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 submitted on behalf of Councillor Md. Maium Miah.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Md. Maium Miah.
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS PDF 56 KB 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 Monitoring Officer.
Decision: No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made.
Minutes: No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made.
|
|
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES PDF 77 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the extraordinary meeting on 25th June 2012 and the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 10th July 2012. Additional documents: Decision: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Committee held 25th June 2012 and the ordinary meeting held on 10th July 2012 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Committee held 25th June 2012 and the ordinary meeting held on 10th July 2012 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 PDF 42 KB To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee.
The deadline for registering to speak at this meeting is 4pm Monday 20th August 2012.
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.
|
|
Ability Place, 37 Millharbour, London (PA/12/00023) PDF 577 KB Decision: In accordance with paragraph 11.4 of the Council’s Development Committee procedure rules, the Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Peter Golds, Kosru Uddin and Anwar Khan.
Councillors Shiria Khatun and Craig Aston did not vote on this item having not been present at the 10th July 2012 Committee when it was previously considered. (Councillor Peter Golds was deputising for Councillor Craig Aston)
On unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That planning permission (PA/12/00023) at Ability Place, 37 Millharbour, London be REFUSED for the reasons set out at paragraph 3.3 of the report.
Minutes: In accordance with paragraph 11.4 of the Council’s Development Committee procedure rules, the Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Peter Golds, Kosru Uddin and Anwar Khan.
Jerry Bell (Applications Manager) presented the deferred report. The application was reported to the last meeting of the Committee on 10th July, 2012 and Members resolved to defer the application due to a series of concerns set out in the report. Officers interpretation of their reasons/concerns were set in paragraph 3.3 for consideration.
Whilst Officers considered that the reasons could be defended on appeal, subject to the submission of one additional representation, the material circumstances remained unchanged. Therefore Officers recommendation to grant remained the same.
Councillors Shiria Khatun and Craig Aston did not vote on this item having not been present at the 10th July 2012 Committee when it was previously considered. (Councillor Peter Golds was deputising for Councillor Craig Aston)
On unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That planning permission (PA/12/00023) at Ability Place, 37 Millharbour, London be REFUSED for the reasons set out at paragraph 3.3 of the report.
|
|
4-6 Spey Street, London E14 6PT (PA/12/01088) PDF 181 KB Decision: Update Report Tabled
On a vote a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That planning permission (PA/12/01088) at4-6 Spey Street, London E14 6PTbe GRANTED subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report.
Minutes: Update Report Tabled
Jerry Bell (Applications Manager) introduced the proposal regarding 4-6 Spey Street.
There were no speakers registered.
Iyabo Johnson (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and the power point presentation for retrospective planning consent. She detailed the site location within a parade of shops and near a Conservation area and listed buildings. She confirmed the outcome of the consultation.
The proposal was for the retention of 6 fridge units with 2 timber cladding enclosures. One of the key considerations was the impact of noise on surrounding properties. However the noise assessment (undertaken over a 24 hour period) satisfied the Council’s requirements in respect of the most noise sensitive properties and therefore was considered acceptable.
Given the lack of impact, the scheme should be granted.
On a vote a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That planning permission (PA/12/01088) at 4-6 Spey Street, London E14 6PTbe GRANTED subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report. |
|
Land at Commercial Road, Basin Approach, London (PA/12/00925) PDF 1 MB Decision: Update Report Tabled
Councillor Craig Aston declared that he had received correspondence on this item and considered it appropriate that he would step down from the Committee for this item and that Councillor Peter Golds would deputise for him on the item.
As a result Councillor Peter Golds deputised for Councillor Aston on this item (7.2).
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission (PA/12/00925) at Land at Commercial Road, Basin Approach, London be DEFERRED.
Members agreed to defer the application so that the following issues could be addressed:
Accordingly, in accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to work with the Applicant to see if the above aspects of the scheme can be addressed and clarified and for the application to be reported back to a future meeting.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillor Helal Abbas, Shiria Khatun, Kosru Uddin, Peter Golds and Anwar Khan)
Minutes: Update Report Tabled
Councillor Craig Aston declared that he had received correspondence on this item and considered it appropriate that he step down from the Committee for this item and that Councillor Peter Golds would deputise for him.
As a result, Councillor Peter Golds deputised for Councillor Aston on this item (7.2).
