Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Zoe Folley, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4877, E-mail: zoe.folley@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Peter Golds, for whom Councillor Gloria Theniel deputised.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Peter Golds, for whom Councillor Gloria Theniel deputised.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992. See attached note from the Chief Executive. Decision: Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:
Minutes: Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 16 June 2010. Decision: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 June 2010 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16 June 2010 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDATIONS 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 Development and Renewal 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 Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
Decision: The Committee RESOLVED 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, Development and Renewal 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, Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED 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, Development and Renewal 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, Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee. Decision: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections and those who had registered to speak at the meeting.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections and those who had registered to speak at the meeting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Decision: There were no deferred items.
Minutes: There were no deferred items.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Site At Car Park Adjacent to 31 Arrow Road, London (PA/10/00849) Decision: On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at the car park site adjacent to 31 Arrow Road, London, for the erection of six three-storey five bedroom dwellinghouses, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report. (2) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose the conditions and informatives to secure the matters listed in the report.
Minutes: Mr Jerry Bell, Strategic Applications Manager, gave a detailed presentation as contained in the circulated report regarding the erection of six three-storey, five bedroom dwellinghouses at the car park site adjacent to 31 Arrow Road, London. He added that information concerning further objections to the scheme was set out in the addendum report tabled at the meeting. This also contained corrections to typographical errors in the main report. Mr Bell added that the main point at issue was that of management of car parking but this was not a material planning matter.
The Chair then invited Mr Muktar Miah, who had registered to speak in objection to the application, to address the meeting. Mr Miah not being present, the Chair indicated that it was not now appropriate for two registered speakers in support of the application to make comments.
At 7.30 p.m. Councillor Kosru Uddin, who had earlier declared a prejudicial interest in this item, left the meeting room and took no part in the debate nor voted on the application.
Mr Bell responded to queries from Members relating to affordable housing provision and parking arrangements by Poplar HARCA for new residents.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at the car park site adjacent to 31 Arrow Road, London, for the erection of six three-storey five bedroom dwellinghouses, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report. (2) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose the conditions and informatives to secure the matters listed in the report.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hammond House, Tiller Road, London, E14 (PA/10/00123) Decision: On a vote of 4 for, with 2 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at Hammond House, Tiller Road, London, E14, for the demolition of existing residential building and development of a six-storey building to provide 56 residential units (comprising 13 x one bedroom, 10 x two bedroom, 26 three bedroom, 6 x four bedroom and 1 x five bedroom) with landscaping and boundary treatment, subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement and to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report. (2) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above. (3) That, if by 17 August 2010 the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to refuse planning permission. (4) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose the conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the report. Minutes: At 7.37 p.m. Councillor Kosru Uddin rejoined the meeting.
Ms Ila Robertson, Applications Manager, made a detailed presentation of the proposals for the demolition of Hammond House, Tiller Road, London, E14 and development of a six-storey building with landscaping and boundary treatment. The matter had been initially considered by the Strategic Development Committee on 20 April 2010 but was now being submitted as a fresh item to address concerns raised by Members relating to:
Ms Robertson commented on those issues, stating particularly that further daylight/sunlight assessments had shown that 8 out of 81 windows would see a marginal reduction in winter sunlight and none of the gardens in Mellish Street would have a loss of more than 20% sunlight. She further pointed out that, in addition to the 44 affordable units proposed on the site, East Thames Homes (the applicant) had also secured funding to purchase 12 familty sized properties from the open market to allow for the decant of Hammond Hose residents. 11 properties had been purchased, with 10 Hammond Hose families already relocated. This comprised an additional affordable housing gain for the Borough. The height of the proposed building would be taller than existing by approximately 4.8 to 1.8 metres with the difference occurring where roof terraces were provided. It was felt that the design was of a high quality that would be a positive addition to the Tiller Road streetscape.
Members then asked questions relating to the following matters, which were answered by Ms Robertson: the possibility of refurbishing the existing building; the application of the car free policy to the scheme and the issue of visitors’ parking permits; the overall number of habitable rooms to be provided and the floorspace of rooms in the proposed development.
