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
Note | No. | Item |
---|---|---|
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: Councillor Shiria Khatun declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in agenda item 6.1 Toynbee Hall, 28 Commercial Street, London, E1 6LS (PA/14/1577 and PA/14/1578). This was on the basis that the Councillor was an employee of the Toynbee Hall. The Councillor reported that she would leave the meeting room for the consideration of this item.
Councillor Asma Begum declared an interest in agenda item 6.1, Toynbee Hall, 28 Commercial Street, London, E1 6LS (PA/14/1577 and PA/14/1578). This was on the basis that she formerly lived in the area and a close relation was a former employee of Toynbee Hall.
|
||
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 71 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 20 August 2014. Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20th August 2014 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 94 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 and the meeting guidance.
|
||
GRANT |
113-115 Roman Road, London, E2 0QN (PA/14/00662) PDF 5 MB Proposal:
Demolition of existing three storey 13 bedroom hotel and construction of a new four storey (including roof extension and basement) building dropping down to three and one storey at the rear to create a 31 bedroom hotel with no primary cooking on the premises.
Recommendation:
To grant planning permission subject to conditions and informatives
Additional documents: Minutes: Update Report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the demolition of existing three storey 13 bedroom hotel and construction of a new four storey building to create a 31 bedroom hotel with no primary cooking on the premises.
The Committee previously considered the application at its meeting in July 2014 and were minded to refuse the scheme giving five reasons as set out in the Committee report. Officers had since considered these reasons and their advice was detailed in the report.
Gerard McCormack (Planning Officer) briefly explained the existing and replacement building. He highlighted the concerns of the objectors and explained the findings in detail in the report. In terms of overlooking, Officers considered that the impact would be acceptable as none of the windows of the scheme directly faced neighbours. In addition, access to the flat roofs of the proposal would be restricted to prevent any overlooking. In terms of loss of light, the impact on sunlight and daylight complied with the policy guidance. Therefore, it was considered that a refusal on these grounds could not be sustained.
However, it was found, on review, that the bulk and mass of the building would affect the neighbours by creating a sense of enclosure. Elements of the scheme relating to the design of the front elevation would also fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. However, it would not be possible to sustain a reason based on the effect of the bulk and mass of the proposal on the Conservation Area.
Taking the above into account, Officers were suggesting two reasons for refusal set out in paragraph 3.2 of the report.
In response to questions, Officers confirmed that whilst there would be a minor impact on daylight and sunlight, this was not so significant to justify a refusal of the scheme as the percentage reductions would be within the Building Research Establishment guidelines . Officers had engaged in further discussions with the Applicant following the Committee meeting in July 2014 to consider the Committee suggested reasons for refusal. It was considered that the scheme would particularly affect 111 Roman Road, (as set out in the proposed reasons) given the relationship between that property and the scheme.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant the planning permission, 4 against and 0 abstentions, the Officer recommendation to grant the planning permission was not accepted.
Councillor Asma Begum then moved the reasons for refusal set out in paragraph 5.2 of the Committee report seconded by Councillor Chris Chapman. On a vote of 4 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, these reasons were agreed and it was RESOLVED:
That Planning Permission (PA/14/00662) at 113-115Roman Road, London, E2 0QN be REFUSED for the demolition of existing three storey 13 bedroom hotel and construction of a new four storey (including roof extension and basement) building dropping down to three and one storey at the rear to ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Toynbee Hall, 28 Commercial Street, London, E1 6LS (PA/14/1577 and PA/14/1578) RTF 18 MB Proposal:
Full planning permission Various works to the Toynbee Hall Estate including the following, • Internal alterations to the listed Toynbee Hall and removal / replacement of extensions to the rear and side • Provision of a new five storey (with set back top floor and basement) office block at 36 Commercial Street • Reconfiguration and re-landscaping of Mallon Gardens • Two storey (with set back top floor) roof extension to Profumo House along with ground level infill extensions and change of use of existing HMO units to office space. • Partial demolition and rebuilding of the southern end of Attlee House
Listed building consent Various works to the Toynbee Hall Estate including the following, • Internal alterations to the listed Toynbee Hall and removal / replacement of extensions to the rear and side
Recommendation:
To grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to a legal agreements, conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Update Report tabled.
Councillor Shiria Khatun left the meeting for the consideration of this item only.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application.The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Two objectors spoke against the scheme, Michael Hodgkinson of 38 Commercial Street and Mike Nicholas. They expressed concern about the excessive height of the Commercial Street office building that would result in a loss of privacy and overlooking to neighbours. The proposal would also block light to nearby properties. To minimise the impact on neighbouring amenity, they requested that the building should be reduced in height by reducing the height of the floors. There should also be no use of terraces and windows at the upper levels of the building should be closed.
The speakers also objected to the loss of the green space and trees, as a result of the land swap between Toynbee Hall and LBTH. This was contrary to Council policy to protect such spaces. There was a great deal of support for the space.
It was also likely that the proposal would increase anti-social behaviour on the forecourt given the lack of gates.