Jerry Bell (Applications Manager) introduced the proposal regarding Land at Commercial Road, Basin Approach, London.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Malcolm Tucker speaking in objection stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society (GLIAS). He objected to the impact on views from the Hydraulic Accumulator Tower by the proposed 6 storey tower. The tower was refurbished in the mid 1990s and provided a public viewing station for enjoyment of views. They were a unique aspect of the area. It was open to the public for 2 days a year. The proposed 6 storey tower would damage views from the tower to the north west replacing them with views of the flats.
He objected to the cumulative impact on views from previous Bellway Homes schemes. This scheme was the last straw.
The impact on the views to the tower was a material consideration but the report and application failed to give sufficient weight to theses issues. He requested that the height of the proposed tower be lowered by 2 stories.
In response to Members questions regarding his involvement in the consultation, Mr Tucker reported that he had written a letter to the Council’s Planning Officers that was noted in the report. However he had no other contact with the Council as he lived outside the Borough. In relation the engagement with the applicant, he stated that early on in the process he attended a meeting with the applicant where they showed him some plans. They were only outline plans of the scheme with no detail. During the meeting he voiced his concerns about the views to the north west of the accumulator tower. He also raised issues about the ground floor of the scheme that the applicant said would be dealt with in the plans.
Tom Ridge spoke in objection on behalf of residents and the East End Waterway Group. He referred to the groups letter of objection. The report made no mention of these facts. He emphasized the concerns over the proposed 6 storey tower in terms of its impact on views to the accumulator tower. He highlighted the steps taken by the London Docklands Development Corporation to refurbish the tower. A considerable amount of public money had been spent on the tower. He read extracts from the Tower Hamlets Watch Magazine highlighting the unique views from the tower and its value. He questioned how public access to the tower would be maintained. Experience showed that gated communities prevented public access. He therefore requested that the arches in front of the tower be maintained to allow public access.
In reply to questions about use of the ... view the full minutes text for item 7.2 |
|
Additional documents: Decision: (Councillor Craig Aston rejoined the Committee for the remaining items of business)
On a vote of 2 in favour and 2 against with 1 abstention with the Chair using his casting vote in favour, the Committee RESOLVED
That planning permission (PA/12/00358) be GRANTED at Carriageway and footway adjacent to numbers 582-586 Old Ford Road, London, E3 subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.
Minutes: (Councillor Craig Aston rejoined the Committee for the remaining items of business)
Jerry Bell (Applications Manager) introduced the proposal regardingCarriageway and footway adjacent to numbers 582-586 Old Ford Road, London, E3 (PA/12/00358)
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Marc Francis asked if a resident could address the meeting in objection. The Chair replied that as they had not registered in accordance with the speaking procedures, he could not allow the request.
Councillor Francis spoke in opposition to the scheme. He supported the overall principle of the TFL docking scheme and its expansion into the east end. However this scheme would have a serious impact on the area. It would lead to a loss of parking; attract anti social behaviour and harm amenity given it’s proximity to residents properties. He suggested that it be relocated to Wick Lane.
In response to questions, he considered it fairer to relocate it to Wick Lane given the occupants there were most likely to use the docking station. This would prevent the users having to walk to the docking station at night. The applicant had made many amendments to the scheme subjecting the residents to constant consultation. He disputed that a reduction in size of the station would help. If only few were provided it would still attract nuisance behaviour outside peoples properties.
Laura Stritch spoke in support of the scheme on behalf of the applicant. The scheme formed part of the London wide TFL docking scheme – phase 2. The aim was to have docking stations every 300 metres to ensure adequate coverage and make the scheme viable. She explained the substantial reductions in length of the station to address the concerns following extensive consultation with Officers and the community. Highways had raised no objections regarding the loss of parking given the level of parking elsewhere in the area and that it provided a sustainable form of transport. TFL liaised regularly with the police and the station would have good overlooking from the residential properties. If there were any issues with ASB, the scheme would be reviewed and it was possible it could be removed if issues couldn’t be resolved. The removal/return of the cycles made minimal noise.
There was a detailed site selection process. From this, the site was chosen as the best site to meet the requirements of the scheme. It would be located approximately 5 metres away from properties. The many stations elsewhere had been well received and she was not aware of complaints. In response to Members about whether Wick Lane had been considered, Ms Stritch stated she was not aware of this option until now. However the scheme should be considered in the first instance on its own merits. In choosing the scheme, many considerations were taken into account as well as residential amenity, and based on this, it was considered that the site provided the best location. All suitable sites were looked at and assessed. She did not believe that people gathered ... view the full minutes text for item 7.3 |
|
Decision: Councillor Kosru Uddin moved an amendment to condition (1) seconded by Councillor Shiria Khatun that the temporary permission be extended from 1 year to 3 years. On a vote of 3 in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions this was agreed.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 0 against with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED
That the temporary planning permission (PA/11/02704) at Forecourt/ servicing yard of Railway Arches, 244-246 Ratcliffe Lane, London E14 7JE be GRANTED subject to the amendment agreed by the Committee that the temporary planning permission be extended from 1 to 3 years.
