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 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: No declarations of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests were declared. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 121 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 17 August 2017 Minutes: That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17th August 2017 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendments:
Item 5.2, 562 Mile End Road & 1a, 1b, 1c Burdett Road (PA/16/00943)
That in respect of the second paragraph of the minute:
· ‘Mrs McGinley’ be replaced by ‘Ms McGinley’
· That ‘They welcomed the inclusion of the nightclub’ be replaced by ‘Mr Whitfield and Councillor Golds welcomed the inclusion of the nightclub’
|
|
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
|
|
Enterprise House, 21 Buckle Street, London E1 8NN (PA/16/03352) PDF 243 KB 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
Additional documents: Minutes: Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Area Planning Manager (East)) introduced the report for the demolition of existing office building and erection of a 13 storey building (plus enclosed roof top level plant storey) containing aparthotel with office workspace an ancillary café and hotel reception space at ground floor, together with associated works.
Gareth Gwynne, (Planning Services) presented the application. He advised that the application was considered by the Strategic Development Committee on 17th August 2017. The Committee voted against the officer’s recommendation for approval and were minded to refuse the application on grounds of:
· Sunlight and daylight impacts from the development. · Scale bulk and height of the development. · Adverse heritage impacts. · Overprovision of short stay accommodation and associated opportunity cost.
It was also noted that since that meeting, Officers had drafted proposed reasons for refusal that reflected the Committee concerns as set out in the 4th October committee report and the update report.
In terms of the amenity impacts, Officers acknowledged that there was tangible evidence that the application would result in significant adverse sunlight and daylight failing to properties. Furthermore, it was open to the Committee to place less weight on the public benefits of the application compared to Officer’s deliberations in the Officer report, and therefore consider that the harm to residential amenity was not outweighed.
Regarding the overdevelopment of the site and heritage impacts, Officers remained of the view that the reductions in the height of the building and the other design features were sufficient to overcome the reasons for refusal of the previous application. Notwithstanding this, Officers recognised that the height and overall scale of the proposal on this confined site presented challenges in respect of residential amenity, townscape impacts and the setting of listed buildings. Accordingly, a reason on this basis could be defended at appeal.
Regarding the visitor accommodation, it could be considered that the need for additional short stay accommodation had not been adequately demonstrated given the levels of supply in the pipeline and that forecast. Members were also reminded that the benefit of the proposed additional rooms to the local economy was likely to be relatively small due to the nature of the application and would result in a net loss of office space and jobs. Therefore, it was considered that a reason for refusal based on the above issue, subject to the amendment in the update report, could be defended at appeal.
It was also reported that if refused, the applicant had stated that they would appeal the decision and this would be considered at a public enquiry.
The officer recommendation remained to grant the planning permission. However if Members were minded to refuse planning permission, they were invited to consider the four reasons of refusal set out in the Committee report subject to the revision in the update report regarding the third reason for refusal.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 4 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee ... view the full minutes text for item 4.1 |
|
225 Marsh Wall, E14 9FW (PA/16/02808) PDF 107 KB 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.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Area Planning Manager (East)) introduced the application for 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 residential led development with commercial and community uses and associated works.
Kate Harrisson (Planning Services) presented the report reminding the Committee of the site location and the nature of the surrounding area including the developments nearby. The Committee were advised that the application for planning permission was considered by the Strategic Development Committee on 17th August 2017. The Committee voted against the officer’s recommendation for approval and were minded to refuse the application on the grounds of
· Overdevelopment of site due to the: · Height, · Density, · Impact on infrastructure and · the failure of the proposal to provide an adequate transition between the higher rise commercial area to the north and the low-rise residential areas to the south and east
The applicant had not made any changes to the scheme.
Officers had drafted detailed reasons for refusal reflecting the Committees proposed reasons set out in the 4th October 2017 Committee report and the update report.
In relation to the concerns around infrastructure, officers strongly advised that this should not be included as a reason for refusal as officers did not consider this to be a robust reason for refusal and unlikely to be defendable at appeal. The Marsh Wall East site allocation did not require the inclusion of any on site community infrastructure. Furthermore, the applicant would make the policy compliant contribution through the Community Infrastructure Levy payment and had committed to a number of additional Section 106 payments including contributions to buses in the area. However, a reason had been drafted should members seek to refuse the scheme on these grounds. Officers had also drafted an additional standard reason for refusal relating to the absence of a legal agreement.
