No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 17 October 2018.

The Committee RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2018 be approved as a correct record of proceedings.

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.

The Committee RESOLVED that:

1.            The procedure for hearing objections be varied.

Accordingly officers and registered speakers engaged in the order outlined.

·         The Development Manager introduced the application and then the Planning Case Officer presented his report. 

·         Following this, registered speakers made their submissions in the following order; objectors, Ward Councillors and applicants/agents. 

·         Members then questioned the parties on the information submitted

2.            That the meeting guidance be noted.

3.            In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes be delegated to the Corporate Director, Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and

4.            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 be delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

An update report was tabled.

The Development Manager introduced the report which concerned the installation of leisure moorings at Limehouse Marina. The Committee then heard from the Planning Case Officer who set out the relevant issues concerning the application.   Responding to Members’ questions the Planning Case Officer provided the following additional information:

• In regard to the likely impacts on residents and the environment arising of the intended leisure boat usage of the proposed moorings and implications in regard to antisocial behaviour, Members heard that to mitigate impacts of antisocial behaviour the Authority was able to impose restrictions on the activities via a management plan. However it was not possible to control who used the moorings.
• The term leisure usage referred to the time permitted for mooring under this category of temporary stay. For leisure moorings the permitted period was 28 days.
• The proposed moorings would accommodate up to 10 boats and there would be facilities for mooring of up to 20 boats on rally days without impact on navigation.
• In regard to potential environmental impact on the existing neighbourhood, Members were informed that the scale of the proposal would not affect council services.
• 244 consultation letters had been sent and 177 letters of objection received from residents were received.  An additional three letters were received after prior to the meeting, two of these letters were in objection to the application.

·         Concerning whether a crime and antisocial behaviour assessment had been carried out and what likely impacts it had revealed, Members were informed that it was not the Authority’s role to control activity in the marina; neither could it be assumed that the leisure moorings would be used mainly for noisy parties.   However the management plan should incorporate mitigation for such circumstances.  The Committee was advised that applications should not be determined on a speculative basis.  Additionally the Council was able to utilise enforcement powers arising from other legislation should circumstances require.

·         The extent of the conservation area referred to in report incorporated the Basin and a proportion of the area surrounding this.

·         There were presently 150 moorings however their daily usage fluctuated and therefore it was not possible to provide a precise usage data at any one time or how many used the existing temporary moorings.

·         Concerning the impact of the proposal on water space in the context of the emerging local plans, Members were informed that the draft local plan was not yet adopted but the current policies provides that open water space be protected subject to policy tests.  However, since the primary use of the basin was a mooring facility the open water usage was regarded as incidental.

·         Concerning provision and impacts of the proposal on cycling facilities and on bin storage and location, Members were informed that the proposal had been assessed not to impact these since provision of these facilities had been assessed to be sufficient.  The context was that the moorings were not permanent and therefore it was assumed that there would be no contribution  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.1

The Development Manager introduced the report which concerned an application for listed building consent to undertake remedial works to the external roof and to install a lift at Bethnal Green Library. The Committee was informed that:

·         Under the Council’s Constitution consent for works on listed buildings was a matter reserved to the Committee.

·         There had been no representations against the application and therefore under Planning Procedure Rules related to applications recommended for approval, the matter would be determined on the basis of the written report. 

Members then heard from the Planning Case Officer who set out the relevant matters.  The Committee noted that:

·         Works had commenced prior to receipt of permission because of the poor condition of the external roof which jeopardised the preservation of the heritage asset.

·         Because of funding deadlines also, it had been necessary to expedite the repairs prior to the receipt of consent.  However this course of action had been prompted by unique circumstances and works would not normally be undertaken in this way.

·         The works had been done to preserve and enhance the historical features and to meet DDA1995 requirements related to public buildings.

Responding to Members’ questions the Planning Case Officer provided the following additional information:

• The work had been undertaken at risk without consent because of the urgency of the structural works.  However there had been extensive pre-application discussions with Conservation officers prior to the submission of the application to ensure that issues around materials and design were mitigated.
• It had not been possible to bring the matter to Committee earlier because agreement of the schedule of works and materials was late in being agreed.  Additionally the installation of the elevator was an element that had been added to the proposal later.
• Should the Committee decide not to grant consent, then it would be necessary for the Authority to consider next steps, which could include enforcement action.

The Committee heard from the Legal Advisor who informed Members that all Planning decisions may be challenged.  However the circumstances of the matter render the risk of judicial review to be low.  A Committee Member observed that criteria which would otherwise trigger JR, namely an irrational or perverse decision, did not apply in this case.

The Chair proposed that Members vote on the officer recommendation to approve the application and on a unanimous vote the Committee:

RESOLVED

That the retrospective application for listed building consent for the removal of outer patent roof glazing above the decorative glazed ceiling and replacement with thermally broken aluminium glazing bars and polycarbonate roof panels and the installation of passenger lift at Bethnal Green Library be GRANTED subject to the obligations and conditions set out in the report.