The Committee heard from the applicant’s agent, Graham Fisher. The plans sought to provide modern ‘fit for purpose’ facilities to meet the increasing demand on services. He listed the nature of the facilities and services that would be provided. It was planned to use the income from the upper floors of the Commercial Street building to fund the legal centre for the first year. The application also sought to provide a new public space with a range of benefits. The feedback from the consultation had been taken onto account when preparing the plans. In response to Councillor’s questions, Mr Fisher considered that any proposal to reduce the height of the Commercial Street building would put at risk the viability of the scheme. The raising of the forecourt to pavement level should reduce crime by increasing the visibility of this area. There had been many consultation meetings over recent years.
Beth Eite, (Planning Officer) presented the report and the update. She explained the site location, the listed status of Toynbee Hall and its historic significance. She also explained the plans for each building and the nature of the reconfiguration of Mallon Gardens. The application had been subject to local consultation resulting in 38 objections and an online petition. It was considered that the plans should improve the safety and accessibility of the park following engagement with the Secure by Design Officer. The improvements and options considered here were explained. There would be no net loss of public open space. The height of the new office building had been reduced and aspects were set back. The impact on sunlight and daylight from the proposals generally complied with policy. Overall, the impact on surrounding properties would be minimal. Given the merits of the scheme, Officers were recommending that the scheme be granted planning permission.
In response to questions about the Commercial ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
||
The Odyssey, Crews Street, London, E14 3ED (PA/14/01582) PDF 548 KB Proposal:
Installation of freestanding electronically controlled vehicular and pedestrian entrance gates.
Recommendation:
To refuseplanning permission for the reasons set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Councillor Shah Alam left the meeting at this point.
Update Report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
David Stephens (resident of area and representative of local residents association) and Councillor Peter Golds spoke in support of the application. The speakers referred to the level of support for the application amongst residents to prevent crime in and around the site. Residents of the street felt unsafe given such activity (drug dealing, muggings, car break-ins at anti-social hours). The development tended to attract such behaviour given its secluded location. Residents had approached the Authorities to address these issues. The applicant would be open to discussions with the various stakeholders within the development about the hours of operation for the gates. Reference was also made to the number of similar applications to install gates in the Borough that had been successful at appeal and the number of gated developments in the area. Gated areas were a common feature in Tower Hamlets. In response to Members questions, it was considered that a proactive approach needed be taken to crime prevention given the pressures on police time in the area.
Jane Jin (Planning Officer) gave a presentation on the application. She explained the proposed height and width of the gates to be located on the private land.
She highlighted the crime figures from the Police for the street and wider development. These showed that the crime levels for the development were not exceptional
The Crime and Prevention Officer supported the application to reduce crime. However, taking into account the crime rates and the broader issues (as mentioned below), Officers did not consider that the plans justified a departure from policy seeking to create a cohesive community.
The proposal would prevent access thought the site and the river walkway as required by the s106 agreement for the development. The proposal would also affect the safety and capacity of the highway arising from vehicles waiting on the street to gain access through the gates. The gates would have a visually intrusive appearance. The Council’s Enforcement Team had sent letters regarding gates in the Estate. Officers were recommending that the proposal should be refused.
In response to Councillor’s questions, Officers noted the appeal decisions in respect of previous applications to install gates. This case should be considered on the planning merits. There were worries that the gates would hinder access to the development for wheelchair users. The issues around fire safety and maintenance could be dealt with by condition.
It was noted that there were gated developments elsewhere in the Borough. But given the range of concerns, it was considered that this application should be refused.
As highlighted above, the Enforcement Team were taking steps regarding gates in the Estate. Gerald McCormack (Enforcement Team Leader) gave an overview of this work. At the request of a Member, it was agreed that an update on the enforcement action in respect of these gates be included ... view the full minutes text for item 6.2 |
||
11 Havannah Street, London E14 8NA (PA/14/01807) PDF 979 KB Proposal:
Conservatory extension at ground floor level and first floor extension.
Recommendation:
To refuse planning permission on the grounds of the reason set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: The item had been withdrawn from the agenda for procedural reasons in respect of the consultation. |
||
Planning Enforcement Review 2013/14 PDF 119 KB To note the report. Minutes: Gerard McCormack (Enforcement Team Leader) presented the review report on enforcement activity 2013/14.
He explained the case load and performance over the year, the number of notices issued, compliance work and the proactive action to improve the appearance of properties in Conservation Areas. He also highlighted the measures to lessen the cost of works and the plans for the coming year. Councillor Shiria Khatun welcomed the report on behalf of the Committee.
It was noted that the action discussed under the previous item relating to gates around the Odyssey, Crews Street, would be included in the enforcement review report to the next Committee meeting. It was noted that Officers would engage with the Council’s Anti-Social Behaviour Team and Crime Prevention Officer to consider the impact of installing gates in the location to prevent crime. Some alternative action to address the underlying issues at the site was also discussed.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the enforcement report be noted.
|
||