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 |
---|---|
The Chair introduced Paul Buckenham to the meeting, the new Development Manager. The Committee looked forward to working with Mr Buckenham in the future.
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 7:15pm until 7:25pm to allow Committee Members to arrive at the meeting. |
|
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.
Minutes: No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made.
Councillors Helal Abbas and Harun Miah declared an interest in agenda items 6.1 (375 Cable Street, London, E1 0AH (PA/13/02251)) and 6.2 (Coborn Arms, 6-10 Coborn Road, London, E3 2DA (PA/13/02287)).This was on the basis that the Councillors had received correspondence from interested parties.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 127 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 11th December 2013. Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11th December 2013 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.
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 AND MEETING GUIDANCE PDF 64 KB To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and meeting guidance.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.
|
|
DEFERRED ITEMS Nil Items. Minutes: Nil Items. |
|
375 Cable Street, London, E1 0AH (PA/13/02251) PDF 316 KB Proposal: Variation of condition 3 of planning permission granted by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 30th March 2011, reference APP/E5900/A/10/2141935/NWF, LBTH reference PA/07/03290, to allow opening hours from 9am - 10pm Sunday to Thursday and 9am - 11pm Fridays and Saturdays.
Approved Hours: 9am - 9pm Sunday to Thursday and 9am - 10pm Friday and Saturday
Recommendation: That the Committee resolve to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out in the report.
Minutes: Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding 375 Cable Street, London for a variation of condition 3 of planning permission granted by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 30th March 2011, to allow opening hours from 9am - 10pm Sunday to Thursday and 9am - 11pm Friday and Saturday. The approved hours were: 9am - 9pm Sunday to Thursday and 9am and 10pm Friday and Saturday.
Emma Davidson spoke in objection to the proposal as a local resident who lived opposite the premises. She expressed concern about the adverse impact on the residents quality of life generally from the takeaway, particularly from the litter, noise and anti-social behaviour (ASB).
She considered that the outdoor wheelie bin, required under the planning condition, hadn’t been there for 18 months and there were no waste bins outside the premises. She explained the concerns with youths congregating outside the shop causing ASB. The residents, particularly the elderly, were very frightened of this.
If granted, the residents quality of living would deteriorate even further (especially the elderly and shift workers trying to sleep at night).She did not consider that the extension was needed as there were many other late night takeaways nearby. No Officer from the relevant Authorities supported the extension. She requested that the proposal be refused.
The Committee sought clarity on the problems with rubbish. Ms Davidson stated that there was rubbish on the streets. She stated that she had contacted the Council many times about the lack of rubbish bins outside the shop and the collection arrangements.
Members also asked about the availability of evidence to show that the takeaway was the cause of the problems. Ms Davidson commented on the likelihood of this, given the proximity of the premises to the litter and ASB. There were chicken bones in her garden and people congregating outside her door. She expressed concern about the management’s attitude to addressing the concerns as shown by the lack of an outdoor wheelie bin. She considered that the bin could go some way to addressing the problems. However, it would not deal with the ASB issues.
Charles Copeland spoke in objection as a local resident. He also expressed concerns about the harmful impact on the neighbours quality of life from the shop generally. He considered that all key agencies agreed that the premises trading hours should remain as present to safeguard residential amenity. He quoted from letters from the Planning Inspectorate and various Council Planning Officers saying this.
Rakesh Kataria spoke in favour of the application on behalf of the applicant. He considered that was no evidence to demonstrate that the activities from the takeaway had caused any harm in terms of noise, ASB, youths loitering around and drug dealing. Anyway, the management had a zero tolerance approach to such behaviour and would work with the Council to address any issues. Council Officers had visited the shop a number of times to leave bins outside the premises ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|
Coborn Arms, 6-10 Coborn Road, London, E3 2DA (PA/13/02287) PDF 354 KB Proposal: Erection of single storey side extension to existing kitchen at rear with new extract system.
Partial demolition of existing side extension at rear and erection of new extension to form new orangery dining area and herb garden.
Erection of single storey side/rear extension to existing bar.
Installation of new air-conditioning units and condensers onto existing flat roof.
Recommendation: That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding Coborn Arms, 6-10 Coborn Road, London, E3 2DA for an extension to existing kitchen at rear with new extract system, partial demolition of existing side extension and erection of new extension to form new orangery dining area and herb garden, a side/rear extension to existing bar and associated works.
Gamon McLellan spoke in opposition to the application as a nearby resident. He expressed concern about the impact on residents from the proposal in terms of increased noise and disturbance (i.e. from the increased capacity, outdoor space and the opening hours). There would be more use of the heated forecourt late at night and noise from deliveries disturbing residents.
The premises had become bigger and noisier over recent years and there had been an increase in residential properties nearby, since the public house had opened. Given the changing nature of the area, the plans to expand the premises as proposed was inappropriate. He questioned whether the local community actual needed this project. If expanded, the public house would no longer be a local public house.
Serena Jenks spoke in opposition as a local resident. She expressed concern about the impact on residents from the existing activities in terms of noise and disturbance. Particularly from the opening hours and use of the heated forecourt. The plans would worsen this by increasing rowdiness, ASB and general comings and goings at anti social hours. Her bedroom was at the front of her property so at a very noise sensitive location. She considered that the premises should be updated but in a way that protected residents amenity. She cited an example where she personally experienced ASB from a customer from the premises.
Members noted the lack of complaints from the Police about the premises in the report. Ms Jenks, in response, confirmed her fears around noise and disturbance due to the nature of the proposal.
Councillor Joshua Peck, as a ward Councillor spoke in opposition. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of many local residents. His main objection was to the perceived over intensification of the site. The public house already had a capacity of 200 that was very large for a residential area. If granted, there would almost be a doubling of useable floor space given the reduction in other internal areas. As a result, the actual capacity of customers drinking was more likely to rise to, in practice, 350 not 250 as stated in the report. At weekends, the numbers were more likely to reach 750 (taking into account the total turn over for the entire evening) with 500-600 people walking past peoples houses at night.
In response to Members, he welcomed the engagement with the community over the design of the proposal and considered that the public house should be brought up to modern standards. However, stressed that the capacity should be kept to the existing capacity of 200 with possible an increase in ... view the full minutes text for item 6.2 |
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS Nil items.
Minutes: Nil Items. |
|