Recommendation:

To note the report.

On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:

 1.        That the contents of the report be noted

Paul Buckenham presented the report. This report summarised appeal decisions in Tower Hamlets made by the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State) over a 13 month period since the last report - from 1 December 2017 to 31 December 2018. The Committee noted an overview of appeal decisions and benchmarking performance data showing that the quality of the decision making was generally good. The committee also noted a list of public enquiries scheduled and the outcomes, where known.

Members’ attentions were drawn to the outcome of the following appeals:

•           The Whitechapel Estate London, E1 (PA/15/02959). SDC refused the scheme in accordance with Officer recommendation. Appeal Allowed. The Planning Inspector disagreed with the Council decision and felt the benefits of the scheme would outweigh any harm and would achieve the policy aspirations for the area to achieve transformational change .

•           Site at 14 to 16 Clegg Street, 13 to 15 Cinnamon Street and 125 to 129 Wapping High Street, London E1W (PA/15/03561). Refused by the Development Committee (against Officer recommendation). Appeal Dismissed due to a number of concerns.

• 49-59 Millharbour, 2-4 Muirfield Crescent And 23-39 Pepper Street, London, E14 (PA/16/03518). Permission refused by the SDC (against Officer recommendation). Appeal Allowed.  Planning Inspector felt that the proposal would achieve a stepping down effect and granted the application with only 16% affordable housing and did not require a late stage review mechanism.  As a result of this decision, the Council were exploring the option of developing a supplementary planning document regarding building heights.
• Enterprise House, 21 Buckle Street, London, E1 8NN (PA/16/03552). SDC refused application (against Officer recommendation). Appeal allowed.  The Committee refused the application due to concerns with the daylight and sunlight impacts to neighbouring properties, heritage impacts and issues with the propose use. The Inspector noted that the site lay with an area identified for substantial growth, therefore some impact on existing sunlight and daylight levels was unavoidable. The Inspector also felt that the harm would be less than substantial and would be offset by the public benefits. Officers were mindful of the need to take into account the nature of the area in applying the BRE guidance regarding sunlight and daylight impacts.
• 2, 4 & 6 East Ferry Road, London, E14 3LA (ENF/16/00303). Appeal Allowed and Enforcement Notices quashed. Officers considered that the decision was unusual as the Inspector appeared to base his decision on the speculative benefits of the development potential of site. The Council were concerned about the precedent this decision would set and had elected to challenge the decision in the High Court.

In response to presentation, the Committee discussed the non-determination case due to the expiry of the statutory period for determining the application (Sainsbury Food Store (PA/17/01920). In this case, the applicant submitted the appeal before the outstanding viability issues could be resolved by the Council. The Committee were invited to express a view on the application for consideration at the appeal. The Committee also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6

This report was DEFERRED.  Since the meeting had reached the guillotine, Members were unable to consider the report.

This report was DEFERRED.  Since the meeting had reached the guillotine, Members were unable to consider the report.