The Committee supported the two proposed reasons set out in paragraph 5.3 of the Committee report and paragraph 1.1 of the Committee update report.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 3 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in paragraph 5.3 of the Committee report dated 4th October 2017 including the additional proposed condition set out in paragraph 1.1 of the Committee update report. On a vote of 3 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission at 225 Marsh Wall, E14 9FW be REFUSED for 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 ... view the full minutes text for item 4.2 |
|
1-3 Corbridge Crescent and 1-4 The Oval, E2 9DS (PA/16/03771) PDF 2 MB Proposal
Demolition of existing single storey commercial buildings, with the retention, restoration, external alteration and residential conversion of the existing Regency and Victorian Cottages, together with the erection of three linked blocks of 4, 5 and 10 storeys to provide 57 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), with associated private and communal amenity space, cycle parking and refuse storage, and 461sqm of dual use office/community floorspace (Use Class B1/D1).
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: Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Area Planning Manager (East)) introduced this item for the demolition of existing single storey commercial buildings, with the retention, restoration, and residential conversion of the existing Regency and Victorian Cottages, together with the erection of three linked blocks of 4, 5 and 10 storeys to provide a residential led scheme.
He also introduced item 6.1 for the demolition of existing single storey commercial buildings, with the retention, restoration and residential conversion of the existing Regency and Victorian Cottages, together with the erection of three linked blocks of 4, 5 and 8 storeys to provide a residential led building. This application had been subject to an appeal for non – determination. Therefore, the Council no longer had the power to determine this. Therefore, the Committee were being asked to provide their decision on the application should they have been empowered to determine the application.
The applications would be presented to the Committee and considered together (Officer presentation and Member questions on the application), however would be voted on separately.
Jennifer Chivers (Planning Services) presented the reports. The Committee were advised of the nature of the site including the coach depot and the key features of the cottages. They were also reminded of the surrounding area that mainly comprised light industrial uses. The Committee were also advised of the site allocation in policy (which designated the site for a comprehensive mixed used development with strategic housing) and the current status of the gas works and the impact of this on the development as set out in the Committee report.
It was also noted that the previous two applications for the redevelopment of the site had been subject to a planning appeal by Inquiry in 2016. The Inspector dismissed the appeal on two grounds which related to the height of Block A (at both 16 and 18 storeys) and the retention of the historic Regency and Georgian Cottages. While the appeal was dismissed, the Inspector identified several key features of the scheme as having positive elements and that the proposal bore the hallmark of a well-designed mixed use development. The appeal decisions were important material planning considerations in relation to the applications before members. (The appeal decision was attached to the Committee agenda). The applications shared many similarities with the appeal schemes save for a marked reduction in the height of the proposed buildings and the retention of the cottages.
The officer noted the key features of the applications. The proposed residential use of the site conformed with the site location in policy. Whilst the proposed 10 storey (Block A) building was considered to cause some harm to the Regents Canal Conservation Area, it was considered that the public merits of the application would balance this harm. The proposed development and 8 storey (Block A) would preserve the setting of the Conservation Area
In relation to the 10 storey application, 13% of the housing mix would be affordable housing by habitable room and 6% of the ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
1-3 Corbridge Crescent and 1-4 The Oval, E2 9DS (PA/16/03773) PDF 2 MB Proposal:
Demolition of existing single storey commercial buildings, with the retention, restoration, external alteration and residential conversion of the existing Regency and Victorian Cottages, together with the erection of three linked blocks of 4, 5 and 8 storeys to provide 51 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), with associated private and communal amenity space, cycle parking and refuse storage, and 461sqm of dual use office/community floorspace (Use Class B1/D1).
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolves to inform the Planning Inspecorate that were it empowered to determine the application for planning permission the Council would have GRANTED permission subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Additional documents: Minutes: Update report tabled.
On a vote of 0 in favour, 6 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation that were it empowered to determine the planning permission, the Council would have GRANTED permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that were it empowered to determine the planning permission, the Council would have REFUSED the planning permission (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 6 in favour 0 against and 0 abstentions the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Committee resolves to inform the Planning Inspectorate that were it empowered to determine the application for planning permission the Council would have REFUSED permission at 1-3 Corbridge Crescent and 1-4 The Oval, E2 9DS for the demolition of existing single storey commercial buildings, with the retention, restoration, external alteration and residential conversion of the existing Regency and Victorian Cottages, together with the erection of three linked blocks of 4, 5 and 8 storeys to provide 51 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), with associated private and communal amenity space, cycle parking and refuse storage, and 461sqm of dual use office/community floorspace (Use Class B1/D1) (PA/16/03773) due to concerns over the following issues:
· Land use and lack of employment use. · Height, bulk and massing of Block A. · Impact on the character and appearance of Conservation Area. · Level of affordable housing.
|
|