To elect a Vice – Chair of the Committee for 2020/21

It was proposed by Councillor Abdul Mukit, seconded by Councillor Sabina Akhtar  and RESOLVED:

That Councillor John Pierce be appointed Vice-Chair of the Development Committee for the Municipal Year 2020/2021

 Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, please see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Members are reminded to declare the nature of the interest and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it’s the Members’ responsibility to declare any interests form and to update their register of interest form as required by the Code.

If in doubt as to the nature of your interest, you are advised to seek advice prior to the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services

There were no declarations of interest.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 17^th September 2020

The Committee RESOLVED

1.             That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17th September 2020 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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 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

RESOLVED

1.    That the Development Committee’s Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and Dates of future meetings be noted as set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to the report.

Proposal:

Construction of a part-four and part-nine storey building comprising 32 x Class C3 residential dwellings, hard and soft landscaping works, security enhancements, and the re-opening of an existing under croft parking structure.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission, subject to conditions and subject to a legal agreement

Update report was tabled.

Jerry Bell introduced the application for the construction of a part-four and part-nine storey building comprising 32 x Class C3 residential dwellings, hard and soft landscaping works, security enhancements, and the re-opening of an existing under croft parking structure.

This application was considered by the Development Committee on 17th September 2020.  At that meeting, the Committee discussed: the removal of the security gates from the food garden plans; the adequacy of the proposed CCTV and the acceptability of the altered refuse and recycling arrangements.  The Committee also discussed fire access to Caledonia House, with the development in place. The application was deferred by the Committee for a site visit to enable Members to better understand the issues. Further representations had been received and these were set out in the report and update.

Sally Fraser (Planning Services) presented the application addressing the matters raised at the site visits and providing a brief overview of the proposal.

The following issues were discussed:

•       It was recommended that the gate on the parameter of the food garden be reinstated and this be secured by the condition. To ensure this, it was proposed that an additional condition be added requiring details of a Management Plan relating to the fencing and the secure gate to the Food Garden.

•         The condition to ensure the site was secure by design, particularly the measures to ensure that the CCTV is linked to the borough’s network.

•       The proposed recycling and refuse arrangements

•         The fire access issues. The Fire Authority had initially raised no objections. The Fire Authority had subsequently notified the Council that they required  more time to consider the access arrangements. Details of the new arrangements were noted. These had been developed in consultation with the Fire Authority. It was emphasised that details of the arrangements must be agreed and signed off by the Fire Authority before the planning permission was issued.

Committee Questions:

In response to questions, the following issues were discussed

•         The reinstatement of the fob accessed gates to the food garden. It was felt that an exception to the policy could be made in this case to justify this. 

•         The Committee supported this on the basis that the garden was publicly accessible. It was also emphasised that it should be of a good quality in terms of its appearance. Details of its design can be specified in the Management Plan.

•         Members discussed the reinstatement of other gates but were generally opposed to this.

•         Regarding the fire access plans, Officer outlined the information in the update report. It was confirmed the plans had been designed in consultation with the Fire Authority. They also provided further assurances about the condition requiring the Fire Authority’s approval of the plans before the permission could be implemented, and that the plans would be amended as necessary to ensure they met requirements.

On a vote of 4 in favour and 0 against the Committee RESOLVED:

1.       That, planning permission  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.1

Proposal:

Demolition of the existing office and job centre building. Erection of building of up to 8 storeys comprising 86 residential units (Use Class C3) with basement car parking, associated hard and soft landscaping and infrastructure works.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations.

Application withdrawn from the agenda.

Proposal:

Demolition of 1980s office building (including annex connection to Southern Grove Lodge) and construction of a part-4, part-5, part-6 storey Class C3 residential apartment block (to provide 42 units of affordable housing); change of use/conversion/refurbishment (including installation of replacement roofs/rooflights and windows) of Southern Grove Lodge into Class C3 residential use (to provide 36 private for sale units); provision of associated amenity areas, cycle and car parking (in the form of 5 x accessible parking bays), refuse/recycling stores and landscaping.

Recommendation:

Grant planning permission, subject to conditions. 

Jerry Bell introduced the application for demolition of 1980s office building (including annex connection to Southern Grove Lodge) and construction of a part-4, part-5, part-6 storey Class C3 residential apartment block.

Nelupa Malik (Planning Services) presented the report advising of the application site and surrounds. The site lay in the Tower Hamlets Cemetery Conservation Area. Whilst not listed, the Building B (Southern Grove Lodge Building) was considered to be a non - designated heritage asset.  Public consultation had been undertaken at the pre application and post submissions stage. In response to the statutory consultation, 1 representation had been received in support and 3 in objection and the issues raised were noted.

The following issues were noted.

•         Whilst the proposal would result in net loss of employment floor space, this can be considered acceptable and in line with policy given the underutilised nature of the existing use. It was also considered that the merits of the scheme outweighed this.

•         Details of housing mix, including the deviations from policy and comprises in housing standards relating to Block B (due to the building restraints).  On balance, this could be considered acceptable given the merits of this approach in terms of delivering affordable housing and the public benefits of the application.

•         That the level of affordable housing broadly complied with policy and the scheme was eligible for the fast track route.

•         That the level of communal amenity space and dedicated children’s play area met requirements.

•                That the character and appearance of both Southern Grove Lodge and the Tower Hamlets Conservation Area will be enhanced as a result of the proposals.

•         A number of neighbouring properties would experience impacts as detailed in the report and the presentation. However, there were mitigating factors that accounted for this. Overall, the proposal should ensure they maintained good levels of amenity in terms of daylight, sunlight, overshadowing, outlook and sense of enclosure  including the closest development.

•         The proposal would be ‘car free’ with the exception of 5 blue badge spaces. Cycle parking would also be provided in accordance with policy

•         The proposal incorporates sustainability and biodiversity enhancements.

•         Details of the financial and non - financial obligations.

Officers were recommending that the proposed development is granted planning permission, subject to conditions.

The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.

Councillor Andrew Wood considered that the proposals should be rejected, on the basis that it was took small and the lack of affordable housing. A taller building providing more housing could have been provided on site given the site’s good transport link and that there were many taller developments nearby.

Tim Waters spoke in support of the application. He noted the development potential of the site, but also the need to provide a development  that responded to the local  setting and preserved neighbouring amenity, which this development sought to do.  The applicant had listened to residents concerns and as a result had made amendments to increase separation distances. The merits  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.2