That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report.
Minutes: Jerry Bell (Applications Manager) introduced the proposal at Forecourt/ servicing yard of Railway Arches, 244-246 Ratcliffe Lane, London. There were no speakers registered.
Benson Olaseni (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report assisted by a power point presentation.
He explained the site location and the existing uses of the site. He explained in detail the proposals showing recent photographs of both the existing site and the proposals. He explained the outcome of the two consultation exercises advertised on site, a local newspaper, and the subject of notification letters to nearby properties. To which a total of 105 representations (94 in favour and 10 against) were received and 1 petition containing 64 signatures. He addressed the objections raised as set out in the report and the material considerations. The proposal was considered acceptable in terms of the key issues.
TFL had raised no objections. Highways were satisfied with the scheme given the scale of the proposal and restrictions on the scheme. However officers were recommending that it be subject to a temporary consent to monitor and review the impact.
In reply, Members noted the advantages of a temporary consent in principle. However, Members queried the reasons for proposing a one year permission. There was some support for extending this given the lack of anticipated impact, the position of the premises, start up costs and financial pressures that it may place on the business in the current economic climate. They also questioned the adequacy of the measures to prevent non customers using the car wash (particularly condition 5 prohibiting on site advertising) given the premises visibility on the street. They also asked about the suitability of a permanent consent with strong controls.
In response, Officers referred to the issues originally raised by highways (about servicing and possible congestion). They also referred to the objections. Officers were now satisfied with the scheme given the assurances offered by the applicant. However, in view of the issues, considered it necessary to monitor and review the permission for a 1 year period to fully asses the impact in practice. Any breaches would be enforced. Officers would have a better ability to address impacts arising with a temporary consent than a permanent permission.
Officers explained the measures to minimize the impact. The car wash would be for use of the on site retail shops only. This should prevent any queuing onto the highway. The shop was located on a side road and relatively non visible from the street, therefore unlikely to attract non customers to the car wash without publicity.
Councillor Kosru Uddin moved an amendment to condition (1) seconded by Councillor Shiria Khatun that the temporary permission be extended from 1 year to 3 years. On a vote of 3 in favour, 0 against and 2 abstentions this was agreed.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 0 against with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED
That the temporary planning permission (PA/11/02704) at Forecourt/ servicing yard of Railway Arches, 244-246 Ratcliffe Lane, London E14 ... view the full minutes text for item 7.4 |
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS FOR DECISION PDF 89 KB Additional documents: |
|
Professional Development Centre, English Street, London, E3 4TA (PA/12/01672) PDF 838 KB Decision: On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the application (PA/12/01672) Professional Development Centre, English Street, London, E3 4TA be referred to the Government Office for West Midlands with the recommendation that the Council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions set out in the report.
Minutes: Nasser Farooq (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report regarding works to the Professional Development Centre. It was noted that the Council could not determine applications for listed building consent for it own buildings.
He explained the scope and the need for the works. Officers and English Heritage were supportive of the proposals. As a result, it was recommended that it should be granted.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the application (PA/12/01672) Professional Development Centre, English Street, London, E3 4TA be referred to the Government Office for West Midlands with the recommendation that the Council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions set out in the report. |
|
Bromley Public Hall, Bow Road, London E3 (PA/12/00787) PDF 83 KB Additional documents: Decision: On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That application (PA/12/00787) Bromley Public Hall, Bow Road, London E3 be referred to the Government Office for West Midlands with the recommendation that the Council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions set out in the report.
Minutes: Angelina Eke (Planning Officer) presented the proposals for works to Bromley Public Hall to existing panelled doors to improve surveillance. It was noted that the Council could not determine applications for listed building consent for it own buildings.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That application (PA/12/00787) Bromley Public Hall, Bow Road, London E3 be referred to the Government Office for West Midlands with the recommendation that the Council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions set out in the report.
|
|
Planning Appeals Report PDF 129 KB Decision: On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the details and outcomes as set out in the report be noted.
Minutes: Jerry Bell presented the report
At the request of Members, it was agreed that that the schedule for the Public Inquiry for Poplar Business Park should be reported to the Strategic Development Committee as the Committee that determined the application.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the details and outcomes as set out in the report be noted. |