Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: David Knight, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4878 E-mail: david.knight@towerhamlets.gov.uk
Media
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.
Additional documents: Minutes: No declarations of disclosable pencuniary interests were received at the meeting.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 258 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 14th November, 20119. Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE PDF 142 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.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED that:
1. The procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance be noted; 2. 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 3. 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. |
|
DEFERRED ITEMS Additional documents: Minutes: There were no deferred items.
|
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION PDF 291 KB Additional documents: |
|
North and South Passage, Iron Mongers Place, E14 PDF 2 MB Additional documents: Minutes: An update report was tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager) introduced the application which relates to a north/ south walkway which runs between Westferry Road and Sherwood Gardens in the Isle of Dogs.
Matthew Wong (Planning Services) informed the Committee that (i) the original application PA/13/01547 had granted permission for the installation of gates and barriers within the walkway and this permission was implemented. With condition 4 of the permission had required that these gates should remain unlocked at all times; and (ii) the current proposal now seeks to vary condition 4 of that planning permission, to allow the gates to be locked and pedestrian access along the walkway to be stopped.
Mr Wong stated that the application was being reported to the Development Committee because there have been than 20 individual representations in support of the development.
The Committee noted that is application has been considered against (a) the Council’s approved planning policies contained in the London Borough of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 (January 2020) as well as the London Plan (2016), the National Planning Policy Framework and all other material considerations; (b) the Draft London Plan (2019) as this carries substantial weight.
Mr Wong stated that:
· The proposal is considered to be unacceptable as it would (1) result in the loss of a safe, convenient and traffic free access way, and disadvantage those less able pedestrians, (2) provoke less sustainable transport choices; and (3) lead to the creation of underused spaces which may result in antisocial behaviour and a lack of social cohesion, contrary to policies D.DH2, S.DH1, D.DH8 and S.TR1 of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan (2020); · In 2013, planning permission was granted for the construction of two gates and two sets of barriers within the walkways (ref PA/13/01547). This permission was duly implemented and two gates were installed, one at the northern end adjacent to Sherwood Gardens and another at the southern end adjacent to Spindrift Avenue. The gates are approximately 1750mm -1800mm high and comprise of brick piers at either end with fixed, metal infill panels containing vertical posts. Condition 4 of the consent required that the gates always remain unlocked. · Two sets of physical barriers had also been constructed within the walkways, in locations immediately to the north and south of Ironmongers Place. The barriers did not close off access to the passages, rather they act as physical obstacles to ensure cyclists and those on vehicles must dismount before traversing through. · The walkway is protected through a Section 106 Agreement which was entered into on 15/10/1986 between the owner of the site, the Council and the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC). The agreement provided specific reference to the passage and its formal adoption as a walkway, under Section 35 of the Highways Act 1980. Clause 4 of the agreement states that the Walkway (passage) must always remain open to the public unless with the written agreement with the Council. The Agreement also stated that the walkway must remain accessible by all and shall ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: An update report was tabled.
Paul Buckingham (Development Manager) introduced the application that sort approval for the replacement of the existing 1200mm railings and addition of gates to a height of 1800mm along the northern and eastern boundaries of the Holland Estate.
Kathleen Ly (Planning Services) presented this application which was being reported to the Development Committee as more than 20 individual representations supporting the development have been received.
Ms Ly advised the Committee that (i) this application has been assessed against planning policies contained in the London Borough of the Tower Hamlets Local Plan 2031 (January 2020), the London Plan (2016), and the National Planning Policy Framework; and (ii). The application has also been considered against the Draft London Plan (2019) as this carries substantial weight.
The Committee was informed by Mr Simon Westmorland (West Area Team Leader - Development Management) that (a) the proposal would result in an incongruous form of development that will neither preserve nor enhance the local streetscape nor maintain the positive character and appearance of the conservation areas; (b) the increase in height to the railings and addition of vehicle and pedestrian gates will result in a gated community, unnecessarily segregating the estate from the public realm; (c) this proposal would negatively affect the social integration of the area and be contrary to the promotion of mixed and balanced communities.
