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 67 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 |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 94 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 8th February 2017 Minutes:
The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 February 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 Place 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 Place 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, Place 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, Place 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.
|
|
Balmoral House, 12 Lanark Square, London E14 9QD (PA/16/1081) PDF 195 KB 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
Additional documents: Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham 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
It was noted that at the 8th February meeting of the Committee, the Committee voted not to accept the application due to concerns over:
· Overlooking from the proposal to neighbouring properties and the failure to mitigate this
· The approach to incremental development across the site in terms of affordable housing, communal amenity space and child play space.
· Density of the proposal
· Adverse impact on residential amenity during the construction phase
Jane Jin (Planning Services) reminded the Committee of the site location and the application. She then addressed each of the proposed reasons for refusal.
In relation to the first reason, it was considered that the scheme had been designed to prevent overlooking. However there would still be some loss of privacy. Therefore, Officers considered that a reason on this ground could form a basis for refusal.
In relation to incremental development, there was no policy basis for seeking amenity space or affordable housing for the development, given the number of proposed units and that the existing units in the building were considered under a different part of legislation and different set of policies, as other consented residential units within this building was done through prior approval process and planning approval in 1996. The applicant had explored whether some play space and communal space could be provided on site but found that due to the freeholder issues, this was not practical. Therefore, Officers considered that this reason could not be defended on appeal.
In terms of the density of the application, this fell within the recommended range for a scheme of this size with a PTAL rating of 4 in the London Plan. Therefore, Officers did not consider that a refusal of the scheme on the grounds of excessive density could be justified.
Regarding the construction impact, the applicant had submitted a construction management plan to mitigate the impact. The design of the building also included measures to minimise the construction impact. However, Officers were also mindful of the precedence set by a recent appeal case at 37 Millharbour in relation to the difficulties in overcoming noise disturbance during the construction phase. On balance Officers considered that despite the submission of the plans, there was still some uncertainty about how the construction impact would be mitigated. Therefore it was considered reasonable to refuse the planning permission on the basis of noise and disturbance during the construction phase.
Whilst Officers remained of the view that the application should be granted, they had drafted two suggested reasons for refusal for consideration by the Committee. If the Committee were minded to refuse the application, they were invited to base their decision on these reasons.
Members asked questions about the planning history and the quantum of ... view the full minutes text for item 4.1 |
|
106 Commercial Street, (PA/16/03535) PDF 3 MB Proposal:
Conversion of building (class B1/B8 ) to fine dining food market (Class A3).
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to APPROVE planning permission subject to Conditions. Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the conversion of building (class B1/B8 ) to fine dining food market (Class A3).
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Rupert Wheeler (The Spitalfields Society) and Susan Kay (local resident) spoke in objection to the application. They felt that the plans would result in more crime and ASB in the area and result in noise nuisance in an area already blighted by such issues. This which would spoil residential amenity. The results of the acoustics testing were inaccurate and should be repeated. It was completed at a time when the background noise levels in the area were at exceptionally high levels which were in no way the norm. The benefits for small and medium sized business would be negligible given that the market would be managed by one single operator. The application conflicted with the Brick Lane Town Centre Manager’s advice on these matters. The alterations to the roof would harm the appearance of the building, and spoil the setting of the surrounding listed buildings. They also expressed concern about the capacity of the smoking area for a business of this size, the proximity of the onsite cycling space to restaurant tables and the accessible of the accessible first floor toilet. Concern was also express about the access arrangements for customers and servicing vehicles and the impact of customer’s queuing outside the premises as a result of the issues.
In response to Members questions, they clarified their concerns about the size of the smoking area (compared to the provisions at nearby premises). It could restrict access to the building. They also further discussed their concerns about the servicing plans. It was proposed that the deliveries and servicing would take place through the customer entrance during the daytime along busy unsuitable routes. This could potentially involve many different suppliers and would result in significant congestion and highways issues. They also clarified their concerns about dispersal from the premises given the capacity of the premises. There would be hundreds of customers leaving the premises at any one time, spilling out onto a narrow pavement- potentially into other public houses. It was questioned how this would be managed. They also further explained their concerns about the premises ultimately becoming a drinking establishment and the impact of this, the issues with the background noise survey and the assessable toilet. They also spoke about the applicant’s consultation.
Rupert Warren (Applicant’s representative) spoke in support of the application. He spoke about the merits of the application. It would fit in with existing uses and create employment. The Council’s Conservation Officer was satisfied with the application. There would be stringent conditions regulating activity including, measures to control noise, odour, the operation of the smoking area, a dispersal policy and a servicing plan. He noted that a change from use class A3 to A4 without permission would be a breach of planning control. He also noted that the application did not make provision for a ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Millwall Outer Dock Moorings, Selsdon Way, London (PA/16/01798) PDF 2 MB Proposal:
Erection of a 16 berth residential mooring, including the installation of mooring pontoons and associated site infrastructure.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions. Minutes: Update Report tabled.
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the erection of a 16 berth residential mooring, including the installation of mooring pontoons and associated site infrastructure.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Philip Style and Councillor Dave Chesterton spoke in objection to the proposal. The speakers expressed doubt about the suitability of the location for the proposal given its proximity to a 24 hour commercial premises at Greenwich view place. It would cause a conflict between theses uses. The premises would receive constant noise complaints, as it was doubtful if the moorings would have adequate insulation to minimise the noise disturbance. Concern was also expressed about the right of access over third party land to service the development.
Furthermore, there would also be no affordable housing or play space, but high end canal boats and so it would effectively privatise the open water space. It would also adversely affect the sailing activities on the dock , particular the ability of novice sailors and children to practice their sailing skills given the risk of collision with moored boats. The plans should be developed in accordance with emerging water space strategies. In response to questions, Councillor Chesterton stated that he was not speaking on behalf of the Docklands Sailing and Watersports Centre. He reiterated that the plans would particularly affect inexperienced sailors, especially children. The comments in the report about the preservation of the navigation lane were irrelevant, as the sailors would require the whole dock. In fact, the need to protect the water space was all the more important now in light of the pressure that the Westferry Printworks scheme would place on the dock.
Richard Newton (Canal and Rivers Trust) spoke in support in support of the proposal. He talked about the pressing need for new housing and residential moorings in London. The plans complied with the London Plan that promoted the establishment of moorings in sites such as this. It would occupy a very small part of the water space (1.9% of the water space) and be set back from the navigation channels as stated in the report. He noted that the sailing club did not have an exclusive right to use the dock. The scheme had been amended to respond favourably to the setting of the dock. There would be conditions to safeguard amenity and a management plan to control activity. He was happy to build in to these plans measures to address the liability issues.
In response to Members, he explained that the proposal would be car free and there would be relatively little servicing. He also clarified the servicing arrangements and proposed route. In the event that the dispute with the third party over site access could not be resolved, an alternative route had been identified as set out in the Committee report and update. He did not consider that the plans would affect sailing activities. The applicant had engaged with the DSWC. They would work with the club to address any ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
Proposed Revised Planning Code of Conduct PDF 94 KB The Committee is recommended to:
Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee were invited to submit comments on the revised Code of Conducteither at the meeting or afterwards so that these comments could be reflected prior to the revised Code being put forward for adoption. In response, it was requested that the revised code should include a section on the need for imagery in Committee reports.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That the revised Planning Code of Conduct in Appendix 1 of the report be noted;
2. That it be noted that pursuant to Part 1 Paragraph 4.02 of the Constitution the adoption and amendment of the revised Planning Code of Conduct is a matter for Council; and
3. That’s the Committee comments on the revised code of conduct be reflected prior to the revised Code being put forward for adoption.
|
|