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 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Election of Vice-Chair for the Committee for 2017/18 To elect a Vice-Chair for the Committee for 2017/18 Municipal year.
Minutes: It was proposed by Councillor Helal Uddin and seconded by Councillor Danny Hassell and RESOLVED
That Councillor John Pierce be elected Vice-Chair of the Development Committee for the Municipal Year 2017/2018
|
|||
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 interest were made.
|
|||
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 115 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 10th May 2017 Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 May 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.
|
|||
Development Committee Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and Dates of Meetings PDF 80 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED:
That the Development Committee’s Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and Dates of future meetings be noted as set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to this report.
|
|||
106 Commercial Street (PA/16/03535) PDF 118 KB 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.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for conversion of building (class B1/B8) to fine dining food market (Class A3).
The Committee were reminded that at its previous meeting on 10th May 2017, the Committee were minded to refuse the application, contrary to the Officers recommendations due to concerns about the following issues.
· Impact from the use · Impact on the setting of the Conservation Area · Impact of the proposal on the external appearance of the building particularly the roof · The access arrangements given the level of anti-social behaviour in the area; · Overcrowding in the area and the safety implications of this · Noise disturbance · Increased congestion in Commercial Street · Servicing arrangements.
Officers had since draft detailed reasons for refusal around these reasons as set out in the report that also contained their advice on the strength of the reasons.
Tim Ross (Planning Services) presented the report. The Committee were reminded of the site location and surrounds and the nature of the proposal. Regarding land use and road safety, it was noted that the policy directed this type of premises to central locations. However, it could be considered that due to the volume of visitor numbers and the internal configuration, that the plans would result in the over intensification of use of the site and impact on road safety. Therefore, a reason on these grounds could form a reason for refusal. Regarding the impact on the Conservation Area, Officers felt that it could reasonably be considered that the proposal would cause some harm in this regard and would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the application. Therefore, this also could be sustained as a reason. Regarding the noise disturbance, it could be considered that the development had the potential to cause some harm to amenity throughout the later evening that could not be controlled by condition. Therefore it was considered that a reason on this third ground could also be defended.
In respect of the concerns around ASB and the servicing arrangements, there was a lack of evidence to support these reasons.
Officers remained of the view that the application should be granted planning permission, however if they were minded to refuse the scheme, they were invited to consider the three suggested reasons in the Committee report.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 4 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the Committee report dated 14 June 2017 and on a vote of 4 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be REFUSED at 106 Commercial Street for the conversion of building (class B1/B8) to fine dining food market (Class A3) for the following reasons as set out in the Committee report, dated 14 June 2017(PA/16/03535):
Land use/ road safety
1. The ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|||
Millwall Outer Dock, London, E14 9RP (PA/16/01798) PDF 83 KB 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.
Additional documents: Minutes: Paul Buckenham presented the application for the erection of a 16 berth residential mooring, including the installation of mooring pontoons and associated site infrastructure.
The Committee were reminded that at its previous meeting on 10 May 2017, the Committee were minded to refuse the application, contrary to the Officers recommendations due to concerns over:
· The loss of open water space as a result of the proposal. · Adverse impact on waterborne recreation and navigability within Millwall Outer Dock as a result of permanently moored vessels. · The proposed servicing strategy (via Muirfield Crescent) would conflict with the free flow of pedestrians and cyclists and as such would represent a safety hazard.
In response Officers had since draft detailed reasons for refusal around these reasons as set out in the report that also contained their advice on the strength of the reasons. The Committee were reminded of the site location and the impact of the scheme on the water space. Officers considered that the plans would have a limited impact on the water space, however in defending this reason, could refer to the issues raised in objection to this. In response, Members referred to the concerns raised at the last meeting about the impact from noise from the nearby data centre and it was noted that there were measures to minimise such impacts. They also discussed further with Officers the strength of the reasons for refusal.
On a vote of 0 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 5 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission.
Accordingly, Councillor Marc Francis proposed a motion that the planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the Committee report dated 14 June 2017 and on a vote of 5 in favour, 0 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission be REFUSED at Millwall Outer Dock, London, E14 9RP for the erection of a 16 berth residential mooring, including the installation of mooring pontoons and associated site infrastructure for the following reasons as set out in the Committee report, dated 14 June 2017(PA/16/01798):
Reasons for Refusal:
Loss of Open Water Space
1. The proposed development by reason of its resultant loss of open water space and its failure to protect the open character of the Blue Ribbon Network would not improve the quality of the water space and is therefore inappropriate development. The development is therefore contrary to policy 7.28 of the London Plan (2016), policy SP04 of the Tower Hamlets Core Strategy (2010), and policy DM12 of the Tower Hamlets Managing Development Document (2013).
