Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, please see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Members are reminded to declare the nature of the interest and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it’s the Members’ responsibility to declare any interests and to update their register of interest form as required by the Code.

If in doubt as to the nature of your interest, you are advised to seek advice prior to the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 8^th October 2020

The Committee RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 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 none.

There are none

Update report was tabled

Update report was tabled

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of the existing office and job centre building and the erection of building of up to 8 storeys comprising 84 residential units. He also highlighted the key issues in the update report.

Victoria Coelho presented the application, explaining the site context and the key features of the proposals. Consultation had been carried out and 10 objections were received. The key issues raised related to the height,  loss of light and overshadowing, increased traffic and the impact on biodiversity of the canal.

In terms of the assessment, it was noted that:

1.    The loss of the current office space and the provision of a residential development, was acceptable and justified given the poor quality of the existing office space and the relocation of the job centre building. It was considered that the benefits of the  proposal outweighed the benefits of continued employment use.

2.    The scheme provides 37% affordable housing by habitable room, (increased from 19%) with a 69/31 tenure split. This allowed for the scheme to be considered eligible for the fast track route.

3.    The standard of accommodation is considered to be high, in terms of the internal spaces, the private and communal amenity space. The scheme can accommodate the majority of child play space within the communal amenity space.  Whilst the provision marginally fell short of policy when combined with the communal space requirements, the proximity of nearby parks can accommodate play space for 12+ years

4.    The height, massing and design are considered to appropriately respond to the local context, due to amongst other things the varied building heights.  It would relate well and would integrate well with the area. The enhanced pedestrian link was welcomed.

5.    The daylight and sunlight, assessment had been independently assessed. This found that the impact on neighbouring properties would acceptable for an urban setting. The properties would continue to receive acceptable levels of daylight and sunlight including the properties that would experience a material reduction in light. In terms of the concerns around overlooking, it was recommended that privacy screening to the roof terrace, adjacent to Aspen Court, be secured by condition. 

6.    Biodiversity enhancements would be secured by condition. The Environment Agency were satisfied that the applicant had satisfied the requirements regarding flood defence subject to the conditions.

7.    Car and cycle parking and servicing are considered to be acceptable.

8.    Financial contributions had been secured and the scheme would be liable for both the Mayor of London’s and the Borough’s Community Infrastructure Levy.

9.    Officers recommend the proposed development be granted planning permission.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Tufyal Choudhury, a local resident of Coalmakers Wharf , spoke in objection to the application. Whilst not objecting to the principle of redeveloping the site, he expressed concerns about:

·       The scale and height of the development. It would be out of keeping with the area given the surrounding buildings were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposal:

Demolition of existing petrol filling station (sui generis use class) and drive-through restaurant (A3 use class) and redevelopment of site to provide buildings ranging in height from 5-7 storeys, comprising 80 residential dwellings (C3 use class) and 574sqm (GIA) commercial floorspace (flexible A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1/D2 use classes) plus associated servicing, parking and refuse stores, amenity space and public realm enhancement. Refurbishment of existing public house (302sqm).

Recommendation:

Approve planning permission subject to conditions and a legal agreement

Update report was tabled

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the redevelopment of site to provide buildings ranging in height from 5-7 storeys, comprising a residential led scheme with commercial uses at ground floor. He also highlighted the issues raised in the update report.

Rikki Weir presented the application, explaining the site location and the surrounding area. He also advised that the scheme had been amended following negotiations.  Public consultation had been undertaken with 11 objections and 1 in support. The main issues raised related to the impact on the neighbouring area, residential amenity and protection of The Old Rose public house. The application had been brought to the Committee due to size of the development rather than number of objections.

In terms of the assessment, the following points were noted:

• In land use terms, the loss of the drive-thru restaurant and petrol filling station to provide new housing and commercial uses, complied with policy.
• The housing mix comprised, 35% affordable housing at 70/30 tenure split of affordable rented and intermediate housing.  There would be a slight under provision of  family sized rented affordable accommodation.  Taking into account the overall housing offer and wider benefits of the scheme, the housing offer was considered to acceptable.
• The accommodation would be of a high standard in terms of internal and external amenity and access to play space.
• Details of the height, massing and design of the proposed development including images from the surrounding area. It was considered to be of a  high quality design and would appropriately respond to the local context.
• The surrounding area including a number of listed buildings, principally St George in the East Church (Grade I), Tobacco Dock (Grade I) and Pennington Street Warehouses (Grade II).

·       The proposal would result in less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets including listed buildings and the conservation area, within which, The Old Rose public house, described as a non-designated heritage asset, at the lower end of this scale. It was considered that the proposals met the planning balance tests in policy and that the public benefits would outweigh harm.

• The proposal would adversely impact upon the daylight and sunlight to some habitable rooms of residential buildings (Chi Buildings and Orchid Apartments) on the north side of The Highway. The impacts have been quantified and carefully assessed and the retained levels of amenity to neighbouring units were considered to be acceptable on balance in this urban context. Details of these impacts were reported and that the Council’s sunlight and daylight expert was on hand to answer any questions from Members.
• Other benefits of the scheme were noted. These included: public realm and pedestrian crossing improvements, measures to protect the operation of The Old Rose public house and surrounding night time venues, and a range of contributions, including Community Infrastructure Levy contributions. 
• In highway terms, the proposals included - a car-free agreement (apart from the provision of Blue Badge accessible car parking spaces within the development and adequate cycle parking for all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

There are none