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 |
---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS PDF 64 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.
Councillor Marc Francis declared an interest in agenda item 6.2, Former Caspian Works and Lewis House, 55-57 Violet Road, London (PA/14/01762 and PA/14/02059). This was on the basis the Councillor was a Board Member of Old Ford Housing Association. He declared that he had not been lobbied on the application. .
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 78 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 19th November 2014.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19th November 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 and meeting guidance.
|
|
Land at rear of 81-147 Candy Street And Wendon Street, London, E3 PA/14/00623 PDF 101 KB Proposal:
Demolition of existing garages and 2 bungalows and the construction of 45 residential dwellings (15 x 1 bed, 15 x 2 bed, 9 x 3 bed and 6 x 4 bed) with associated infrastructure provision.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Additional documents:
Minutes: It was reported that the Application had been withdrawn from the agenda by Officers for further discussion with the London Legacy Development Corporation. The Application would be brought back to the Committee once the issues had been addressed. |
|
Proposal:
Complete redevelopment consisting of the demolition of all buildings and structures on the old depot site and associated areas of hardstanding to provide 148 new homes (flats and houses) in buildings of varied heights ranging from three storeys to seven storeys (Use Class C3) together with new and upgraded vehicular access, new pedestrian accesses, open space, landscaping and associated works including relocation of existing telecommunications mast.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application. The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Danny Hassell spoke in support of the application welcoming the number of number of units given that would this reduce overcrowding in his ward. He had been actively involved in bringing the scheme forward. He thanked the Service Head for Leaning and Achievement, LBTH for bringing this scheme forward as the proposal was a Council led initiative.
He stated that he would have preferred the units to be provided as social rent. He only knew about the proposed affordable (Tower Hamlets Framework) rents when reading the Committee report.
He welcomed the quality of the units and whilst the number of wheelchair units was just under 10%, welcomed their provision on the ground floor level of the proposed building along with the high quality open space and the public realm improvements.
Kamlesh Harris (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and the update explaining the site location, surrounds and the current depot use. Given that the site was a brownfield site in a mainly residential area and the shortage of housing in the Borough, residential use of the site was welcomed. Four representations had been received in response to the consultation and the objections were noted.
The scheme was of a high quality design ranging from low rise 3 storey to 7 storey buildings to fit in with the surrounding areas. The quality of the detailed design was explained including the different types of balconies for the residential units. The development proposed a homezone, community space, child play space and a pedestrian route thorough the development.
There would be 148 units in the affordable rent tenure (100% of the units) with lifetime assured tenures and private amenity space. The impact on surrounding amenity was generally acceptable in terms privacy, overlooking day light and sunlight - as shown by the technical assessment and in view of the separation distances. Planning contributions had been secured in line with policy. The car parking, cycle parking, access, refuse and recycling arrangements were also explained.
In view of the benefits of the scheme, Officers were recommending that the scheme was granted planning permission.
Members ask questions about the rent levels for the units given the initial perceptions that the rent levels would be at social rent levels. Members felt that more action should be taken in the future to ensure that the tenure type of proposed developments was made clear to the public at an early stage.
In response, Officers assured Members there had been no changes to the application since submission in this regard. Officers circulated the Planning Statement for the application that had been published on the website which stated the rent levels.
In connection to this, Members heard from Dale Walker, (Interim Head of Capital Delivery, LBTH) about the viability assessment of the scheme. It was found that the scheme could only be afforded by the Council with affordable rents taking ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|
Proposal:
PA/14/01762 Full Planning Application for erection of entry gates at the main vehicular access fronting Violet Road.
Recommendation:
To REFUSE planning permission on the grounds of the reason set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application that sought to erect entrance gates at the main vehicle entrance to the Caspian Wharf Development. The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Vivienne Alps (speaking on behalf of residents of the development) and Councillor Danny Hassell, ward Councillor, spoke in support of the application The installation of the gates would help create a safer and secure community and protect amenity by reducing anti - social behaviour in line with policy. There was compelling evidence of serious problems with crime on the development. The application had been initiated by the residents. The occupants of all types of tenures supported the installation of gates, so it should not cause segregation within the development. There was a petition in support with over 300 signatures from local residents. The Crime and Prevention Officer and the Housing Association for the development supported the application.
The plans would not restrict public access to the site given it was not possible to access the Limehouse Cut through the site (as suggested in the report). Furthermore, the gates would be open in the day time. The gates would sit well with the area as they would be set back under the undercroft. In response to Members, the speakers explained that there had been a number of serious crimes recently within the development and incidences of dangerous driving in the square so the gates were required to prevent this. Other alternatives had been tried, for example additional security, but this had not been effective. Bollards would be unsightly.
Jane Jin (Planning Officer) gave a presentation on the scheme, describing the site location, the location of and nature of the proposed gates in the undercroft of the main vehicle access of the development. She also described views of the open space beyond.
It was considered that the installation of the gates would restrict access to the canalside walkway and the Limehouse Cut and the movement of people through the site generally. This would be contrary to the planning permission for the site that stated that the gates were to be permanently removed to allow such access and the wider planned approach to provide links throughout the wider area.
It was noted that access to the canal side walkway through one of the buildings, required by the permission, had not been provided as shown on the submitted plans. The Enforcement Team were investigating the breach in planning permissions in relation to this matter and the status of the existing gates south of the proposed gates.
However, the Committee needed to consider the applications for gates in this location in the context of the permissions for the site as approved with the obligations for unrestricted public access between Caspian Wharf and the Canal and the continuation of this route through Caspian Wharf and the residential scheme proposed on the adjoining site at Bow Enterprise Park
The Committee decision on this application would be a material consideration in ... view the full minutes text for item 6.2 |
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS None. Minutes: None. |
|