On a vote of 4 for, with 2 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at Hammond House, Tiller Road, London, E14, for the demolition of existing residential building and development of a six-storey building to provide 56 residential units (comprising 13 x one bedroom, 10 x two bedroom, 26 three bedroom, 6 x four bedroom and 1 x five bedroom) with landscaping and boundary treatment, subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement and to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report. (2) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above. (3) That, if by 17 August 2010 the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to refuse planning permission. (4) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose the conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the report. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
16-24 & 48-50 Bow Common Lane and site at Land South of 12 Furze Street (PA/09/1656) Decision: On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at 16-24 & 48-50 Bow Common Lane and site at land south of 12 Furze Street for the development of 129 units (comprising 65 x 1 bed, 44 x 2 bed, 16 x 3 bed and 4 x 4 bed) and 139 sq m of commercial floorspace Use Class B1 (office space), a pedestrian and cycle pathway, 142 bicycle parking spaces and landscaping works, subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement and to the conditions and informatives as set out in the report. (2) That if by 13 October 2010 the legal agreement has not been completed to the satisfaction of the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services), the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to refuse planning permission. (3) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose the conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the report.
Minutes: The Chair asked that it be recorded that Councillor Marc Francis had intended to speak in favour of the application but was unable to attend the meeting due to other commitments. She added that Councillor Francis had not discussed the proposals with her.
The Chair then invited registered objectors to address the meeting.
Mr Clive Harrison, a resident of Bow Common Lane, spoke in objection to the application, indicating that the scheme would result in him and a neighbour being deprived of light and overlooking of a glass ceiling to the rear of his property would cause a loss of privacy. His home and garden would also be overlooked by roof terracing. The daylight and sunlight survey mentioned in the report did not include him and his neighbour. The previous planning permission granted on 21 November 2007 had related to 12-50 Bow Common Lane, rather than 16-50.
Mr Daniel Botting, a resident of Park View Court, spoke in objection to the application. He stated that he had moved to that part of the Borough as it did not have many tower blocks but the development would cause a sense of enclosure and loss of outlook, with a five storey block being built close to his home. The proximity of the proposed building, at 11m from his home, meant that Block A would completely obscure the view from his front room. This part of his objection had not been reflected in the report. There would be a massive impact on his property regarding daylight/sunlight and there would be a heavy impact from construction noise. He felt that this would reduce his quality of life and there would be a negative effect on the value of his property.
Mr Philip Villars, the applicant’s agent, commented that a very comprehensive report had been prepared regarding the application and the scheme had been the subject of negotiations with Officers over a long period of time, with changes having been made to address residents’ concerns. The daylight/ sunlight survey showed that there had been adherence to all guidelines and the impact was shown as satisfactory. Overlooking of other properties had been reduced to a satisfactory level through the use of obscure glazing to balconies and windows. The distance from other properties had been amended on a number of occasions and was now also satisfactory. He added that the development would provide significant benefits through the provision of affordable housing.
Mr Nick Rees, the applicant’s architect, stated that the design quality and principles of the development exceeded the Borough’s aspirations. The general design had not changed since first approved in 2007, when the Committee had felt there was enough amenity space and this would be improved. The new public route between Bow Common Lane and Furze Street would be well overlooked for personal security and there would be improved synergy between the development and parkland on Furze Green. Landscaped courtyards would be provided, with glazed balconies and there would be a generous ... view the full minutes text for item 7.3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fulneck, 150 Mile End Road, London (PA/10/925) (PA/10/926) Decision: On a vote of 3 for, with 1 against and two abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission be GRANTED at Fulneck House, 150 Mile End Road, London, for the demolition of existing block and erection of part four, part six storey building to provide 412 sq m commercial floorspace comprising retail (Use Class A1), financial and professional services (Use Class A2), restaurant/café (Use Class A3), business (Use Class B1) and/or non-residential institution (Use Class D1) to the ground floor, together with 78 residential units, car/bicycle parking, refuse/recycling facilities and access, landscaping and amenity proposals, subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement and to conditions and informatives as set out in the report. (2) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above. (3) That, if within six weeks of the date of this Committee meeting the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to refuse planning permission. (4) That Conservation Area consent be GRANTED for the demolition and redevelopment works at Fulneck House, 150 Mile End Road, London, subject to the conditions set out in the report. (5) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission and Conservation Area consent to secure the matters listed in the report.
