Issue - meetings
Holland Estate, Commercial Street, London
Meeting: 23/11/2016 - Development Committee (Item 4)
4 Holland Estate, Commercial Street, London (PA/16/01628) PDF 4 MB
Proposal:
Application for variation of Condition 29 (approved plans) of planning permission reference PA/08/02347, dated 1st April 2010, for a proposed minor material amendment to the approved development comprising the introduction of a new security gate between No.16 and No.36 Goulston Street, the removal of the existing security gates to the courtyards of Herbert House and Jacobson House, and the omission of the approved pedestrian access route
between Herbert House and Jacobson House.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the Committee report:
Decision:
Update report tabled.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 4 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be granted and on a vote of 4 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That the Application for variation of Condition 29 (approved plans) of planning permission reference PA/08/02347, dated 1st April 2010, be GRANTED for a proposed minor material amendment to the approved development comprising the introduction of a new security gate between No.16 and No.36 Goulston Street, the removal of the existing security gates to the courtyards of Herbert House and Jacobson House, and the omission of the approved pedestrian access route between Herbert House and Jacobson House, for the reasons set out in the 23rd November 2016 Committee report subject to:
2. The conditions and informatives set out in the 23 November 2016 Committee report.
3. The prior completion of a legal agreement to carry over all of the obligations relating to the section 106 agreement required for the original planning permission, taking account of the revised conditions.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting within delegated authority. If within three months of the resolution the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Councillor Andrew Cregan left the meeting for the consideration of this item, having declared a prejudicial interest in the item when it was previously considered at the 26th October 2016 Development Committee meeting. This was on the basis that the Councillor was a Council appointed Board Member of East End Homes.
Minutes:
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for variation of Condition 29 (approved plans) of planning permission reference PA/08/02347, dated 1st April 2010, for a proposed minor material amendment to the approved development comprising –
· the introduction of a new security gate between No.16 and No.36 Goulston Street,
· the removal of the existing security gates to the courtyards of Herbert House and Jacobson House, and
· the omission of the approved pedestrian access route between Herbert House and Jacobson House.
The Committee noted that the application was previously considered at the 26 October 2016 meeting of the Development Committee where Members were minded to grant the application for the reasons in the Committee report, contrary to the Officers recommendation to refuse the application.
Officers have since drafted suggested reasons for approving the application as well as detailed conditions as set out in the update report.
The Committee were also advised of a recent development in respect of a planning appeal for an almost identical application, (PA/16/00254) that had been determined by the Council under delegated powers.
It was reported that on 31st October 2016, the Council received notification of the appeal decision. The Inspector dismissed the appeal and upheld the Officers decision to refuse the application. The appeal decision was a material consideration in considering this application. A copy of the appeal decision was attached to the Committee report.
Jennifer Chivers (Planning Services) presented the report summarising the key features of the scheme and the appeal decision. In response to questions about the appeal decision and the implications of this, Officers stressed that the Committee may still reach their own decision on the application and that they ultimately had the power to determine the application. They should however have regard to the appeal decision in reaching the decision. The Committee noted this advice.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 4 against and 1 abstention, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be granted and on a vote of 4 in favour, 0 against and 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That the Application for variation of Condition 29 (approved plans) of planning permission reference PA/08/02347, dated 1st April 2010, be GRANTED for a proposed minor material amendment to the approved development comprising the introduction of a new security gate between No.16 and No.36 Goulston Street, the removal of the existing security gates to the courtyards of Herbert House and Jacobson House, and the omission of the approved pedestrian access route between Herbert House and Jacobson House, for the reasons set out in the 23rd November 2016 Committee report subject to:
2. The conditions and informatives set out in the 23 November 2016 Committee report.
3. The prior completion of a legal agreement to carry over all of the obligations relating to the section 106 agreement required for the ... view the full minutes text for item 4
Meeting: 26/10/2016 - Development Committee (Item 5)
5 Holland Estate, Commercial Street, London (PA/16/01628) PDF 1 MB
Proposal:
Application for variation of Condition 29 (approved plans) of planning permission reference PA/08/02347, dated 1st April 2010, for a proposed minor material amendment to the approved development comprising the introduction of a new security gate between No.16 and No.36 Goulston Street, the removal of the existing security gates to the courtyards of Herbert House and Jacobson House, and the omission of the approved pedestrian access route
between Herbert House and Jacobson House.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the Committee report:
Decision:
On a vote of 2 in favour of the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission, 4 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to refuse the planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Chris Chapman proposed and Councillor Sabina Akhtarseconded a motion that the recommendation to refuse planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on vote of 4 in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to refuse planning permission be NOT ACCEPTED at Holland Estate, Commercial Street, London for the variation of Condition 29 (approved plans) of planning permission reference PA/08/02347, dated 1st April 2010, for a proposed minor material amendment to the approved development comprising the introduction of a new security gate between No.16 and No.36 Goulston Street, the removal of the existing security gates to the courtyards of Herbert House and Jacobson House, and the omission of the approved pedestrian access route between Herbert House and Jacobson House (PA/16/01628)
The Committee were minded to approve the application as they considered that the public safety concerns outweighed the policy considerations set out in the Committee report in respect of gated developments.
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 approval and proposed conditions.
Minutes:
Jerry Bell(East Area Manager, Planning Services) introduced the application to vary Condition 29 (approved plans) of planning permission reference PA/08/02347, dated 1st April 2010, for a proposed minor material amendment to the approved development.
The application sought the introduction of a new security gate between No.16 and No.36 Goulston Street, the removal of the existing security gates to the courtyards of Herbert House and Jacobson House, and the omission of the approved pedestrian access route between Herbert House and Jacobson House.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee
Akmal Hussain of Herbert House spoke in support of the application contrary to the officers recommendation to refuse the application. He expressed concern at the anti-social behaviour levels within the area and considered that the proposed gates would address and prevent such problems. He cited examples of the type of problems encountered and felt that that no other measures would address the issues. Furthermore, he did not consider that the application would block public access given the proximity of the site to many other alternative access routes. In response to questions from Members he explained in further detail the severity of the existing problems, that had been partly cause by the displacement of problems from other sites. He also further discussed the strength of the support for the proposal amongst residents, the impact of the plans on public access and expressed concern about the frequency of Police patrols of the area.
Jenifer Chivers (Planning Services) presented the report brought to the Committee as it has received a petition in support with 73 signatures that was contrary to the officer recommendation to refuse the application. The application had also received one letter in support and one in objection.
She drew attention to the location of the subject housing development and the site designations in policy. She also explained the planning history, highlighting the appeal case for a similar application. She also described the key features of this application including the appearance of the proposed gates and the importance of the access route that would be affected. She also referred to the issues raised in the representations in support, stressing the need for the gates to prevent ASB in the area.
Officers had reviewed all of the issues and considered that the proposal to install the gates would restrict access and create a segregated community. Therefore, Officers were of the view that the application should be refused planning permission.
The Committee enquired about the problems with ASB in the area and the reasons for this. In particular they asked about the crime statistics and the anecdotal evidence of ASB related issues in the area. The Committee also asked about the weight that should be given to the policy in respect of gated communities and whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify a deviation from policy given the concerns about ASB.
In response, the Committee were advised of the crime statistics in the area obtained from the police over a three years period. ... view the full minutes text for item 5