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 form 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  interests in items on the agenda

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 9^th July 2020

The Committee RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9 July 2020 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

None

There are none.

Proposal:

Demolition of existing garages and construction of four new family-sized houses.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Jerry Bell (Area Planning Manager (East), Planning Services, Place)  introduced the application for the demolition of existing garages and construction of four new family-sized houses. It was reported that following the removal of the application from the August 2020 Committee agenda, due to an issue with the consultation, additional consultation had been undertaken and the results were noted in the update report.

Antonia McClean (Planning Services) presented the report, describing the proposals and the existing site.

Two rounds of consultation had been carried out.  In response concerns had been raised regarding a number of issues. Details of how these would be managed were noted and set out in the report.

The Committee were advised of the key elements of the scheme including:

•         That the development would result in the provision of 100% affordable rented housing with two dwellings designed for persons with autism.

•         The standard of the accommodation would be high and included external  amenity space.

•         That the development would be of a good quality design and fit in with the area.

•         That the development would provide a number of security features, including the provision of fob access to maintain access to Vawdrey Close.

•         That the proposal also included measures to protect amenity whilst maximising sunlight and daylight levels.

•         The site had a good PTAL rating and residents could apply for blue badge parking.

•         There will be a net gain of biodiversity given the landscaping improvements.

In summary, whilst officers were mindful of the issues with the displacement of vehicles from garages, given the benefits of the scheme (including the provision of the affordable housing) Officers considered that the application was acceptable and should be granted permission.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Mashraf Ali and Abul Monsur spoke in objection to the application. They expressed concerns regarding the:

•         The impact on the character and appearance of the area.

•         Overdevelopment/overcrowding.

•         The design and the scale of the scheme. It would be out of keeping with the area.

•         Overshadowing and loss of privacy. The height would overshadow existing developments.

•         Increased parking and traffic congestion due to the loss of the garages. It was explained that the garages were currently in use,  therefore, their loss would result in parking displacement, and potentially increased parking on the pavement.

•         The impact on access, (i.e. emergency access, deliveries and waste vehicle access). Concerns were expressed that the road was already very narrow leading to restrictions on access.

•         Inadequate consultation.

•         Loss of amenities

Anna Woodeson, Jane Abraham (Housing Project Manager, Corporate Property and Capital Delivery) and with the permission of the Chair, Councillor Sirajul Islam (Statutory Deputy Mayor and Cabinet Member for Housing and ward Councillor) spoke in support of the application. They highlighted the merits of the scheme including:

•         The delivery of good quality environmentally friendly family homes that complied with policy. The accommodation comprised family sized housings for autistic persons. The development would deliver  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposal

Jerry Bell introduced this application for the demolition of Bancroft TMC building and Wickford Street garages  and construction of a part-two, part-three and part-six storey mixed use development.

John Miller, (Planning Services) presented the report advising that the application related to the Bancroft TMC site and the Garages site. The following points were noted:

•         That the proposed land use could be supported, given that the proposed residential use complied with policy and the quality of the replacement office/commercial space.

•         The development would result in the provision of 100% affordable rented housing, resulting in a mixed and balance community in housing mix terms.

•         The housing mix would be broadly in line with policy, including a number of wheelchair accessible units.

•         The density of the scheme was in line with London Plan standards.

•         There would be an overprovision of child play space, in excess of policy.

•         The design would respond well to the surrounding area, and would be secure by design

•         Whilst the scheme would result in a net loss of open space, the proposal sought to improve the offer. The wider landscaping plans included, hard and soft landscaping and child play space and biodiversity enhancements.

•         In terms of amenity, the scheme had been designed to maximise separation distances, which were broadly in line with the Council’s amenity policy. Therefore, the development would result in no undue amenity impacts.

•         The impact on daylight and sunlight had been carefully assessed  as detailed in the report. Whilst the scheme would result in localised impacts (particularly at Wickford House, and 64 -134 Cambridge Heath Road), the impacts were found to be acceptable given the context, as detailed in the report and the wider benefits of the scheme.

•         The proposal would be acceptable with regard to highway and transportation matters including parking, access and servicing. The Council’s Highway Officer had no concerns about the loss of parking bays and garages or the transport and highway issues in general.

•         A range of contributions had been secured.

Officers were recommending the proposed development was granted planning permission.

It was noted that the objector registered to speak had decided to withdraw from addressing the Committee. With the Chair’s permission, the applicant’s representative, Viviana Vivanco was permitted to answer questions from the Committee.

In response to the presentation, the Committee asked questions about: the increase in residents from the development and the impacts from the scheme. It was confirmed that the density tests had been completed and that the density was in line with London Plan Standards. 

Regarding the noise impact from the nearby railway track, it was noted that the submitted noise assessment had been carefully considered by the Council’s noise officer and conditions would be secured to ensure that the impact on the most noise sensitive properties would be acceptable. Subject to the conditions, the officer considered that the plans were acceptable.  In addition, the layout had been designed to position noise sensitive rooms away from tracks.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Proposal:

Construction of a part-four and part-nine storey building comprising 32 x Class C3 residential dwellings, hard and soft landscaping works, security enhancements, and the re-opening of an existing under croft parking structure.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission, subject to conditions and subject to a legal agreement

Update report was tabled.

Jerry Bell introduced the application for the construction of a part-four and part-nine storey building comprising 32 x Class C3 residential dwellings, hard and soft landscaping works, security enhancements, and the re-opening of an existing under croft parking structure.

Sally Fraser (Planning Services) introduced the report, describing the site location and views from the surrounding area. Public consultation had been carried out, resulting in the receipt of 27 objections  including a survey of residents opinion. A summary of the responses was noted.

The following issues were noted:

•         In land use terms, the scheme will deliver 100% affordable housing with 50% of the units to be offered at the London Affordable rent and the remaining 50% at the Tower Hamlets Living rent. 

•         The scheme would deliver a broadly compliant housing tenue mix, with a minor deviation in policy.

•         The housing would be of a high quality.

•         There would be wheelchair accessible units and 3 disabled parking bays.

•         In terms of the design, the 9 storey element would mark the corner of site. It had been through various iterations and the height had been reduced. It was considered that the development would fit well into the area with a strong architectural approach and robust material palette.

•         In terms of the landscaping, the quantum of communal amenity space exceeded policy requirements. The proposed site wide landscaping works would enhance and expand upon the existing provision, for the benefit of existing and future residents

•         The plans sought to provide a generous level of child space which was policy compliant in relation to new units.

•         The application proposed changes to parking arrangements, including the relocation of parking spaces and revised on site serving arrangements, accessed off Yorkshire Road, which were supported.

•         Details of the site wide security enhancements would be secured by condition. There would be no gates to the community garden.

•         The impacts on neighbouring amenity had been carefully tested. It was considered that there would be no noticeable impacts to properties in terms of daylight, sunlight, overshadowing, outlook or enclosure.

•         The public benefits of the scheme were noted.

Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Ian Campbell, spoke in objection the scheme. He expressed concerns about the following issues:

•         That the drawings were out of date on the Council’s planning portal. They had been changed very recently with the loss of security features, visitor space and changes to the community food garden.

•         Overdevelopment of the area and reduction in amenity space

•         Size and height of the development.

•         Fire access issues

•         Increased noise.

•         The plans should be deferred to allow further consideration to be given to the issues.

Simon Thorpe spoke in support of the application. He provided assurances about the stakeholder consultation. The feedback had informed the design of the proposal.  He emphasised the merits of the scheme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3