Councillor Salva- Macallan declared a non-disclosable non-pecuniary interest in respect of agenda item 5.2 in that she had attended a Christmas party at which this application had been spoken of.  Notwithstanding, she had not formed a view on the matter.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 20 December 2018.

Documents to follow.

The unrestricted minutes of the meeting held on 20 December 2018 were deferred to the following meeting.

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.

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

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

                 III.    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.

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 Applications Team Leader, Development, introduced the report which concerned an application for the construction of 5 leisure pontoons at Limehouse Marina.  The Planning Case Officer then presented the report informing the Committee that the application had first been considered at the meeting on 14 November 2018 at which time it had been deferred for a site visit.  Members had requested this because of concerns around open access, openness, navigation, and amenity.  9 letters of objection related to the application were received and the issues raised had been addressed in the update report.

The Committee was invited to ask questions of the Planning Case Officer and Members indicated that they had no questions that they wished to ask.

The Committee then moved to vote on the application.  The Vice-Chair proposed and the Chair seconded that Members vote on the officer recommendation and on a vote of 1 in favour, 3 against, and 2 abstentions, the Committee indicated that it did not support the officer recommendation.

There was an adjournment between 6:48pm and 6:50pm. 

The Committee indicated that it was minded not to support the recommendation because of concerns around:

·         Navigation – although tests had been undertaken, the Committee was concerned that a separate verification had not been undertaken by the Council.  Additionally since the pontoons would be for leisure use, they would be used by inexperienced persons and the reduced navigation space was a concern.

·         Substantial harm to the marina from the additional use that the pontoons would generate.

·         Over capacity of mooring.

·         Loss of open water and open character.

·         Pollution of the environment from the additional boats.

The Committee were of a view that these factors would constitute substantial harm.

The Vice-Chair indicated that the Committee was minded to refuse the application; the proposal was seconded by Councillor Salva-Macallan and on a vote of 5 in favour and 1 abstention, the Committee

RESOLVED

That the application to construct five pontoons to provide leisure moorings at Limehouse Marina, Limehouse Basin, The Highway, London, E14 8BT be REFUSED.

An update report was tabled.

Councillor Golds informed the Committee that he had received a pamphlet, addressed to his home, which provided information in support of the application.  He was concerned that the literature did not identify the sender.

The Area Planning Manager (East), then introduced the report which contained proposals for the redevelopment of 4 sites from 767 – 785 Commercial Road, London E14 7HG.  The proposals also included an application for listed building consent for the restoration of 3 Grade II listed buildings that were included in Historic England’s Register of Buildings at Risk.  The Planning Case Officer then presented the report, informing Members that the application had first been presented at the meeting on 20 December 2018 but, for planning reasons, had been deferred prior to consideration.  He set out the relevant issues concerning the application which were; heritage, conservation area, design and appearance, effects on listed buildings and conservation areas, effects on the Blue Ribbon network and economic impact.  He advised that the proposals would provide regeneration in the forms of housing units class C3, class B1 offices and a number of communal living units which are in the form of a new type of HMO accommodation as set out in the report.  Other planning considerations were transport and highways.  There had been statutory planning consultation comprising site notices and 458 individual letters sent to neighbouring properties.  2 letters and 2 petitions objecting to the proposal had been received.

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

• The consequences of failure to restore the listed buildings and redevelop the site would be further deterioration of the listed buildings and their potential loss.
• In regard to the buildings at risk, there was no responsibility to intervene incumbent upon the Council.  The Council has powers of compulsory however the current circumstances for local authorities needed to be considered.
• Concerning minimum space standards for the proposed communal living units, the Committee was advised that national planning standards do not apply to this new form of housing, nor were there any local standards for this type of accommodation; this has been identified as an issue by the Mayor of London.  However Members were asked to note that the size of the sleeping accommodation proposed in the communal units was greater than that specified under national planning standards.
• Concerning what feedback had been offered by Historic England, the Heritage Officer advised that Historic England had monitored the building over many years and had been fully involved in the proposals that concerned the heritage buildings.  A Member observed that the details of the application suggested that the applicant had had regard to the historicity of the site.
• Concerning what guidance was available to ensure that the new communal living units would operate successfully and what policies, regulations and enforcement there were around this type of accommodation in term of contracts and minimum standards; the Committee was informed that the standard of accommodation proposed was far higher  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

At 9:15pm the Chair moved, the Vice-Chair seconded, and the Committee

RESOLVED

That the guillotine be suspended and the meeting extended 30 minutes beyond the permitted time to enable the Committee to conclude its consideration of the applications listed for determination.

