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

Councillor Suluk Ahmed stated that the application at 5.15.1          106 Commercial Street, London, E1 6LZ  (PA/19/02404 & PA/21/01396)  was in his ward

Councillors also declared that they had received representations on the application

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 14^th June 2022

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 12 June 2022 be agreed as a correct record

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 deferred items.

There were none

Proposal:

Full planning application (PA/19/02404) and listed building consent (PA/21/01396) for:

• The provision of 1,900sqm (Gross external area) of A3 floor space. • Retention of existing slate roof.

• External alterations comprising the installation of roof plant and atrium changes, elevational changes (including dormer extension).

• Internal changes including creation of dining and kitchen areas, pedestrian access and fire escape routes, new waste storage and cycle parking facilities, new accesses (including accessible lifts) to the floor levels and WCs. • Other minor internal changes.

Recommendation:

1. Grant full planning permission subject to relevant conditions and a S106 agreement

2. Grant listed building consent

Update report published

Update report was published.

Paul Buckenham introduced the application. The application proposes a change of use of the host building from office/storage (B1/B8) to a fine dining food market (A3). Internal and external changes are proposed in order to

facilitate this.

The Committee were also advised of the content of the update report including additional representations and clarification of the weight attributed to the draft Spitalfields Neighbourhood Plan (SNP)

Committee Members had also attended a site visit.

Tanveer Rahman presented the application, highlighting the following points:

· Key features of the application.

· Key issues raised in the consultation.

· The outcome of the 2018 appeal decision (in relation to the previously refused scheme) – refused at appeal on two grounds. It was considered that both of these reasons, regarding the removal of the slate roof and the location of the assessable toilets has been addressed by this

application. In addition, the appeal decision accepted the proposed land use and this had not changed. Overall, the proposed land use was consistent with policy and was therefore considered to be acceptable.

· Officers have carefully assessed the heritage impacts and have given due consideration to the draft Spitalfields Neighbourhood Plan (SNP). Officers considered that it would be reasonable to give the policies of the draft SNP moderate weight as set out in the update report. Overall, the proposal would preserve and restore large elements of the historic fabric of the building and use innovative ways to highlight the historic significance of the building. Details of this was noted, including the plans to better reveal historic features to the public.

· Whilst the proposals would result in heritage impacts (identified to the carriage lift, masonry floors and some openings around the central courtyard) there were strong practical reasons why these were considered necessary to facilitate the layout. In addition, the scheme will secure a long-term use for the site that can ensure retained heritage features are well maintained and restored where necessary, in accordance with Historic England’s published advice.

Overall, it was considered that the scheme would result in less than substantial harm to heritage assets. Officers considered that the public benefits of the proposals would outweigh the identified harm. Therefore, the development accorded with paragraph 202 of the NPPF.. The public benefits included: greater public use of the interior, an uplift in employment, benefits for the local economy, improvements to the exterior and a long term use of the building.

· In terms of noise issues, the appeal highlighted no issues in relation to this..Although, officers noted that objections have been received in this regard. The LBTH Environmental Health Team had been consulted and an external noise consultant (who was expert witness at the appeal scheme) had been reappointed to consider the impacts. Subject to the conditions, both had not raised any objections.

· A planning obligation and a number of conditions would be secured and these were noted.

Officers were recommending that the application was granted permission.

Alec Foreshow, James Frankcom,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposal

Proposed mooring of barge, with an attached floating garden, providing a spa facility comprising an open-air heated pool, sauna, plunge, treatment rooms, alcohol free cafe and wellness facilities.

Recommendation

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Update report published

Update report published

Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the proposed mooring of barge, with an attached floating garden, providing a number of facilities. The update report dealt with additional representations and clarifications. It was also clarified that the opening hours condition should read 7:00 to 21:00 Monday to Saturday.

Kitty Eyre presented the application, highlighting the following points:

•         Site and the surrounding areas – and the key features of the proposed development including proposed opening hours for the outdoor spaces.

•         Main points of objection including concerns around noise, anti – social behaviour, negative impacts on health,  heritage impacts, loss of water space and lack of need for the proposal.

•         The land use issues. Officers were mindful of the loss of water space. However, it was also noted that the proposal would be for a water related use. It had also been designed to enhance enjoyment of the water space. The provision of the café and spa would also contribute to the area.  It was therefore considered to be acceptable from a policy perspective.

•         Design and heritage. It was considered that the barge would be in keeping with the nature of the dock and add visual interest to the local area. Due to the nature of the proposals, it would not cause harm to the setting of the dock or any nearby heritage assets

•         The proposed development would not result in unacceptable amenity impacts in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy, daylight and sunlight issues, sense of enclosure, loss of outlook, or noise impacts. Conditions would be secured to minimise any impacts including restrictions on opening hours. Environmental Health had no concerns about the application, subject to the conditions.

•         The Council’s Biodiversity Officer had no objections to the proposals and a condition would be applied to secure it would secure a number of enhancements including the provision of a floating garden, with vegetation.

Officers were recommending that the planning permission was granted.

Andrew Ore spoke in objection to the proposal as a representative of the One West India Quay Residents’ Association. He raised objections about:

•         Close proximity to properties.

•         Use of the barge as a outdoor nightclub.

•         Harm to residents amenity due to the long opening hours including the 8am opening time which was unique for a swimming pool.

•         Loss of water space

•         Concerns about increased water pollution and environmental damage.

Alex de Rijke spoke in support of the application highlighting the following:

•         It would provide a number of much needed facilities, with a diverse offer, with the aim of promoting health and wellbeing.

•         The applicant had consulted residents who were generally supportive.

•         The applicant had modified their plans to minimise impacts.

•         The applicant was mindful of the concerns about noise impacts and the concerns about a ‘party boat’, which they had no intention of this becoming.   Conditions would be secured to manage the impacts.

The Committee asked a number of questions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

There are none