Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 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 submitted on behalf of Councillor Craig Aston for whom Councillor Tim Archer was deputising.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Craig Aston for whom Councillor Tim Archer was deputising.
|
|||||||||||||||||
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:
Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||||||
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 24th August 2011. Decision: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24th August 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 24th August 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.
Deadline for registering to speak at this meeting is 4pm Monday 12th September 2011. Decision:
The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.
Minutes:
The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Nil Items.
Decision: Nil Items.
Minutes: Nil Items.
|
|||||||||||||||||
St David's Square, Westferry Road, E14 (PA/10/2786) Additional documents:
Decision: Update Report tabled.
On a vote of 2 for 3 against, the Committee RESOLVED
That the Officer recommendation to refuse permission for the erection of entrance gates to Westferry Road, Ferry Street and Thames Walkway together with associated walls to perimeter estatebe NOT ACCEPTED
The Committee indicated that they were minded not to accept the recommendation due to the following reasons:
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 the implications of the decision.
Minutes: Update Report tabled.
Owen Whalley, (Service Head Planning and Building Control) introduced the report and tabled update report concerning St David's Square, Westferry Road, E14 (PA/10/2786).
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Fred Sutton spoke as the Applicant’s Agent. He was the Chair of the St David’s Square Residents Association and a resident of the square. He expressed concern at the many acts of vandalism and incursions in the Square. The Applicant had held meetings to mitigate such concerns and the Police have suggested a number of alternative options. None of which had solved the problems. The only solution was to gate the community as proposed. The square was a microcosm of London and there were issues in achieving community cohesion. For example it was impossible to identify residents and invited visitors. The proposal would facilitate community cohesion and would also improve security. He referred to gated schemes nearby secured due to similar problems with nuisance behaviour. This precedent could be followed here. The residents funded maintenance, repair of damage and improvement works however the lack of gates undermined this. The square was seen as a soft option for criminals.
Members then put questions to Mr Sutton. He responded that the Applicant did consider gating the water feature to prevent anti social behaviour. However this would also require planning permission. It would also hinder permeability making residents including children walk extra distances via dangerous roads. Segregating the development in this way would also be divisive and cause a lot of inconvenience. In terms of accessibility the plans remained as per the last application. He explained the pedestrian entrance changes via Westferry Road. There would be little inconvenience. The residents most affected were supportive of the changes.
Jerry Bell (Strategic Applications Manager) presented the detailed report assisted by a power point presentation. Mr Bell explained the site, location and nature of the proposal, deferred in April 2011 by the Committee for further information now before it. Mr Bell explained the outcome of the statutory consultation including the representations in support and the case for refusal as recommended by Officers.
In relation to crime, Mr Bell referred to the statistics from the Police comparing crime levels in each ward in LBTH. The report also provided a break down of the types of crime in St David’s Square itself. He also reported the advice of the Council’s Crime Prevention Officer. Their advice indicated that crime in the square was higher than expected in terms of certain crimes. However crucially the levels of crime were not exceptional compared to other areas in LBTH. Therefore there were insufficient levels to justify contravening policy and creating a gated community. Lesser measures should be tried as set out in the report. The plans would also decrease permeability and access, be visually intrusive and create unacceptable level of segregation. For these reasons the application contradicted policy so should be refused.
Members then put a number of questions to Officers.
Questions were raised ... view the full minutes text for item 7.1 |
|||||||||||||||||
Decision: Update Report tabled.
Councillor Marc Francis moved an amendment to the conditions, seconded by Councillor Tim Archer changing the hours of operation of A1 to 07:00 – 20:00 (from 07:00 -2200). On a unanimous vote this was AGREED.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission and Listed Building Consent be GRANTED for Works to a Listed Building and change of use from public house (Use Class A4) to retail (Use Class A1) on front ground floor and conversion of rear ground floor and first floor to form one x one bedroom flat and one x three bedroom flat subject to:
2. That the Head of Planning and Building Control is delegated power to impose conditions [and informatives] on the planning permission and the Listed Building Consent to secure the matters set out in the circulated report, including the following amendment:
Minutes: Update Report tabled.
Owen Whalley, (Service Head Planning and Building Control) introduced the report and tabled update concerning the British Prince Public House, 49 Bromley Street, London, E1 0NB (PA/09/02576 and PA/09/02577)
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Helen New spoke in objection to the application. She objected on a number of grounds. Any development would unduly impact on parking, attract crowds and anti social behaviour. Furthermore, the plans failed to show: the location of the waste facility, the impact on noise in the evening and the health implications. It also would damage the listed building as the Applicant had in the past failed to apply for listed building consent. She requested that the sale of fast food and alcohol be prohibited, that the terminal hours for the A1 use be limited to 7pm, there be a ban on signage harmful to the building and parking outside the area. There was a case for the Council to take back the premises and use it for community purposes.
Members then asked questions of clarification of the speaker. In reply she stated that there was a large crate (bin) situated on the pavement . The plans failed to show exactly where the refuse bins would be located and this would add to the existing problems with waste storage on that road. She feared that visitors of the retail shop would park their cars on the corner in visiting it in blind spots especially as there was a school at the end of the road.
Samir Hawes (Applicant’s Agent) addressed the Committee. The Applicant stated that the existing planning permission was for a public house which generated anti social behaviour. The plans for retail use with housing would greatly reduce such incidences compared to a pub and be more in keeping with the area. In addition the premises was in need of restoration and inhabited by squatters. There were also issues with vandalism and crime. The plans would restore the building, improve security and respect and maintain the listed building. It would be car free. The refuse storage system would be located within the building. In terms of the commercial use, the initial idea was to have a grocery store.
Mr Jerry Bell (Strategic Applications Manager) presented the detailed report assisted by a power point presentation. He explained the location of the site and the poor state of the existing building. The plans would bring the building back into use and would significantly improve the site and the area. The scheme protected amenity with no significant impact. Furthermore, the hours of operation of the A1 unit would be controlled to protect amenity. Therefore it was a significantly better option on amenity grounds compared to a public house. The waste storage facilities complied with policy and would be retained on the site.
Members asked questions of Officers regarding: the idea of whole residential use, the reason for the 10pm closing time for the A1 unit, the concerns ... view the full minutes text for item 7.2 |
|||||||||||||||||
Phoenix School, 49 Bow Road, London, E3 2AD (PA/11/00400) Decision: On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the application for the Internal remodelling and refurbishment of Grade II listed building, including removal of internal partitions External works comprising of the installation of three air-conditioning units, an extract duct and two ventilation louvers be referred to the Government Office for London with the recommendation that the Council would be minded to grant Conservation Consent subject to conditions as set out in the report.
Minutes: Owen Whalley, (Service Head Planning and Building Control) introduced the report concerning Phoenix School, 49 Bow Road.
Mr Jerry Bell presented the detailed report outlining the key issues.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the application for the Internal remodelling and refurbishment of Grade II listed building, including removal of internal partitions External works comprising of the installation of three air-conditioning units, an extract duct and two ventilation louvers be referred to the Government Office for London with the recommendation that the Council would be minded to grant Conservation Consent subject to conditions as set out in the report.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Decision: RESOLVED
That that details and outcomes of the appeals as set out in the report be noted.
Minutes: Owen Whalley, (Service Head Planning and Building Control), presented the report. The report provided details of appeals, decisions and new appeals lodged against the Authority’s Planning decisions.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
RESOLVED
That that details and outcomes of the appeals as set out in the report be noted.
|