The Area Planning Manager (East), introduced the application which concerned proposals for the redevelopment of the site of the former Stepney Library.  The Planning Case Officer presented the report which concerned a proposal to demolish the disused Stepney Library building and construct 5 x 3-bedroom houses 2 of which were wheelchair accessible.  Members were informed that

• 100% of these proposed units were to be affordable. 
• Statutory planning consultation had been undertaken and 10 letters of objection and a petition had been received raising concerns about design, amenity and loss of the community facility. 
• The planning issues for consideration were land use, loss of accommodation of a community facility, design and transport. 
• The loss of the facility had been assessed and was considered acceptable since the building had not been occupied for 15 years and the community facilities had been re-provided at the nearby Idea Store.

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

• Concerning whether the concept of re-provision of a community facility had been appropriately applied, the Committee was informed that the application had been appropriate since Idea Stores had replaced all libraries in the Borough.
• There were no community facilities presently operating from the building.
• It was intended that the proposed properties would be provided in the form of 3 social rents and 2 LBTH Housing rents.  The provision would be private housing at social rent.
• Concerning the misleading information alleged in the report around the consultation process, the Committee was informed that this consultation referred to community meetings which had taken place, however the content of these was not known.

The Committee then heard from objectors who raised the following concerns:

• Very few in the community had been involved in the consultation.
• There had been no equality assessment.
• The proposed design was out of keeping with that of the surrounding estate.
• There would be overlooking at Jarman House and Colverson House; Members were asked to consider a site visit to asses this concern.
• There had been issues around antisocial behaviour on the estate in the past 4 years.
• 10 years ago, there had been an alternative consultation on uses of for the existing building but this had not been undertaken well.
• The estate was already overcrowded; this concern was a subject of the petition and the proposed development would exacerbate the sense of overcrowding in the locality.
• Residents supported the reinstatement of the building as a community centre since Idea Stores did not engage residents in a broad way.  Additionally a community facility would provide facilities for teenagers.
• The proposed development was not sympathetic to the heritage style of the estate
• The site was not appropriate for the proposed development since the estate required community facilities rather than additional housing.

Responding to Members’ questions, objectors provided the following additional information:

·         The Idea Store was too distant and its provision differed from that which a community centre could provide.

·         The local TRA would consider a match funding arrangement for a community facility if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

The Area Planning Manager (East) introduced the application which concerned a proposal to remove an existing roof structure and construct a mansard style roof extension at Regent's Wharf, Wharf Place London E2.  The Planning Case Officer then presented his report informing the Committee that the proposal was to remove the existing pitched roof and replace with a mansard-style roof extension to provide 4 one-bedroom flats, and 2 two-bedroom flats with associated cycle parking and refuse storage facilities.  Notice had been served on residents. The site was situated in the Regent's Canal conservation area.  Statutory consultation had been undertaken and 25 letters of objection have been received concerned mainly around design.   The relevant planning issues were; land use, design, amenity, and transportation.  An environmental plan which deals with noise during construction had been produced.

The Chair enquired and Members indicated that they had no questions for the Planning Case Officer.

Members then heard from objectors who raised the following concerns:

• The proposal contravened policies DM26 (tall buildings were not displayed correctly), DM24 (the proposal did not demonstrate place sensitive design).
• The proposed development would create noise and disruption to existing occupants of the building.  Additionally there had been much successive development at the premises, much of which had not been delivered efficiently.  Therefore residents were not confident that the current proposal would be delivered in an efficient and timely manner.
• The proposal contained inaccuracies related to the orientation of some of the units which in fact faced East-West.
• The proposal would create new overlooking and exacerbate existing issues around overlooking.
• The additional height that would be created would negatively affect daylight/sunlight into some of the existing flats.
• Existing parking had been lost as the developer had inserted flats in the basement. The additional cycle parking would reduce this further.
• The proposal also prevents occupants from enjoying their own home and working from home because of noise and disruption during development.

Responding to a Member question, objectors informed the Committee that there were concerns around waste storage because the Paladin containers were not accessible.

The Committee then heard from the Architect who highlighted the following elements of the proposal:

• All in all specifications of the proposal complied with all Tower Hamlets policies.
• The design was sympathetic to its location.
• The site offered scope for height adaption for a mansard conversion and the design had been carefully planned to maintain privacy.
• All elements for waste storage had been met.
• Concerns around previous construction works had been noted and there was a construction management plan.
• During the pre-application period, the applicant had worked to improve the scheme to ensure compliance and that the locality was enhanced.

Responding to Members’ questions the Architect provided the following additional information.  In regard to previous applications withdrawn and rejected or dismissed, the architect advised that these had involved other firms; however since his engagement to the project he had worked to achieve an improved proposal/outcome.

The Committee then addressed the Planning Officers and enquired:

• How the Council would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

This report was DEFERRED.  Since the meeting had reached the guillotine, Members were unable to consider the report.