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

Non declared

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 3^rd February 2022

The Committee RESOLVED

1.    That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 3^rd February 2022 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

Proposal:

Change of use of first floor office use (use class B1a) to 4no residential units (Use class C3). Construction of a two-storey building to the rear to provide office space (use class B1a)

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report published.

Update report published.

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for change of use of first floor office use to 4no residential units  with the construction of a two-storey building to the rear to provide office space

As set out in the Minutes of the meeting, the Committee considered the application at it’s previous meeting on 3^rd February 2022 where they deferred the application to allow for a site visit to take place. This took place on 14^th March with four Members in attendance.  The update report sets out additional representations  and proposed conditions.

Nicholas Jehan, provided an update on the application briefly reminding Members of the key features of the application including:

·       The site location and surrounding area.

·       The proposed extension plans.

·       Elevations of the proposals

·       Outcome of public consultation. A total of 50 representations were received, as well 4 additional representations from previous objectors. These raised no new planning issues.

Members were advised of the changes that had been made to the application to overcome the concerns. This was in relation to:

·       Windows looking on to Wargrave House to the south. The Committee were reminded of the separations distances between the ground floor windows and the proposals (that ranged between approximately 18.7m to a minimum of 12.1m). They also noted that due to the mitigating factors, such as the position of the windows and that the Ivy growth should help obscure the windows, these features should lessen the impacts and the proposals accorded with the London Plan guidance. The applicant has also agreed that windows will now be obscure, which would be secured by condition as detailed in the Committee report. As requested at the site visit, the applicant had also provided an updated photograph of the proposal’s relationship with Wargrave House. This was noted, illustrating the position of the Ivy and that the visibility of the building should not cause any concerns.

·       Light Pollution from windows. Additional conditions had been agreed  securing the installation and on-going maintenance (and replacement, if necessary) for the life of the development of an appropriate automated system such that the blinds are closed between certain hours all year round to alleviate concerns as to light pollution.

·       Ivy retention on perimeter wall. It was proposed that details of the Landscape Plan condition be updated to ensure appropriate measures are introduced that will safeguard the existing level of growth and/or screening is retained in perpetuity. Following the discussions at the site visit, Officers are also proposing that a root protection plan for the existing vegetation be secured by condition to ensure that the vegetation will be appropriately protected throughout the development.

·       Verified Views. The applicant has provided a summary of the methodology for the generation of the CGI visualisations which can be found at Appendix 2 of the report. Officers are satisfied with the accuracy of the imagery.

In summary Officers considered that that the proposed measures addressed the concerns and these would be outweighed by the benefits of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

Recommendation:

Redevelopment of the site comprising demolition of existing buildings (including Harriott House, Apsley House, Pattison House, The Redcoat Centre and Redcoat Community Centre) to provide 412 residential units (Class C3) and 1,192m2 GIA of community use (Class E (e-f), Class F1 (e-f), Class F.2 (b)) provided across buildings ranging in height from 4-8 storeys, together with associated landscaped communal amenity space, accessible car parking, secure cycle parking spaces and refuse/recycling storage facilities.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission subject to conditions

Update report

Update report published.

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the redevelopment of the site comprising demolition of existing buildings to provide a residential led scheme.

Kitty Eyre presented the report highlighting the key features of the application including:

·       Site location, the nature of the surrounding area and the existing site use.

·       Heritage context.

·       The public engagement, consisting of three phases. The residents ballots revealed widespread support for the development. In response to the statutory consultation: 17 representatives were received, along with two petitions in objection, and 20 representations in support. The issues raised were outlined.

·       Regarding the land use, the principle of residential use has been established. The development would provide much needed new housing, with high quality community facilities.

·       The development would provide landscaped open space that exceeded local plan policy requirements, whilst a reduction from existing

·       The character, appearance, heigh and massing of the development will be in keeping with the local context.

·       The proposal would re-provide 70 affordable rented and shared ownership properties on the site of a high quality. It would deliver 55% affordable homes overall (including the re-provided units) and 42% affordable housing (excluding re-provided units). The proposal would be delivered in phases which was noted.

·       The impact in terms of amenity would be minimal.

·       The Committee also noted details of the transport matters, (including the policy compliant cycle storage, the wheelchair assessable parking), the environmental benefits and the financial and non - financial contributions.

Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.

The Chair invited registered speakers to address the meeting.

Councillor Motin Uz -  Zaman, the local Ward Councillor for Stepney Green, addressed the meeting in support of the application.  He noted the level of support for the application and the positive work between the council and community to develop the scheme. He also advised that the existing building was in a state of disrepair and this should regenerate the site, providing affordable homes and community facilities.

The Committee asked questions around the following issues:

·       Distance between the disabled parking and wheelchair assessable units. It was confirmed that 32 would be located  within a ground level car park with two on the inner street. Officers were mindful of the distances between some spaces and the wheelchair accessible units and had engaged with Transport Services about the possible of addressing this.

·       Electric vehicle charging points. It was requested that this should be increased to provide 50% from 20% given the need to provide such facilities. The Committee agreed to add an informative to this affect, as set out in the resolution

·       Sunlight and daylight impacts to neighbouring properties. These were set out in the assessment in the Committee report. Officers confirmed that the impacts complied with policy as detailed in the report. It was also considered that any development of the site would have some impact on daylight and sunlight levels to existing properties.

·       The impact on trees given the removal of trees. It was noted that most of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

There are none

There were none