Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Antonella Burgio, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4881, E-mail: antonella.burgio@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS PDF 117 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: Councillor Mufeedah Bustin declared an interest in respect of item 4.2 stating that she was a Ward Councillor of the Ward in which the application was located. She confirmed that she would participate in the determination as she had not formed a view on the matter.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING PDF 228 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 13 June 2019. Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 13 June 2019 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE PDF 144 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. 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.
|
|
Dave Adams House, 12-12B Norman Grove, London, E3 5EG (PA/19/00346) PDF 3 MB Minutes: The Area Planning Manager (East) introduced the report which concerned an application by the Council for a residential led mixed use development to provide a better quality children’s home at the site and housing.
The Planning Case Officer then presented the report informing Members that the proposal would provide 17 residential units comprising (1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom homes) around the children’s home. The dwellings would be in the form of townhouses, duplex flats and lateral flats. She outlined the physical context of the proposed development and relevant material planning considerations which were; land use, design, amenity, transport and environment. A representative from BRE Consultants attended for this item to assist with technical questions related to daylight/sunlight assessments. Objections to the proposal had been received on the basis of these considerations and also on poor consultation. She also informed the Committee that, since the Council was the applicant, financial and non-financial obligations could not be mandated through S106 agreements. Therefore these obligations would be met in full through the imposition of conditions.
Responding to Members’ questions, the following information was also provided: • Daylight/sunlight assessments were required for living rooms but not for bedrooms. Therefore had been no assessment of the bedrooms of the proposed children’s home. The Committee noted this and a Member commented that nowadays days many children spent leisure time in their rooms as well as time spent sleeping. • The daylight/sunlight assessments carried out on Rosebank Gardens had returned a moderate/adverse impact. This meant that occupants would experience a noticeable impact from the proposed development. • There would also be sunlight/daylight impacts to the proposed development at Regency Court but since this was not yet inhabited, residents would not experience changes of light levels. A Member noted that the design of Regency Court had been amended as a result of such concerns. • To mitigate potential impacts on the nearby conservation area, use of sympathetic materials would be conditioned and samples provided for approval by the Planning Authority. • A parking space dedicated for use by the Children’s Home would be allocated from existing spaces at Rosebank Gardens
The Committee then heard from the registered speakers. The Chair advised that, to facilitate democratic engagement, he had accepted a late request from Councillor Blake who wished to address the Committee, jointly with the Development Project Manager, on behalf of the applicant. The Clerk confirmed that Legal advice had been given that, under committee procedures, it was appropriate for Councillor Blake to make a submission in this role.
The Committee first heard from two objectors who made their submissions before Members outlining the following concerns: • The design appeared bleak in the context of its surroundings. • The location of the entrance of the proposed children’s home would create opportunities for loitering and lead to antisocial behaviours. Related to this, the comments of staff employed at the former children’s home had not been taken into account. • The design of the balconies would lead to impacts on ... view the full minutes text for item 4.1 |
|
73 Lockesfield Place, London, E14 3AJ (PA/19/00543) PDF 1 MB Minutes: An update report was tabled.
The Area Planning Manager (East) introduced the report which concerned an application for a part ground, part first floor rear extension to an existing dwellinghouse within the Lockesfield Estate. He advised Members that matters relating to houses in multiple occupation related to the application should be considered with reference to the National Planning Policy Framework and change of use; however it was noted that the application did not include an application for change of use. Additionally the Committee was not able to give weight to the Article 4 Direction under GDPO 1995. (?)
The Planning Case Officer then presented the report outlining the context of the proposal in relation to its neighbourhood and the relevant material planning considerations which were; design, scale, appearance and houses in multiple occupation. He informed the Committee that the application did not significantly differ in appearance from its surrounding properties. The design had been revised since its first submission and the application now proposed a shallower first floor extension and a deeper ground floor extension to that originally applied for. This revision would cause the extension to be less visible from neighbouring properties. There had been 32 objections from residents and 28 representations in support, 19 supportive representations were found to be invalid upon review for the purpose of Committee referral.
Responding to Members’ questions, the following information was also provided: • Most objections originated from Lockesfield Estate but some were from outside the immediate locality. • Planning permission was sought as the proposed extension was in excess of that allowed under permitted development rights. • The application was not referred to Conservation and Design Officers for comment because it was a small development. • It was not possible to advise whether the application would cause pressure on resources in terms of refuse collection service or additional impact on highways.
