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 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COUNCILLOR CARLI HARPER-PENMAN (CHAIR) IN THE CHAIR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillor Mohammed Abdul Mukit MBE and Stephanie Eaton.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillor Mohammed Abdul Mukit MBE and Stephanie Eaton.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 12th January 2011.
Decision: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12th January 2011 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 12th January 2011 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.
The deadline for registering to speak for this meeting is 4pm Tuesday 8th February 2011. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
DEFERRED ITEMS Nil Items.
Decision: Nil Items.
Minutes: Nil Items.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Land Adjacent To Bridge Wharf, Old Ford Road, London Additional documents: Decision: Update report tabled.
On a vote of 0 for 4 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission for the erection of 2 no. three storey, four bed houses be NOT ACCEPTED.
The Committee indicated that they were minded to refuse the planning application because of concerns over:
· The scale of development/overdevelopment and the impact of proposal on the openness of the immediate area; · Loss of open space; · The overall sustainability credentials of the proposed development; · Concerns over highway safety, caused by the close proximity of front doors to the back edge of pavement, overall pavement widths in the vicinity of the site, poor visibility on Old Ford Road and the potential for increased accidents.
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
The Chair reported that she had received a number of late requests to speak however they could not be accepted as they had been submitted after the deadline for registering to speak.
Mr Pete Smith (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application regarding the land adjacent to Bridge Wharf, Old Ford Road.
The Chair invited statements from persons who had previously registered to address the Committee.
Ms Emily Greaves spoke against the application. She considered that she had bought a flat and was a resident of Bridge Wharf. When the occupiers bought the flats they were investing in unique open space. She considered that it made the nearby residents feel safe andsecure and should be preserved. The scheme would result in overlooking to their properties, loss of privacy, particularly as it was directly opposite balconies. It would restrict natural light and obstruct the sights of Victoria Park and Regents Canal. The old wall would be destroyed. The dust produced from construction would impact on health. It would also affect potential owners and would impact on house prices.
This small plot was unsuitable for any development let alone this. It would not address the housing shortage as it was too small. The buildings had a unique curved design . The proposal would be out of keeping with the area. Quality of life would be compromised.
Councillor Bill Turner also spoke in objection. He considered that he was speaking on behalf of local residents. The Cranbrook Estate was already a well developed area. The scheme was for private rather than affordable housing. The developer had not carried out any consultation with the residents. If they had of done so, they could of mitigated the concerns.
Councillor Turner also objected to loss of amenity. The site was located within two Conservation areas near the Regents Canal and Victoria Park conservation area and was connected by the canal. It was an essential visual amenity and this would be affected by this.
In addition, no one on the Crandbrook Estate had their own gardens so this provided a nice quite place for them to visit.
He also objected to the impact on the willow trees which were very valuable and some of the oldest in the Borough. He also expressed concerns regarding highways amenity and noise amenity as it was a quite area.
Andy Punchers spoke on behalf of the Applicant. He had worked closely with the Council and the relevant experts to develop a suitable scheme. The site was a brownfield site and had been identified as a future development site. There had previously been construction on site. The height of the property was lower than the nearby properties due to the staggered design. Therefore there would be no overlooking to Bridge Wharf. Furthermore, the design would increase openness. The developer recognised the importance of the willow trees and were working with the abulculturists to ensure they were protected. They had submitted a report ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Keeling House, Claredale Street E2 Decision: On a vote of 4 for and 0 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
That listed building consent for the following matters be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report.
Minutes: Mr Pete Smith (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application regarding Keeling House, Claredale Street.
The Chair invited statements from persons who had previously registered to address the Committee.
Mr Ben Rogers spoke in objection to the application. He considered that he was speaking on behalf of the residents of Keeling house. Their view that this application was materially different from the 2005 approved application. It would adversely affect the character and the identity of the building. The conversion would erode its architectural quality. English Heritage agreed with this.
Keeling House made an important contribution to the conservation area and building on the roof of it would have a major impact. There would be overlooking and a loss of privacy from the additional windows. The extension to the stairwell would block valuable daylight. The technical report did not show the major problems. Therefore he recommended that the application be refused.
Councillor Carlos Gibbs also spoke in objection. He considered that he had been approached by concerned residents. The extension of the stairwell, which was in effect a 2ft wall, would restrict daylight to existing properties, privacy and enjoyment of properties. When it was originally approved it was not in a Conservation Area but now was. He did not accept the view that Keeling House was not one of the main reasons it was designated such an area.
He urged the Committee to take note of the comments of English Heritage and the buildings importance to the Conservation Area. The proposals did nothing to address the housing shortage and did not add anything to the community.
Mr Brian Heron spoke in favour as the architect and resident of the property. He explained the reasons for the time extension. It was not a new application and was exactly the same as the one approved and granted in 2005. He had submitted before and after plans showing that the architectural value of the building would be preserved and enhanced. The scheme included privacy measures to restrict overlooking and protect privacy. These measures were considered acceptable in 2005 and there had been no changes. He summarised the merits of the scheme and requested it be approved.
Ms Ila Robertson (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. It was explained that the planning permission and listed building consent had already been granted. The purpose of this was to grant an extension of time to enable a longer time for implementation. The application had been subjected to statutory public consultation. The main issues related to loss of amenity, heritage issues impact on the Conservation Area and design and appearance.
In terms of amenity, the application included significant measures to protect amenity. The application was considered acceptable and granted in 2005 and there had been no material changes since then.
In terms of policy issues, the site had been designated a Conservation Area since 2005. The Council had also adopted new planning policy and national planning guidance had changed from ... view the full minutes text for item 9. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS Additional documents: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phoenix School, 49 Bow Road, London, E3 2AD Decision: On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the application for alterations in connection with erection of two structures (including canopy and greenhouse) and formation of a new external access into an existing teaching room be referred to the Government Office for London with the recommendation that the council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions set out in the report.
Minutes: Ila Robertson (Application’s Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the application. It was reported that the application had been subject to consultation but no comments had been received.
The proposal had been amended to overcome the issues raised by English Heritage and they were now happy with the scheme. The scheme complied with policy therefore should be recommended for approval.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the application for alterations in connection with erection of two structures (including canopy and greenhouse) and formation of a new external access into an existing teaching room be referred to the Government Office for London with the recommendation that the council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions set out in the report.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Planning Appeals December 2010 - January 2011 Decision: On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the details and outcomes of the appeals as outlined in the attached report be noted.
Minutes: Mr Pete Smith (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the report. The report provided details of appeals decisions and new appeals lodged between December 2010 and January 2011.
In response, the Committee discussed the outcomes and the lessons learnt. It was noted that the large majority of decisions were successfully defended at appeal.
Members also discussed the process and timescales for the new appeals and raised some requests for information which Officers undertook to provide. Members also noted the implications of emerging government policy in respect of retrospective applications.
Overall the Committee felt that the report was very useful and informative as it provided an overview of the whole decision making process. They thanked Officers for preparing the report and were keen to ensure such reports were submitted to the Committee on a regular basis.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the details and outcomes of the appeals as outlined in the attached report be noted.
|