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 interest were declared
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 114 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 11th October 2017 Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 11 October 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.
|
|
Proposal:
Residential development comprising 17,one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranges from five to eight storeys.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives
Additional documents:
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Councillor John Pierce (Chair) for this item
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the residential development comprising 17, one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranged from five to eight storeys.
Nasser Farooq (Planning Services) presented the report reminding the Committee of the nature of the existing site and surrounds, the appearance of the proposal and the proposed landscaping works for the site and the wider area. He advised that the application for planning permission was considered by the Development Committee on 11th October 2017. At the committee, members were minded not to accept the officer recommendation and were minded to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:
· Loss of a publically accessible open space. · The impact on the setting of the Canal Towpath and the Regents Canal Conservation Area.
Since that decision, the applicant had amended the rent structure for the housing to provide all 17 affordable units at London Affordable Rent. Previously, the application proposed a 50/50 split between London Affordable Rent and Tower Hamlets Living Rent. The table in the Committee report showed the various rent options including the proposed London Affordable Rents.
Regarding the impact on open space,Members were reminded of the key characteristics of site A and B in terms of its use. Officers remained of the view that the site could not be considered “publically accessible open space” as defined in Council’s Core Strategy given the absence of a formal agreement for the use of the wider space. Nevertheless, it could be considered that the site fell within the wider definition of open space given it’s community value and that it providedvisual amenity value. The development would result in the loss of approximately 31% of this space. However the remainder of the site would be allocated towards the provision of communal amenity, play space, and landscaping works. Given this and the wider benefits of the scheme, Officers considered that the proposal was acceptable on this ground.
Regarding the impact on the Canal towpath and its setting, members were reminded that the proposal had been set back further from the towpath (compared to the January 2017 application). Members also noted the comments of the Canal and River Trust (CaRT) as set out in the attachment to the deferral report.
In summary, Officers considered that whilst the proposal would result in the loss of partly un-used and inaccessible open space, that this would be outweighed in planning policy terms by the benefits of delivering new social housing, biodiversity benefits and other benefits. Officers therefore considered that the proposal should be granted planning permission. However, if the Committee remained minded to refuse planning permission, two reasons were provided based on the discussion at the previous committee meeting.
On a vote of 2 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 3 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the Officer recommendation to grant ... view the full minutes text for item 4.1 |
|
327-329 Morville Street, London (PA/17/01253) PDF 5 MB Proposal:
Demolition of the existing building and chimney and redevelopment of the site with the erection of a new six storey building to provide 62 residential units (Use Class C3), together with associated landscaping, rooftop amenity area, child play space and cycle and refuse storage facilities.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations in the Committee report, conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the demolition of the existing building and chimney and redevelopment of the site with the erection of a new six storey building to provide 62 residential units together with associated works
Brett McAllister (Planning Services) presented the report explaining the site location, the nature of the existing site and the surrounding area. The Committee were advised of the key features of the application, including the proposed layout, revised child play space, the proposed communal space, the quality of the affordable housing, the scale of the development and also the outcome of the consultation and the main issues raised.
Officers considered that the height of the development would sit comfortably within the local setting. It would be of a high quality design. There would be no undue impacts in terms of neighbouring amenity. Nevertheless, the proposal would impact on a number of neighbouring properties in terms of sun lighting and daylighting particularly within Springwood Close as set out in the Committee report. However, it should be noted that the windows at Springwood Close had been designed with the anticipation of a scheme of this scale coming forward on the site. Furthermore, the units affected would have alternative sources of light. This would minimise any impacts.
The development would provide an acceptable mix of housing types and tenure including the provision of 35% affordable housing that would be split 71% affordable rented (in line with Tower Hamlets preferred rent levels) and 29% intermediate.
Transport matters, including parking, access and servicing were acceptable and it was not considered that there would be any significant detrimental impact upon the surrounding highways network as a result of the development. The scheme would meet the full financial and non-financial contributions.
Subject to the recommended conditions and obligations, Officers were recommending that the application was granted planning permission.
The Committee asked questions about the height of the development given the height of the surrounding buildings in the area and also whether the proposal was consistent with longstanding aspirations for the development of the Estate that favoured smaller scale developments in this area. Members also asked questions about the density of the proposal given it exceeded the recommended London Plan guidance. Members also sought clarify about the daylight and sunlight impacts from this proposal in isolation on neighbouring properties. The Committee also asked questions about the impact on social infrastructure, the provision of green space and additional community facilities, the cycle parking and the consultation.
Officers reminded the Committee of the proposed density of the development and also the criteria in the London Plan for assessing schemes that exceeded their density guidance to identify symptoms of overdevelopment. It would be down to the Committee to make a judgement on whether the proposal would give rise to any adverse impacts and then to consider if the proposal met this criteria. In terms of the daylight/sunlight impacts, Officers considered that any development of the site (even a ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Regents Wharf, Wharf Place, E2 9DB (PA/17/01725) PDF 1 MB Proposal:
Change of use of the existing vacant space at lower ground floor into a one bedroom residential unit and planted courtyard.
Recommendation:
The Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the Director of Place given delegated authority to issue the planning permission and impose conditions and informatives to secure the matters set out in the Committee report Minutes: Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for the change of use of the existing vacant space at lower ground floor into a one bedroom residential unit and planted courtyard
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
George Greenhall addressed the committee in objection in the application. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of local residents. He advised that the proposal would harm amenity by reducing natural light, blocking sunlight and views. He also expressed concern about noise disturbance particularly from the use of the courtyard, this would especially affect the properties with habitable rooms facing the courtyard. In view of this, he suggested that the courtyard should be covered by a permanent canopy. In response to questions, he explained his concerns about the impact on amenity particularly on privacy given the relationship between the courtyard and the proposal.
Mr Nader Sarabadani spoke in support of the application. He advised that the proposal met and exceeded all the relevant standards in policy in terms of internal space and sunlight and daylight levels as set out in the submitted assessment. There would be capacity for a new refuse space and the applicant had provided a cycle space. The existing building was in a poor condition and this replacement building would improve the appearance of the character of the area and it would deliver additional housing in accordance with policy. It would preserve and ensure good standards of amenity including access to natural light given that the scale of the development was no bigger than what was there already.
In response to Members questions about the amenity impacts, he provided assurances about the measures to ensure privacy and to minimise noise disturbance from the courtyard including the condition requiring details of a retractable canopy over the courtyard. Whilst mindful of the suggestion to install a permanent roof over this, he felt that the proposal should be supported in its current form since it would create a high quality unit with an open courtyard.
Richard Humphreys (Planning Services) presented the application that was being brought to the Committee due to the number of representations received in response to the Council’s consultation. He advised of the nature of the existing building (both in terms of its exterior and interior) and the planning history including the key differences between the application and the application refused in November 2016 as detailed in the Committee report.
He also described the proposed layout of the development, the outdoor amenity space, the proposed elevations including the new screens, and privacy measures including the condition requiring details of the retractable canopy for the courtyard and the outcome of the consultation.
Officers considered that the design of the proposed alterations would preserve the character and appearance of the Regents Canal Conservation Area, meeting the policy tests for this. It would also increase the housing supply in accordance with policy and meet housing standards including natural light. The proposal also met the relevant standards for refuse storage. ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS None Minutes: None |
|
Committee Update Report Presented to the Committee PDF 57 KB |