Agenda item
Former Goodmans Fields, 74 Alie Street and Land North of Hooper Street and East of 99 Leman Street, Hooper Street, London E1 (PA/11/03587)
- Meeting of Strategic Development Committee, Tuesday, 6th March, 2012 7.30 p.m. (Item 6.4)
- View the background to item 6.4
Decision:
Update report tabled.
At 10.30 p.m. Councillor Bill Turner proposed, Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed seconded and it was
RESOLVED that, in accordance with Procedural Rule 9.1, the meeting be extended for one hour to enable consideration of the remaining business on the agenda.
On a vote of nil for and 5 against, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at Former Goodmans Fields, 74 Alie Street and land North of Hooper Street and East of 99 Leman Street, Hooper Street, London, E1 (PA/11/03587) be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning permission because of Members’ concerns in connection with:
- Insufficient provision of on-site social housing.
- The lack of child play space and open space in the proposed development.
- The impact on sustainability and biodiversity due to lack of brown and green roofs.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Mr Owen Whalley, Head of Planning and Building Control, introduced the application (PA/11/03587) regarding redevelopment of the site at Former Goodman’s Fields, 74 Alie Street and land north of Hooper Street and east of 99 Leman Street, Hooper Street, London, E1.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Mr Helal Uddin, a local resident and Mitali Tenants’ Association member, speaking in objection to the proposal, stated that he was speaking on behalf of many Backchurch Row residents and expressed the opinion that the proposal would result in more noise pollution and a loss of green space. Dust would make matters worse for asthma-sufferers and there would be no open ground for children. Tenants had made a request to the developer for the provision of a park but had received no reply.
Councillor Denise Jones then made a declaration of personal interest in that her position as a School Governor at Mulberry Girls’ School had resulted in her being acquainted with the next speaker.
Ms Vanessa Ogden, Headteacher at Mulberry Girls’ School, spoke in support of the proposal, indicating that the success of her school was due in part to Tower Hamlets community regeneration measures. The Mulberry Centre was being built to support the community beyond the school gates and classes would be provided for all sectors. In a time of a troubled economy, the developer had given them support and such a partnership could work well in other models. The proposal would provide regeneration for the area and had the community interest at heart.
At 10.30 p.m. Councillor Bill Turner proposed, Councillor Khales Uddin Ahmed seconded and it was
RESOLVED that, in accordance with Procedural Rule 9.1, the meeting be extended for one hour to enable consideration of the remaining business on the agenda.
At the request of the Chair, Mr Pete Smith, Development Control Manager, made a detailed presentation of the application, as contained in the circulated report and update, including plans and a slideshow. He indicated that the planning permission for the site granted in February 2011 was now being built up. There had been wide consultation of the proposal, with views expressed both for and against.
Mr Smith referred to a letter sent direct to Members by the Bengali Youth Group. Although it was good for developers to engage with local groups, he did not especially agree with such an approach. The Chair made reference to his comments earlier in the meeting (see agenda item 4) and stated that Members should disregard the letter so that the S106 arrangements could be determined in the usual manner.
Members then put questions relating to:
· English Heritage comments with regard to the effects of the development on the Tower of London World Heritage site.
· The matter of other hotel provision in the area.
· The possible need to redesign the scheme to include playspace for local children.
· Why there was less social housing provision than achieved by a planning application earlier in the meeting.
· Terms for the provision of a local health amenity.
· Measures for sustainability and brown/green roofs.
Officers made responses including:
- An email had been received that day confirming that English Heritage were satisfied in terms of impact on the Tower of London.
- The area was considered suitable for hotel provision as it was within the City Fringe near tourist attractions.
- The Park Square proposals provided a great opportunity to engage with local people and to ensure needs for playspace were met.
- Social housing provision derived from land values, quality of development, etc., so each application had to be decided on its own merits. Officers relied on Valuation advice and in this case had worked with Berkeley Homes to ensure achieving as much affordable housing as possible.
- A sizeable health centre would be provided at a peppercorn rent for three years initially and the PCT were happy with the proposals.
Following further debate, on a vote of nil for and 5 against, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at Former Goodmans Fields, 74 Alie Street and land North of Hooper Street and East of 99 Leman Street, Hooper Street, London, E1 (PA/11/03587) be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning permission because of Members’ concerns in connection with:
- Insufficient provision of on-site social housing.
- The lack of child play space and open space in the proposed development.
- The impact on sustainability and biodiversity due to lack of brown and green roofs.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Supporting documents: