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 Abdul Wahid declared a Non Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in agenda item 5.1, 42-44 Thomas Road, London, E14 7BJ (PA.21.02729). This was on the basis that he had visited the site.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 12^th July 2022.

The Committee RESOLVED

1.             That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12^th July 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

None.

There were none

Proposal:

Erection of three sets of gates to the existing building

Recommendation:

Refuse planning permission

Update report published.

Jerry Bell introduced the application for the installation of gates and highlighted the contents of the update report

Kate Cooke presented the report advising of the following:

·       The site and surrounds. The site was located in the Limehouse Cut Conservation Area

·       Overview of the approved permission, for the wider development,  including the s106 agreement, requiring the retention of the public open space, and submission of secure by design measures (condition 18)

·       Key features of the proposed gates.

·       Outcome of the statutory consultation. 53 representations were received in support and 1 in objection.

·       The consultee responses. The Secure by Design Officer has noted the lack of compliance with the secure by design condition. This is being investigated. Whilst they considered that the installation of the gates would provide some deterrent, they had also expressed concerns about design features and wished to see further changes.]

·       No objection to the design of the gates themselves however heritage concerns were had. By locating gates at the eastern and western ends, access through the site and to the canal to the south would be restricted, in turn failing to provide a positive relationship between the existing building and the Cut. Given that the canal is considered an important part of the conservation area, which provides an area of open space, restricting access would not preserve or enhance the conservation area, and would fail to comply with policy. 

·       The access concerns. That proposal gates would restrict access to the Limehouse Cut Canal and access to water space, Limehouse Cut. Therefore, the proposal was contrary to policy as set out in the Committee report.

·       The crime statistics. Officers noted a break down of  reported crime in June 2022 for  the Mile End ward, as detailed in the report. The results show that they were comparable to London as a whole. The site also fell outside of the crime hot spot areas. Overall, based on the level of recorded offences, officers did not consider that this site is of a particular high-risk area that would justify a departure from policy to allow the provision of the gates.Officers  considered that in the long term the installation of gates would displace crime and they would encourage the applicant to look at other security measures.

Officers were recommending that the application was refused permission.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee. David Hill, and Dr Andres L Mikkelsen, local residents, address the committee in support of the proposal highlighting the following points:

·       Drug dealing and ASB was commonplace on land at the site.

·       Given it’s secluded nature, parts of the land are more commonly used for criminal activity, than public use.

·       There had been a huge increase in crime since this site was opened, based on annual crime figures. The monthly crime figures underestimated the level of crime.

·       There were other developments that had gates.

The Committee then asked questions of the Officers and the registered speakers around the following points:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

There are none.