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 129 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 14th June 2017. Minutes:
The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 June 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.
|
|
DEFERRED ITEMS None. Minutes: None. |
|
114 -150 Hackney Road, London, E2 7QL (PA/17/00250) PDF 11 MB Proposal:
Mixed use redevelopment of site including part demolition, part retention, part extension of existing buildings alongside erection of complete new buildings ranging in height from four storeys to six storeys above a shared basement, to house a maximum of 9 residential units (Class C3), 12,600 sqm (GEA) of employment floorspace (Class B1), 1,340 sqm (GEA) of flexible office and retail floorspace at ground floor level (falling within Use Classes B1/A1-A5) and provision of 316 sqm (GEA) of Public House (Class A4), along with associated landscaping and public realm improvements, cycle parking provision, plant and storage
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the Prior completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), to secure planning obligations, and conditions and informatives.
Additional documents: Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager) introduced the application for the mixed use redevelopment of the site including part demolition, part retention, part extension of existing buildings alongside erection of complete new buildings ranging in height, to house a maximum of 9 residential units, employment floorspace and retail floorspace and provision of Public House along with associated works.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Amy Roberts (Friends of the Joiners Arms) and Frank Davidson (New Joiners Arms Shoreditch Ltd) spoke in objection to the proposal. They expressed regret about the loss of LGBT+ venues in the community given their value to the community. Accordingly, they expressed concern about the development’s impact on the viability of the A4 unit (that served the LBGT+ community) given: its poor design (compared to the existing unit as noted by CAMRA), the costs of bringing the new unit into use, the excessive rent levels, the earlier closing time and the terms of the s106 agreement. Under which, the terms of the lease would remain in the control of the management and favoured the applicant. They wished to see a like for like establishment provided to the Joiners Arms that would preserve this important longstanding community asset.
In response to questions, they clarified their concerns about the terms of the legal agreement. They also recommended that the A4 unit should be relocated to the corner of the site to provide a far more like for like premises. This would also provide opportunities for community uses above the unit. They also clarified their concerns about the expected rent levels, the design and the potential fit out costs to provide a functioning bar area and the developer’s consultation. They also responded to questions about the merits of locating the A4 unit at the alternative location underneath residential properties and potential soundproofing measures.
Jim Poole (Applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the application. The plans were a product of lengthy engagement with officers, the LGBT+ community and the Mayor of London’s Night Time Czar. The legal agreement contained measures to protect the LGBT+ use. The future occupants would have a rent free period and also have a larger trading area. The plans would provide employment and enterprise opportunities and would preserve the heritage of the local area. The applicant would continue to work with the LGBT+ community in carrying out the project. In view of the merits, he recommended that the application was granted permission.
In response to questions about the location and the expense of fitting out the A4 unit, Mr Poole confirmed that the unit would be placed at the heart of the development. He felt that a corner location would place it closer to noise sensitive residential properties so would be a less desirable location. The applicant was aware of the issues around the set up costs and was prepared to look at ways of assisting with this. There could also be opportunities to put a break clause into the ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Brussels Wharf, Glamis Road, E1W 3TD (PA/16/01978) PDF 2 MB Proposal:
Development of 50 x 8.5m natural swimming pool and kid's pool incorporating a surfaced beach area and sun terrace, changing rooms, toilet, disabled facilities and kiosk (Use Class D2, A1-A3). A café restaurant incorporating 1st floor viewing platform and integrated public toilet block and ground floor level (Use Class A3) Ecological improvements to Shadwell Basin including new wet land park with improved fishing pitches A new foot bridge and decked area (Science Deck). A new canoe polo court in Shadwell Basin
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives. Minutes: Update report tabled
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager) introduced the application for the development of 50 x 8.5m natural swimming pool and kid's pool, a café restaurant, ecological improvements to Shadwell Basin, a new foot bridge and decked area and a new canoe polo court in Shadwell Basin
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Mads Myeo Jorgensen and Sylvia White (local residents) spoke in objection to the application. They expressed concern about increased ASB from the proposal giving the existing problems in this area and the lack of action to deal with this by the management. The speakers also called into question the compatibility of locating a restaurant that could serve alcohol with children’s swimming activities. Concern was also expressed about the traffic impact, the adequacy of the travel plan, the noise impact due to visitor numbers, litter, the credibility of the evidence supporting the site improvements and the adequacy of the developers consultation. Concern was also expressed about the impact on other community facilities, the viability of the proposal and the need for a new swimming pool in this area in view of the comments of Sports England. In response to questions, they clarified their concerns about increased traffic and parking stress from the proposal given the expected number of vehicle trips and increased ASB from the development.
Mike Wardle (Shadwell Basin Outdoor Activity Centre) spoke in support of the application. The applicants were Shadwell Basin Outdoor Activity Centre and the Turks Head Charity. He reported that the centre had carried out a lot of work to enhance and facilitate use of the water basin. The development sought to create the first natural 50 metres pool in the Borough with step free access. The plans would provide biodiversity enhancements, economic benefits, increase footfall to the area and natural surveillance as well as opportunities for swimming training and for children to appreciate the local environment.
In response to questions from the Committee, he advised that the proposed closing time of the development had been adjusted downwards to 9:30pm to allay concerns and could be varied according to demand in the winter season. The redevelopment of the site should help address any ASB issues by improving natural surveillance. It was hoped that the majority of visitors would travel to the facility by public transport and there would be a travel plan to encourage this to minimise parking stress from the development.
Kevin Crilly (Planning Services) presented the report explaining the current site use, the nature of the surrounding area and key features of the application including the changes to the application. He also explained the outcome of the consultation.
The proposed development would bring a number of benefits to the locality including the utilisation of an underused site for a community leisure provision, biodiversity enhancements and public realm improvements. Amendments had been made to minimise the impact of the development on local heritage assets. Whilst the application would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS PDF 256 KB None Minutes: None. |