expressed about the suitability of a single servicing bay for a development of this scale in terms of highway safety and about the proximity of the servicing route to the social housing. In response to Members, the speakers clarified their concerns about the proposal.
Richard Evans (Applicant’s representative) spoke in support of the application. He stated that the application had been amended to include the nightclub. Should the current operators not be in a position to take this up, the applicant would help them relocate to a suitable premises. It was planned to refurbish the night club and make it fit for purpose and the operators would be given adequate notice prior to the start of the works. The proposal would also introduce an active frontage, a generous level of affordable housing in a transport hub and provide a landmark building in compliance with policy. There would be measures to improve air quality and an agreement with LUL to protect London Underground infrastructure. LBTH Highways and Transport for London had no objections to the application subject to the conditions. In response to questions about the loading bay, Mr Evans reported that this did meet the standard requirements. Regarding the compatibility of the uses, he confirmed that there would be measures to minimise noise disturbance to noise sensitive properties. He also confirmed that it was intended to offer the lease of the night club to an LGBT operator.
Brett McAllister, (Planning Services) presented the report explaining the site location and the surrounds. He explained that the application was considered by the Strategic Development Committee on two separate occasions 16 February and 25 April 2017. At the those meetings, Members were minded not to ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
73-77 Commercial Road, London, E1 1RD (PA/17/00734) PDF 8 MB Proposal:
Demolition and redevelopment of site to provide a single storey basement, together with ground plus ten storey building. Proposed mix of uses to include 420sqm (GEA) of flexible office and retail floorspace at ground floor level (falling within Use Classes B1/A1- A5) and the provision of 4,658 sqm (GEA) of office floorspace (Use Class B1), along with cycle parking provision, plant and storage, and other works incidental to the proposed development.
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, conditions and informatives. Minutes: Jerry Bell (East Area Planning Manager, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition and redevelopment of site to provide a single storey basement, together with ground plus ten storey office/retail building with associated works.
Kirsty Gilmer (Planning Services) presented the detailed report explaining the site location and surrounds, the changes made to the proposals to address concerns and the outcome of the consultation.
The Committee were advised that the proposed redevelopment of the site for an office led development was considered appropriate for the location as it fell within the city fringe opportunity area and city fringe activity area. The development would be of an appropriate, scale, form and composition for the surrounding area, of a high quality design and would contribute to the emerging landscape. The development would deliver a range of benefits including new jobs, an active street frontage and public realm improvements. It would also preserve the character and appearance of the Myrdle Street Conservation Area and had been found to have no significant amenity impacts. Furthermore in terms of the transport matters, the proposal complied with policy. Officers were recommending that the application be granted planning permission.
The Committee asked about the land use and the potential for a residential development on the site. It was reported that given the site constraints, the site did not easily lend itself to such use. Regarding the benefits of the application, it was noted that it would provide a number of jobs and provide smaller flexible space suitable for Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) in accordance with policy. The Committee asked about the action taken to provide affordable work space. To secure this, Councillor Marc Francis proposed and Councillor John Pierce seconded an additional non - financial contribution requiring that the applicant use reasonable endeavours to include flexible work space including affordable work space within the development. On a vote of 7 in favour and 0 against this was agreed
The Committee also asked questions about the height of the building given the site’s location and the possibility that this might set a precedent for the wider area including an increase in height into the adjoining Myrdle Street Conservation Area. The Committee were advised that as the area was in transition and on the boundary of the Central Activities Zone, the height of the building conformed with policy requirements. In addition, the conservation area designation would stop inappropriate heights further east beyond the site. In this context, Officers felt that the height of the development was acceptable.
Officers also answered questions about the impact of the development on 79 Commercial Road and provided assurances about the future occupancy of the units
On a vote of 7 in favour and 0 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission be GRANTED at 73-77 Commercial Road, London, E1 1RD for the demolition and redevelopment of site to provide a single storey basement, together with ground plus ten storey building. Proposed mix of uses to include 420sqm (GEA) of flexible ... view the full minutes text for item 5.3 |
|
225 Marsh Wall, E14 9FW (PA/16/02808) PDF 2 MB Proposal:
Full planning application for the demolition of all existing structures and the redevelopment of the site to provide a building of ground plus 48 storey (maximum AOD height 163.08m) comprising 332 residential units (Use Class C3); 810 square metres of flexible community/ office floorspace (use class D1/ B1); 79 square metres of flexible retail/restaurant/community (Use Class A1/A3/D1), basement cycle parking; resident amenities; public realm improvements; and other associated works.
The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.
Recommendation:
That subject to any direction by the London Mayor, planning permission is APPROVED subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure planning obligations, conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services) introduced the application for the demolition of all existing structures and the redevelopment of the site to provide a building of ground plus 48 storeys comprising 332 residential units, flexible community/ office floorspace, retail/restaurant/community and associated works.
Kate Harrison (Planning Services) presented the report explaining the site location, the nearest local amenities, (existing and proposed), the emerging developments and the changes made to the application in relation to the height, number of units, the increase in affordable units, and the improved public realm and child play space. Consultation had been carried out and the results of the Council’s consultation was noted.
The Committee were advised that the proposal would deliver 25% affordable housing with a split of 64% (affordable rent) /36% (intermediate) with 50% of the affordable rent units at Tower Hamlets Affordable Rent and the other 50% at London Affordable Rent. 50% of the units within the affordable tenure would be family sized (3 bedrooms or more). The residential units would benefit from community space and child play space. All units would have private amenity space. There would be a slight under provision in under five child play space, but the applicant could make an area of the public open space in to play space should the permission be granted. The proposal included the reprovision of 810sqm of office space that would also benefit from being flexible B1 (office)/ D1 (community) space to help ensure occupation of the units.
The development would be of a high quality design with height stepping down from the Canary Wharf Major Centre. It would provide public open space that would link with the approved open space at Meridian Gate to the west. It was considered that the height would be appropriate for the area and preserve strategic views. Whilst there would be some impact on local views, on balance it could be considered that the benefits of the development would outweigh this.
The impact on neighbouring privacy and outlook would be acceptable given the separation distances. The impact on daylight and sunlight from this development in isolation would generally be negligible to minor adverse. There would be some moderate and major adverse impacts, but these could be attributed mostly to the design of the neighbouring properties impacted as well as the cumulative impacts from other surrounding developments, (and the proposed Skylines development), typical within an urban environment.
Subject to the recommended conditions and obligations, Officers were recommending that the planning permission was granted permission.
The Committee asked questions about access to the communal amenity space and the entrances to the affordable and private units. It was confirmed that the entrance to the affordable houses would be in a visible location and of a good quality design. All of the occupants of the development would have access the child play space at the second floor, but access to the communal space at the roof level would be restricted to the occupants of the ... view the full minutes text for item 5.4 |
|