To elect a Vice -Chair for the Committee for 2021/22.

Councillor Tarik Khan moved and Councillor Dan Tomlinson seconded a proposal that Councillor Kevin Brady is elected as Vice – Chair for the Committee for the remainder of the year 2021 – 22.

RESOLVED:

1.       That Councillor Kevin Brady is elected as Vice – Chair for the Committee for the remainder of the year 2021 – 22.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 14^th September 2021.

RESOLVED:

1.       That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategic Development Committee held on 14th September 2021 be agreed as a correct record

 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

None declared

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.

NONE

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

Update report published

Gareth Gwynne (Area Planning Manager (West), Planning Services, Place) introduced and highlighted the contents of the update report. The application sought 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. It was also recommended that an additional condition should be added to the planning application that:

·       Prior to 1st occupation of the development the access arrangements will be implemented and maintained thereafter for the life of the development

Sally Fraser(Team Leader (East), Place)) presented the application

The scheme was granted by the Development Committee on 8^th October 2020 (following deferral by the Development Committee on 17^th August 2020 for a site visit). The application was granted permission in October 2020 with the fire access arrangements to be dealt with by condition. After the committee meeting, discussions with LFB concluded that a reliance on dry risers to serve Caledonia House was not sufficient. A new solution was found. LFB have formally responded in relation to the revised scheme.  They are supportive of the revised proposals as they relate to fire access to Caledonia House and raise no objections with regards to the scheme overall.

The key changes were highlighted below in relation to:

·       The proposed new vehicular crossover onto Salmon Lane, at the location of the existing pedestrian entrance into the site.  This crossover would provide access into the site for emergency vehicles only, with retractable bollards restricting vehicular access at all other times

·       A segregated walkway would provide pedestrian access into the site. 

·       The removal of one of the two existing crossovers that serve the estates’ Salmon Lane car park.  With the revised arrangements in place, vehicles would enter the car park via the western crossover and exit via the newly created crossover. 

·       Removal of a decorative ‘pavilion’ feature, spanning the pedestrian entrance to make way for the new vehicular route. 

This application now sought permission to agree these minor changes.  No other changes had been made to the scheme.

The Committee also noted an overview of the scheme including:

·       Site layout.

·       Outcome of the consultation including the responses to the September 2020 Committee scheme and those to this amended scheme. The additional representations were set out in report and summarised.

·       The proposed new building would respond positively to the area.

·       The scheme would deliver a number of benefits including  the provision of 32 new affordable homes. 

·       Proposed site wide landscaping arrangements.

·       Parking and servicing arrangements.

Officers remained of the view that the planning application should be granted permission.

The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee

Andrew Boff, GLA Conservatives, Londonwide Assembly Member raised concerns about the application in relation fire safety issues regarding:

·       the risks of more petrol cars in the under croft - Have LFB responded to that risk?

·       the plans to provide sprinkler systems.

It was also requested whether the Council could publish the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.1

 Proposal:

The Thames Water Utilities Limited (Thames Tideway Tunnel) Order 2014 application to discharge Schedule 3 Requirements:

KEMPF2 - Location of permanent works;

KEMPF3 - Detailed design approval for permanent above-ground structures;

KEMPF4 - Detailed design approval for signature ventilation columns;

KEMPF5 - Detailed design approval for river wall and foreshore structure;

KEMPF6 - Landscaping works;

KEMPF14 - Surface water drainage; and 

PW11 - Interpretation strategy (project-wide requirement)

Recommendation:

Discharge requirements

Update report published

Gareth Gwynne introduced the application and highlighted the contents of the update report. The application seeks approval to discharge requirements, in relation to the Thames Tideway Tunnel 2014 Order -  in accordance with approved parameter plans approved as part of the Development Consent Order.

They related to:

·       KEMPF2 - Location of permanent works;

·       KEMPF3 - Detailed design approval for permanent above-ground structures;

·       KEMPF4 - Detailed design approval for signature ventilation columns; KEMPF5 - Detailed design approval for river wall and foreshore structure;

·       KEMPF6 - Landscaping works;

·       KEMPF14 - Surface water drainage; and 

·       PW11 - Interpretation strategy (project-wide requirement)

Tanveer Rahman (Senior Planning Officer, Place) presented the application

In summary the following issues were noted:

·       Overview of the Development Consent Order and associated parameter plans.

·       Site location and the key features of the proposals before the Committee.

·       The outcome of the public consultation (38 letters in objections were received, one representation from a Councillor, 3 neutral letters and 1 in support). The main issues raised related to design, landscaping, the ventilation shafts, kiosk, the artwork, safety and security s, and amenity..

·       That the proposal would serve as a positive addition to the King Edward Memorial Park, and deliver comprehensive soft and hard landscaping.

·       Planning Officers were supportive of the scheme and raised no objections to the proposals which were generally supported by the Council’s Parks and Open Spaces,,Place Shaping, Arboriculture and Biodiversity Teams. In addition consultation responses received from the Environment Agency,the Port of London Authority (who manage the River Thames) and the Met Police Designing Out Crime Team raising no objection to the details submitted.

Overall, the development is considered to comply with relevant Requirements of the DCO and its relevant guideline documents. It was considered that the Requirements could be discharged.

The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee

Hazel Parker-Brown, Amanda Day and Councillor Peter Golds raised concerns regarding the following issues:

·       The proposed kiosk – in terms of its utilitarian design, size and location,

·       It was requested that the design should be reviewed in consultation with Officers to prevent the loss of trees, and impacts on the pedestrian access route.

·       Increased security risks for neighbours - given the proximity of the kiosk to the boundary and properties at Free Trade Wharf. It was questioned why these issues had not been raised with the Safer Neighbourhoods Team?

·       The design/colour of the ventilation towers. Concerns were expressed over the use of poor materials, they would be brown not bronze.

·       Suitability of the proposed art work, and including the artwork ships. Concerns were expressed that it fails to reflect of the history of the park.

·       The proposed benefits of the scheme.

Chloe Evans and Tony Bowden, (Resident of Trafalgar Court) highlighted the benefits of the scheme including:

·       The wider benefits of the project - to provide a national significant  infrastructure project -  to reduce sewage disposal in the River Thames.

·       The benefits included: landscaping improvements to extend the park, with enhanced view of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.2

There were none.

There were none