Minutes: The Chair invited registered objectors to address the meeting.
Ms Shirin Uddin, a local resident, indicated that she was speaking on behalf of local people who felt that the development would have an enormous adverse effect on their environment. There would be overcrowding and obstruction of natural sunlight, obstruction of airspace and views including increase in pollution and health hazards. The scheme would result in increased pressure on the local school, which was already oversubscribed, and on post office facilities. Concerns regarding the school included a negative effect on children’s quality of education. There would be additional parking problems in the surrounding area. A proper community centre was also needed and there would be loss of privacy to existing properties due to overlooking. There should be no reduction in parking paces to cater for the needs of more and larger families.
Mr S. Khan, a local resident, stated that there had been no effective consultation with local people about the application. The shared vehicle and pedestrian access caused great concerns for residents and particularly children. Educational provision would be insufficient and the proposed open space was insufficient for the community. Larger residences were required but the development would be overbearing and too big. Provision of commercial loading and unloading bays was inappropriate. There should be a reduction in cycle parking and increase in car parking.
Mr Mark Collins, the applicant, stated that the benefits of the proposal were significant and, although redevelopment of the existing block had been investigated, structural problems meant that it could not be refurbished to Decent Homes standards. Benefits to Stepney Green estate would result from more parking and there would be landscaping to the central green area and provision of play facilities, with a much more secure feel. There had been a large consultation day for residents, 33% of whom had attended and were overwhelmingly in favour of the proposals. There would also be eight large family units built to address the overcrowding problems in Fulneck House.
Mr Tim Gaskell, the applicant’s representative, commented that the scheme would deliver much-needed housing for the area. Fulneck House was in poor condition and now not fit for purpose. Redevelopment of the site was needed to enable a fresh start. Better quality accommodation would be provided to modern standards. There would be landscaping improvements with new lawns, a children’s play area for the whole estate and wild flower meadow. Jobs and local services would be provided. The new building was very well designed, of high quality and would enhance the Stepney Green Conservation Area.
Ms Ila Robertson, Applications Manager, introduced the report and tabled update report, making a detailed presentation of the application for demolition of Fulneck House, 150 Mile End Road, London, and erection of a part four, part six storey building comprising commercial floorspace, 78 residential units, car/bicycle parking, refuse/recycling facilites and access, landscaping and amenity proposals. She added that habitable rooms provision exceeded housing policy requirements. Some parking provision would be lost but ... view the full minutes text for item 7.4 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS Additional documents: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
744 Wick Lane And 46-52 Fairfield Road, Fairfield Road, London, E3 (PA/10/00797) Decision: On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That the application for a non-material amendment to approved planning permission ref. PA/04/1203 dated 16 March 2006 at 744 Wick Lane and 46-52 Fairfield Road, London, E3, be APPROVED. (2) That a Deed of Variation to the S106 agreement be entered into, to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, in accordance with the affordable housing proposal as outlined in section 1 of the report. (3) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above. (4) That, if within three months of the date of this Committee meeting the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to refuse planning permission. Minutes: The Chair referred to her declaration of a personal interest earlier in the meeting and commented that she wished to declare a further personal interest in that she was Ward Councillor for the site of the application.
Mr Stephen Irvine, Development Control Manager, introduced the report relating to the application for a non-material amendment to approved planning permission for demolition of existing buildings and construction of new residential development with financial and professional services, car parking and landscaping at 744 Wick Lane and 46-52 Fairfield Road, London, E2.
Referring to a query concerning consultation for the application, Mr Irvine indicated that site notices had been posted as required.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That the application for a non-material amendment to approved planning permission ref. PA/04/1203 dated 16 March 2006 at 744 Wick Lane and 46-52 Fairfield Road, London, E3, be APPROVED. (2) That a Deed of Variation to the S106 agreement be entered into, to the satisfaction of the Chief Legal Officer, in accordance with the affordable housing proposal as outlined in section 1 of the report. (3) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above. (4) That, if within three months of the date of this Committee meeting the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be delegated power to refuse planning permission. |