Therefore, the officers considered that the proposal is not considered to be acceptable in policy terms and is not supported.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.
Kabir Ahmed the Chair of the Holland Estate Management Board addressed the meeting the main points that he raised maybe summarised as follows:
1. At the time of the Stock Transfer from LBTH to Eastend Homes (EEH) in 2006, the bid made to residents to win support for this process was based mainly on a programme of improvement works to the buildings and the estate i.e. ‘security and safety’; and ‘boundary treatment with gated access. This included lifts and perimeter security enhancements (as in the current application) to offer better safety on the estate as well as the key promise of lifts to the blocks in the application area’; 2. During the housing stock transfer these promises were supported by the Council and all the consultation documents included these as key aspects of work that will be undertaken once transfer was completed; 3. Additionally, these enhancements were granted planning permission as part of the broader applications (PA/08/02347 refers), of estate improvements that EEH made after they took possession of the estate; 4. At the time the Council encouraged residents to consider transfer to housing associations with the promise of being able to make improvements to the estate. Key promises that led to residents voting for transfer were improved security measures and lifts; 5. If permission is not granted, it would bring into question that whole process and whether those promises made were worth the paper it was written on. It ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
De Paul House, 628-634 Commercial Road, London, E14 7HS PDF 2 MB Additional documents: Minutes: An update report was tabled. Paul Buckenham (Development Manager) informed the Committee that the proposed development sort to replace an existing 52-bedroom hostel with a 109-bedroom mix of hostel and housing in multiple occupation (HMO). Out of the total number of the proposed rooms, 25 would be associated with the hostel use situated on the lower ground and ground floor levels. Additionally, 84 rooms it was noted are proposed to be provided for a long-term residential accommodation in the form of housing with shared facilities. This would consist of residents having exclusive use of their ensuite bedrooms whilst sharing communal facilities that include living, kitchen, dining and amenity spaces. In addition, some of the bedrooms on the fifth and sixth floors would have private balconies. Ms Aleksandra Milentijevic advised the Committee that the existing hostel has the capacity to accommodate 263 occupants in a number of 2 and 3 bedrooms and multi-bed dormitories. Whilst the applicant is proposing a total number of 185 occupants in the currently proposed scheme to be apportioned as follows: 41 in hostel rooms and 144 in the shared living accommodation. It was noted that officers have identified a number of issues associated with the proposed land use. Which included (i) the lack of justification for the need of the HMO use; (ii) its unaffordability; and lack of effective management arrangements. In addition, the proposal fails to provide appropriate affordable housing contributions as required by planning policy. Notwithstanding that the proposed HMO use is not supported in principle, Ms Milentijevic stated that the: · Quality of the proposed HMO accommodation is not considered to be acceptable given the proposal’s failure to provide sufficient communal amenity space for the future residents and adequately lit communal indoor amenity spaces. · Existing building is predominantly three storeys along Commercial Road with a staircase enclosure on the north-eastern corner which reaches four storeys. At the rear, the building steps down to two and one storey with a concrete boundary wall. The existing building has limited value in terms of its external appearance and its replacement with an appropriately designed building is acceptable in principle. · Proposed building would be seven storeys in height with the two top floors set back on all sides. The scale, height and massing of the proposed development are considered to be excessive and the top floors would be characterised by a poor fenestration pattern. As such, the proposed building would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the St Anne’s Church conservation area, in which the application site also lies. Further, the applicant has not submitted an archaeology assessment as required by planning policy. · Proposal would further fail to provide an adequate amount of cycle parking linked to the HMO use. In addition, the proposed cycle storage would comprise of a shared space within a general storage area which lacks a clear and obvious purpose. This is considered unacceptable in principle due to the safety concerns and likely obstructions. · Although on-street servicing has been previously ... view the full minutes text for item 5.3 |
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS Additional documents: Minutes: Nil items |