Impact Upon Waterborne Recreation and Navigability
2. The proposed development by reasons of its siting and scale would adversely impact upon the ability of Millwall Outer Dock to be used for waterborne recreation and would also negatively impact upon the navigability of Millwall Outer Dock. The development is therefore contrary to policies 7.27 and 7.30 of the London Plan (2016), policy SP04 of the Tower ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|||
87 Turner Street, Good Samaritan Public House (PA/16/00988) PDF 4 MB Proposal:
Refurbishment of existing public house (A4) along with 3 storey extension to the west elevation to allow for the use of the upper stories as residential (C3) and associated works
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to APPROVE planning permission subject to conditions and informatives Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the refurbishment of existing public house (A4) along with 3 storey extension to the west elevation to allow for the use of the upper stories as residential (C3) and associated works
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
It was noted that one of the registered objectors was unable to attend the meeting who was intending to read a statement on behalf of a neighbour. Therefore with the agreement of the Chair, it had been decided to include the statement in full in the update report.
Alex Learner (local resident) spoke in objection. He expressed concern about the proposed land use and the impact on the conservation areas and noted that the plans had attracted a large number of objections in the form of an online petition. He also expressed concerns about the daylight and sunlight impacts, particularly the loss of light to the first and second floor units of neighbouring properties that breeched policy. He also considered that the assessment in the report was selective and failed to adequately report the full extent of the impacts. In response to Members, he clarified his concerns about the sunlight and daylight impacts due to the proximity of the proposal to neighbouring properties. He also answered questions about the impact on the public house. The changes to the layout might result in the overspill of customers onto the public realm.
Luke Emmerton (Applicant’s representative) spoke in support of the application. The applicant emphasised that the public house would be retained and contained measures to improve its facilities and expand the basement area. The title of the objectors petition was misleading as it implied that it would be lost which was not the case. Furthermore, the changes to planning law meant that any further proposal to change the use of the premises to anything other than a public house use could not be done under the permitted development regime and would need planning permission. The plans would result in additional residential units and preserve the setting of the surrounding area. There would be no direct overlooking and the loss of light would be acceptable and typical for an urban environment.
In response to questions about the impact of the changes on the viability of the public house, he stated that the current facilities were not fit for purpose and the plans sought to address this. There would be no loss of public house floor space on the ground floor and the basement area would be increased. He also provided further reassurances on the impact on neighbouring amenity, particularly to the properties at Gwynne House in terms of overlooking and loss of light.
Jenifer Chivers (Planning Officer) gave a presentation on the application, highlighting the site and surrounds and the nature of the existing use that contained the public house.
She advised of the key features of the application. The application sought to refurbish the existing public house at ground floor and ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|||
Royal Duchess Public House, 543 Commercial Road, London E1PA/16/03300 PDF 5 MB Proposal:
Erection of a part 6, part 7 and part 8 storey building comprising 30 residential units (use class C3) and 70sqm of flexible floor space (Use Classes A1/A2/A3/B1/D1) together with associated access, cycle parking and landscaping
Recommendation:
That the Development Committee REFUSES planning permission, subject to any direction by the London Mayor, for the reasons in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
With the permission of the Chair, Elaine King the Chair of Pitsea Estate Tennant Residents Association addressed the meeting. She stated that she had submitted the online petition. She expressed concern about the adequacy of the developers consultation, direct overlooking to neighbours due to the closeness to neighbouring properties, that the application would create a sense of enclosure and that the height was out of keeping with the surrounding building heights. There would also be a lack of affordable housing. In response to members she answered questions about the height. The height of the building would exceed that of neighbouring buildings which were set back, in contrast with the proposal.
Rob Piggott, (Applicant’s representative) and Alison Arnaud (Tower Hamlets College) spoke in support. Mr Piggott spoke about the changes made to the scheme to reduce its height. He considered that it was an appropriate form of development for the area and the appearance was consistent with the surrounding area that included buildings of up to 7 stories in height. The Council’s officers and the developers own specialist heritage experts were of the view that the impact on the setting of the area would be less than substantial. The plans would provide a range of benefits including good quality homes with a focus on family rented homes and a much needed education facility. The applicant had looked at the possibility of further reducing the height, but it was found that this would harm the viability of the plans. Ms Arnaud also spoke in support of the proposed education facility. She explained that it would include a Community café providing amongst other benefits, work experience opportunities for students.
In response to questions, it was confirmed that all of the child play space would be located on the roof terrace and the application would only marginally fall short of the play space requirement in policy should the private gardens be taken into account as well. They also answered questions about the height of the building and the proposed materials.
Kamlesh Harris (Planning Services) presented the report explaining the nature of the site and surrounds that was predominantly residential and had excellent transport links. The plans sought to provide a residential led development that would vary in height but generally exceed the surrounding building heights. There would be a policy compliant level of affordable housing including family housing.
Consultation had been carried out and the results were noted. Turning to the assessment, it was noted that the provision of a residential lead scheme in the area with an education facility could be supported and complied with policy and the loss of the public house was considered acceptable. The house mix could also be considered as acceptable. However, the residential density exceeded the guidance in the London Plan for a site with a Public Transport level rating of 5 and there was also a shortfall of child play space. There were also concerns about the quality of the internal amenity for ... view the full minutes text for item 6.2 |
|||
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS None. Minutes: None. |
|||