The Committee then heard from Councillor Golds and from an objector. They made representations against the application highlighting the following concerns: • There were inconsistencies around the design of the application. • The development would be seen from Chapel House Street Conservation Area and from nearby Millwall Park. • There would be over occupation as the application was for a 5-bedroom house in multiple occupation and it was likely that each rentable room would be occupied by 2 persons. • The development would place unsustainable demands refuse collection recycling facilities and highways. • The property only had access to mixed waste refuse facilities. • There were antisocial behaviour issues in the area which would likely be made worse by the development. • The property did not have allocated parking or cycle storage spaces. Additionally the garage allocated to the property was being used by the applicant as builder’s storage. • Operation of the developed property would be unsustainable and the applicant had misled potential tenants in this regard. • Planning history outlined at page 78 of the agenda referenced enforcement activity. This suggested that the property was not used as ... view the full minutes text for item 4.2 |
|
Minutes: An update report was tabled.
The application was discussed in conjunction with agenda item 4.4 however the Committee separately deliberated and voted on each application. The Area Planning Manager (East) introduced the reports which proposed revisions to 2 areas of the ground floor of Discovery Dock Apartments East, 3 South Quay Square, E14.
The Planning Case Officer then presented the report and outlined the following matters. The proposals were: · extension of an existing ground floor unit (item 4.3) · change of use of the ground floor unit from a management office to flexible use including A1 (retail), A2 (professional services) or B1a (office) use or continuation of existing management office use. (item 4.3) · infilling of the existing colonnade (item 4.3 and 4.4) · an infill extension to an existing ground floor commercial unit (currently in use as estate agent) (item 4.4) · change of use for flexible use including A1 (retail), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurant) and B1a (office) (item 4.4) Both proposals sought to respect the characteristics of the existing building and allow flexible usage in the context of the South Quay redevelopment. For the application at item 4.3 this excluded A3 category. The application at item 4.4 included A3 category but mitigated this via a condition that there would be no external dining. The proposals sought to ensure that pedestrian access through the site remained unaffected and that potential negative impacts on residential units were mititgated.
The Committee heard representations from an objector who raised the following concerns:
· The application did not fall under the Canary Wharf Masterplan but was being administered as though it were in respect of the number of A3 sites. · The application fell under the South Quay Masterplan which called for balanced use; approval of the application would create imbalance. · The Masterplan was relevant to the application because it dealt with town centres and activity. · The access area for delivery vehicles was unsuitable for A1 use and would create traffic issues. · The proposal would create additional noise traffic and odours for the residents of the units above the application site.
The Committee heard also from the Agent on behalf of the applicant who submitted that in the past the application sites had operated unsuccessfully as retail units. The South Quay area was presently undergoing substantial change and, to access future potential, the applicant wished to introduce flexibility to the spaces with a view to enlivening them and create interest. Responding to consultation, the applicant had removed the A3 change of use request (item 4.3) as it was his wish that the application sites should be sympathetic to neighbours as well as provide sites of interest.
The Agent also provided the following additional information: · Delivery facilities for other units currently operated from Discovery Dock; to mitigate activity of the units applied for, a service and delivery management plan would need to be submitted and approved. · Request for A3 category had not been removed from the application at Unit 2 (item 4.4) because the applicant ... view the full minutes text for item 4.3 |
|
Unit 2, Discovery Dock Apartments East, 3 South Quay Square, London, E14, 9RU (PA/18/03580) PDF 1 MB Minutes: An update report was tabled.
The application was discussed in conjunction with agenda item 4.3. Therefore the discussion of this application can be found at minute 4.3. However the Committee separately deliberated and voted on this application.
The relevant matters relating to this application were: · an infill extension to an existing ground floor commercial unit (currently in use as estate agent) · change of use for flexible use including A1 (retail), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurant) and B1a (office) · enclosure of a walkway
The remainder of the discussion is recorded at minute 4.3. Before moving to vote on the application, the Committee heard a submission from an objector Mr Khan but did not hear from Mr Byrne who had also registered to speak on item 4.4. Mr Khan raised the following concerns: · There was over concentration of commercial uses. · Commercial uses at the site had already been established and the additions would create an inappropriate mix. · A3 uses result on long opening hours and would cause nuisance. · No details of ventilation of the units have been provided. · There would be loss of public realm. · Parking spaces were introduced without permission. · There would be a loss of a walkway which would cause pedestrians to seek alternative walking routes such as the roadway or an adjoining site.
The Members received advice from the Legal Advisor to the Committee that an issue had been raised by an objector around the enclosure of the colonnade which might be subject to a walkway agreement. Since there was insufficient information available to Members on this matter the Legal Advisor advised that in this circumstance this item should be DEFERRED for additional information.
The Chair moved and the Vice-Chair seconded and on an unanimous vote in favour, the Committee
RESOLVED
That the application at Unit 2, Discovery Dock Apartments East, 3 South Quay Square, London, E14, 9RU be DEFERRED.
The Committee was minded to defer the application on the basis that Members did not have enough information to make the decision.
|
|