Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Antonella Burgio, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4881, E-mail: antonella.burgio@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 Mufeedah Bustin declared an interest in respect of item 4.2 in that during the summer of 2018 she had met with the agent of the application. The meeting did not concern the application under consideration.
Councillor Gabriela Salva-Macallan declared an interest in respect of item 4.2 in that, a number of years ago, she had signed a petition to save The George public house. Notwithstanding she declared that she remained open-minded in respect of the application.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 140 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meetings of the Development Committee held on 20 December 2018 and 24 January 2019. Additional documents: Minutes: The Minutes of the meeting held on 20 December 2018 were approved subject to four typographical corrections. The minutes of the meeting held on 24 January 2019 were approved subject to two typographical corrections. |
|
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 Development Committee and meeting guidance.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED that:
1. The procedure for hearing objections be varied. Accordingly officers and registered speakers engaged in the order outlined. a) The Development Manager introduced the application and then the Planning Case Officer presented his report. b) Registered speakers then made their submissions in the following order; objectors, Ward Councillors and applicants/agents. c) Members then questioned the parties on the information submitted
2. That the meeting guidance be noted.
3. In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes be delegated to the Corporate Director, Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting.
4. 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 be delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
|
|
1 - 7 Mears Close, London, E1 1AS (PA/18/01538) PDF 1 MB Additional documents: Minutes: An update report was tabled.
The Area Planning Manager (East) introduced the report which concerned an application to create an additional upper storey to an existing terrace of properties at 1 – 7 Mears Close; the proposal also included a roof terrace, associated privacy screens and skylights. Its purpose was to provide extended living accommodation to the existing properties plus roof terraces and the creation of a top floor flat.
The Planning Case Officer then presented the report informing the Committee of the relevant planning considerations related to the application. These were; land use, design, quality of residential accommodation, amenity, transport and services.
He advised that there had been statutory planning consultation comprising 73 notification letters, site notice and a press notice. 23 objections had been received concerned with potential amenity impact, daylight/sunlight impacts, enclosure, overlooking and potential noise disruption during construction.
In relation to the setting of the proposed development on the Committee was informed that the surrounding buildings in Settles Street were four storeys plus basement and properties had been assessed for impacts on amenity; namely daylight/sunlight privacy, overlooking and separation. Upon assessment some impacts around enclosure were noted however these were mitigated by design features which would break up the mass and mitigate the sense of enclosure. Daylight/sunlight assessments had been undertaken in accordance with BRE standards and results indicated that the proposal did not breach these guidelines. Additionally the scheme met tests for public transportation and waste removal.
Responding to Members’ questions the Planning Case Officer provided the following additional information:
The Committee heard from two objectors. They submitted their statements raising the following concerns:
|
|
2 Jubilee Street, London E1 3HE (PA/16/02806) PDF 2 MB Additional documents:
Minutes: An update report was tabled.
The Chair informed all present that a late speaking request had been made by the proprietor of the Grade II listed premises The George Tavern who wished to speak against the application. He advised that he had exercised discretion to permit the objector to make a representation since, hearing from those in the community on how the proposal would affect the vicinity would help the Committee in its decision making.
The Area Planning Manager (East) then introduced the report which concerned the refurbishment of an existing office building and a single-storey roof extension and demolition of part of the existing buildings to the north and redevelopment to create a six-storey residential block together with amenity areas cycle parking and refuse recycling stores and new B1 office floor space at 2 Jubilee Street London E1. The proposed redevelopment of the site would deliver a mixed-use facility. The Planning Case Officer then presented the report highlighting the salient features which included re-provision of business space, provision of 37 dwellings with amenity areas and an affordable housing contribution of 35% equating to 9 residential units. The application site neighboured the Grade II listed The George Tavern and the Commercial Road conservation area. The relevant planning matters were land use, design, amenity, highways and legal contributions. Members were informed that there were some impacts on amenity and sunlight on the neighbouring developments but these were accessed acceptable as these impacts did not affect habitable rooms.
Responding to Members’ questions the Planning Case Officer provided the following additional information:
|
|
PLANNING APPEALS REPORT PDF 1 MB Minutes: The Area Planning Manager (East) introduced the report which summarised appeal decisions in the borough made by the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State, following appeals made to the Secretary of State, in the period 1 December 2017 to 31 December 2018.
The Committee was informed that 80 appeals had been lodged during this period and of these 50 has been dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate.
The Area Planning Manager (East) also highlighted the following significant enquiries during the period:
Of the following 3 cases:
the Inspector had dismissed the first and allowed the two latter cases.
The Committee considered the report and asked for the following clarifications:
Concerning why the Inspector's decision around Mill Harbour, Muirfield Crescent and Pepper Street application had not been challenged the Committee was informed that while the scheme had not been supported by Members, at appeal, the Inspector took the view that the stepping down effect would be achieved and that the proposal complied with existing and emerging policy guidance since the towers would be less than half the height of the nearby Canada Square development.
Concerning how appeal costs were attributed, the Committee was informed that generally each appeal party paid its own costs unless the opponent contests this. A party to an appeal may make an application for costs; however the Council may resist such applications if it feels that the appellant has not acted reasonably.
Members thanked Officers for the report. They observed that the perspectives that the appeal decisions offered, and details of the rationale employed by the Planning Inspector to derive these were helpful. To assist with their decision-making Members requested additional training be provided on how policies may be applied to applications.
There being no further matters to discuss, the Chair moved and the Committee unanimously
RESOLVED
That the contents of the report be noted.
|