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 disclosable pecuniary interests.

There were no declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, however the Chair mentioned that he received correspondence on items on the agenda.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on Wednesday, 7 December 2022

The Committee RESOLVED

That the unrestricted minutes of the Committee held on 7 December 2022 meeting 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

Nil items.

The published update report was noted.

Gareth Gwynne, Area Planning Manager, introduced the application for Construction of an additional storey to create five new residential apartments. Associated cycle and refuse store.

Rikki Weir, Principal Planning Officer, provided a presentation on the application. The Committee were reminded of the key features of the application, including photographs of the site and surrounds. The Officer’s recommendation was to refuse planning permission.

At the invitation of the Chair, objections were raised to the committee, highlighting the impact on access to the Thames River path and anti-social behaviour.

At the invitation of the Chair, reasons to support the application were raised to the committee, highlighting the need to improve the overall look of the building and the need to increase security in the area.

Further to questions from the Committee, officers and residents provided more details on the following elements of the application:

• How long has anti-social behaviour been reported here? And what did officers investigate about the anti-social behaviour in the area? Residents have been reporting anti-social behaviour in the area since around 2016, including calling the police. Officers looked at police data, community reporting from Safer Neighbourhood Panels and the work of the council’s own noise team.
• What were the number of objections and how many were residents? Officers reported that most of the objections came from local residents in the Wapping area and there were over 60 objections.
• Is the anti-social behaviour from local residents? What is the nature of it? There has been a range of activity in the area, usually in large groups. The data collected does not go into that kind of breakdown, but residents have noticed a few instances of seeing the same individuals returning to the area.
• How can we find a balance between allowing access to the area but also tackling anti-social behaviour? Officers have recommended refusal based on the restriction of access for a number of reasons, but there are real concerns from residents about anti-social behaviour.
• Members expressed concern about the access issues that were presented and no real plans to address anti-social behaviour.

The Committee debated the application and moved to the vote.

On a vote of 5 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions the Committee

RESOLVED:

That planning permission is REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would be unacceptable as it would adversely impact on active lifestyle choices, it would unduly restrict access to Publicly Accessible Open Space, water spaces, the Thames Path and National Trail, contrary to policies D.SG3, S.OWS1, S.OWS2, D.OWS4 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan, GG3, SI 16, G4 of the London Plan.

2. The proposed development would be unacceptable as it would adversely impact on designate heritage assets (the Tower of London Conservation Area) through loss and restriction of the enjoyment of important riverside views. The proposal would also result in loss of permeability, legibility, connectivity and accessibility resulting in a less socially inclusive, less equal and less cohesive neighbourhood, increasing the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

On a vote of 0 in favour, 4 against and 1 abstention the Committee

RESOLVED:

That planning permission is GRANTED for the following reason:

·         There were no objections to the application;

·         Members considered that the proposed development would enhance the character of the property and provide much needed additional living space;

·         The house next door and next-door-but-one already have similar extensions, built prior to Senrab’s Street’s designation as a Conservation Area.  The fact that the heritage has already been impacted by the development to those two houses means that the impact of the proposed development is lessened;

·         Members did not find the proposed development to be unsympathetic to the character of the Conservation Area.

There were no other planning matters to consider.