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 68 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 interest were made. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 103 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 11 January 2017 Minutes:
The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 January 2017 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE PDF 87 KB 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.
3) To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and meeting guidance.
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
3) To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and the meeting guidance.
|
|
Proposal:
Residential development comprising 20 one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranges from six storeys to nine storeys.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.
Additional documents: Minutes: Application withdrawn from the planning register by the applicant.
|
|
Balmoral House, 12 Lanark Square, London E14 9QD (PA/16/1081/A1) PDF 3 MB Proposal:
Erection of three additional storeys to building to create nine new residential units (4 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) plus external amenity space, associated refuse storage and secure cycle storage provision
Recommendation:
The Committee resolves to Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions
Minutes: Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the erection of three additional storeys to building to create nine new residential units (4 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bed) plus external amenity space, associated refuse storage and secure cycle storage provision
The Chair then invited the registered speaker to address the Committee.
Local residents and Councillor Andrew Wood spoke in objection to the proposal. They highlighted the level of opposition to the proposal amongst residents and local Councillors and expressed concern about the risk to the structure of the building should the development go ahead. The health and safety implications of this for residents were unacceptable. Furthermore, the marketing evidence showed that the new units would not be for local people. They also expressed concern about the lack of consultation by the developer with the residents, noise disturbance during the construction phase, adding to the existing impacts from the work on neighbouring developments.
Concern was expressed also about incremental development of the block and the cumulative impact from this. This approach meant that no affordable housing could be required. It was considered that was a relatively unique project and there was no planning policy covering this type of development. Therefore, it was at the Committee’s discretion to reach their own decision on the application. Concern was also expressed about the lack of local amenities to accommodate the dwellings arising from the fact the development was originally a commercial premises. It was also questioned whether there was a need for additional housing in this area given the number of new developments. Concern was also expressed about the waste plans.
In response to questions from the Members they explained in further detail their concerns about the adequacy of the consultation during the Christmas period and noise disruption during the construction works. They also clarified their concerns about the structural issues, the lack of amenities to accommodate the development, and incremental development of the site given the planning history in respect of the lower floors.
George Georgiou (Applicant) John Dowland (Resident of Balmoral House) and David Mansoor (Agent) spoke in support of the application. They considered that the issues raised had been addressed in the Officers report. An ample amount of consultation had been carried out with LBTH and also with residents. The proposal had been well advertised and many of the residents saw the advantages of the proposal. Objections had been raised. But most of these concerned structural issues and tenant and landlord matters that were not planning matters. In any event, the structural issues could be dealt with through party wall agreement to ensure that the interests of residents were safeguarded. It was also stated that the plans would deliver nine high quality new homes in an accessible location in terms of public transport links. The mix of units complied with policy. The plans mirrored the nearby Marina Point development and the Council’s Urban Design Officer considered that it would be in ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
12 Follett Street, London, E14 6LX (PA/16/02786) PDF 1 MB Proposal:
Change of use to residential accommodation and associated office (Sui Generis).
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for Change of use to residential accommodation and associated office (Sui Generis).
The Chair then invited the registered speaker to address the Committee.
Taj Uddin Shah spoke in support of the application. He reported that he was requesting that the temporary permission be granted to allow adequate time for his long standing practice to relocate to another premises. The solicitors practice was a community based firm that provided services to the community and local employment. No objections had been received and there was a great deal of support for the application. He also reported that he was unaware of the ‘Council’s zero policy’ in relation to commercial uses in the immediate area given that there were some commercial developments in the surrounding area. The property was currently being used as live/work unit.
In response to questions, he highlighted the strength of support for the proposal and the layout of the premises comprising residential and office space. He also commented on the sites good transport links and explained there was a limited amount of car parking available for staff. He also stressed that the application was for a temporary permission as set out in the update report and if approved it would revert back to residential use once the permission has come to an end.
Gyanerndra Datt (Planning Services) presented the application describing the site location. Permission was being sought to establish a live/work unit in an existing residential site. The site was already being used as a solicitors office which was not authorised.
A similar application was submitted and refused in 2016 on the grounds that it would result in the loss of housing and was against the Council’s policy. An appeal against this decision was refused. The Planning Inspectors reasons for refusal were set out in the report.
Consultation had been carried out on the application. In responses 2 petitions and representations had been received in support along with supporting representation from Councillors.
Officers had carefully considered the merits of the scheme. Based on the findings of the Inspectors about the loss of housing and the concerns about the quality of the living environment, Officers considered that the application should be refused planning permission for the reasons set out in the Committee report.
In response the Committee asked questions about the residential element of the current arrangement. It was questioned whether the fact that it currently provided a live/work unit with intermittent residential use had been taken into account. Members also asked questions about the possibility of imposing a set time limit of the permission.
It was reported that the policy generally discouraged dual use units (as reported above) as in the majority of cases, such arrangements were very difficult to enforce. Furthermore, the temporary nature of the proposal had been considered and the Inspector was of the view that regardless of this, it would still result in the loss of housing space and this should be ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS None.
Minutes: None.
|
|
Minutes: None |