Councillor Rajib Ahmed declared a non-pecuniary interest in respect of item 5.1 stating that he had received representations from the applicant and objectors, that he knew some objectors and may know a member of the applicant’s team, and that he had visited the Whitechapel Bell Foundry during his time as Speaker of the Council.

Councillors Ehtasham Haque and Shah Ameen (in attendance as registered speakers against the application) both declared non-pecuniary interests in respect of item 5.1 stating that they had campaigned against the application.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 10 October 2019.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 October 2019 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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.

The Committee RESOLVED that:

1.            The procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance be noted.

2.            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; and

3.            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

There are no items.

There were no deferred items.

Proposal:

Part retention of B2 land use (foundry) and internal alterations and refurbishment of listed building to provide new workshops/workspaces (B1 land use) and cafe (A3 land use) at ground floor.

External alterations to listed building to raise roof of hayloft building and create new link building.

Demolition of unlisted 1980s building and wall to the rear. Erection of building along Plumbers Row and Fieldgate Street with hotel (C1 use) with ancillary members and guest uses in part 5, 6 and 7 storeys with x2 levels of basement, with restaurant/bar (A3/4 uses) at ground and mezzanine level and additional workspace (B1 use) on ground and first floors. Roof plant, pool, photovoltaics, waste storage, cycle parking, public realm improvements and associated works.

Note: the development descriptions for PA/19/00008 and PA/19/00009 are the same.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission subject to conditions and s106.

The Legal adviser notified committee that there had been a written request copied to all Members of the Committee to postpone the meeting. The Legal Adviser read a letter from the Monitoring Officer explaining why the request could not be agreed.

An update report was tabled.

Jerry Bell introduced the application for Part retention of B2 land use (foundry) and internal alterations and refurbishment of listed building to provide new workshops/workspaces (B1 land use) and cafe (A3 land use) at ground floor. External alterations to listed building to raise roof of hayloft building and create new link building. Demolition of unlisted 1980s building and wall to the rear. Erection of building along Plumbers Row and Fieldgate Street with hotel (C1 use) with ancillary members and guest uses in part 5, 6 and 7 storeys with x2 levels of basement, with restaurant/bar (A3/4 uses) at ground and mezzanine level and additional workspace (B1 use) on ground and first floors. Roof plant, pool, photovoltaics, waste storage, cycle parking, public realm improvements and associated works.

Mr Bell reminded the Committee that this report comprised two applications: one for planning permission and one for listed building consent.

Christina Gawne (Planning Services) presented the report describing the nature of the site and the surrounding area, and the outcome of the consultation, resulting in the receipt by the Council of 802 representations of which 8 were supporting comments; 782 were objecting comments and 5 were no position comments. Ms Gawne advised the Council had also received 2 objecting petitions: one containing 274 signatures and one containing 2278 signatures. Ms Gawne summarised the points raised by both those supporting and objecting to the application (including the 2 petitions).

Ms Gawne briefly summarised officers’ assessment of the option to pursue a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of the site, as this had been raised during the consultation. Officers conclude the site does not meet the tests for a CPO.

Ms Gawne briefly summarised the results of the assessments relating to:

• Land use;
• Affordable workspace, public access and education;
• New hotel design;
• Heritage, including archaeological assessments;
• Neighbour amenity;
• Transport;
• Environment; and
• Planning obligations.

Officers considered that the applications complied with the NPPF, the adopted Development Plan and emerging plan policy  and so permission should be granted.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Mr Adam Lowe informed the Committee that he was addressing it on behalf of the UK Historic Buildings Preservation Trust (UKHBPT). Mr Lowe informed the Committee that the Trust had developed an alternative vision for the site which it believed was more appropriate than the application in front of the Committee. Mr Lowe summarised that alternative vision, including the additional benefits the Trust believed it would bring to the site, the local area and Borough residents.

Ms Sufia Alam addressed the Committee. Ms Alam felt the proposed development  would undermine community pride in the local area. She asked the developer to work in partnership with the local community to develop an alternative planning application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposal:

Demolition of existing building, construction of an 8 storey building and a 6 storey building to provide 62 affordable dwellings (affordable housing tenure) and 398 sq.m B1 floorspace with amenity space, access, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works

Recommendation:

Grant personal planning permission with conditions.

At this point in the meeting, Councillor Dan Tomlinson left the meeting and was replaced by Councillor Kevin Brady.

An update report was tabled.

Jerry Bell introduced the application for Demolition of existing building, construction of an 8 storey building and a 6 storey building to provide 62 affordable dwellings (affordable housing tenure) and 398 sq.m B1 floorspace with amenity space, access, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works. Mr Bell provided a summary of the history of the application, including the events that led up to the Judicial Review and the quashing of the Committee’s previous decision to approve. Solomon Agutu, the Committee’s legal advisor, provided further details of the Judicial Review. Messrs Bell and Agutu stressed that the application before the Committee was unchanged from that previously considered.

Katie Cooke (Planning Services) presented the report describing the nature of the site and the surrounding area, public transport connectivity and the outcome of the consultation, resulting in the receipt by the Council of 42 individual letters of objection; 4 petitions against (with a total of 311 signatures) and 1 letter of support. Ms Cooke summarised the key issues raised in consultation responses.

Ms Cooke briefly summarised the results of the assessments relating to:

• Land use;
• Heritage (including conservation areas);
• Highways;
• Daylight and sunlight (supported by Mr Gareth Owens);

Ms Cooke then highlighted selected planning obligations to be secured by Condition.

Officers considered that the application, complied with policy so should be granted.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Melanie Rainbird addressed the Committee. Ms Rainbird advised that the residents of the nearby Tomlins Grove properties have concerns over sunlight and daylight issues arising from the development:

• Residents have commissioned independent expert advice on the Council’s daylight and sunlight assessment. The expert advice has yet to be produced and their request to defer the application until the advice is ready was refused. 
• Neighbouring properties would be severely affected and losses are above those in BRE guidelines and should be considered against policy. 
• Documents supplied by objectors were included in the report for the previous, September 2019 Development Committee (when the application was deferred) but excluded from the report for tonight's meeting.
• The proposed building is out of scale with the local area. Residents would like to see revised proposals with a lower height, to lessen loss of daylight.
• Residents feel the decision should be deferred until their concerns have been fully considered.

Alistair Baker addressed the Committee. Mr Baker told the Committee he believed this application was contrary to Council policy in three main areas: height, density and amenity play space for children. Mr Baker provided further detail to support this assertion, including extracts from the London Plan, the Local Plan, and English Heritage. Regarding the height of the proposed development, Mr Baker stated that claims in the officer’s report of nearby 10 storey neighbouring buildings are factually incorrect.

Councillor Dan Tomlinson addressed the Committee. Councillor Tomlinson:

• Expressed concerns with the street scene of Arnold Road at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

There were no other planning matters.