Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Zoe Folley, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4877, E-mail: zoe.folley@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COUNCILLOR CARLI HARPER-PENMAN (CHAIR) IN THE CHAIR
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Judith Gardiner, Peter Golds, Mohammed Abdul Mukit MBE and Kosru Uddin.
Councillor Craig Aston was deputising on behalf of Councillor Peter Golds.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Judith Gardiner, Peter Golds, Mohammed Abdul Mukit MBE and Kosru Uddin.
Councillor Craig Aston was deputising on behalf of Councillor Peter Golds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 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 Chief Executive. Decision: Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:
Minutes: Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 10th February 2011.
Decision: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10th February 2011 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10th February 2011 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDATIONS 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 Development and Renewal 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 Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.
Decision: The Committee RESOLVED 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, Development and Renewal 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, Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED 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, Development and Renewal 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, Development and Renewal is delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee.
Please note that the deadline for registering to speak at this meeting is:
4.00 pm : Tuesday, 8th March 2011
Decision:
The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections and those who had registered to speak at the meeting.
Minutes:
The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections and those who had registered to speak at the meeting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Land Adjacent to Bridge Wharf, Old Ford Road, London Additional documents:
Decision: RESOLVED
That the item be deferred to a future meeting due to lack of quorum for the item.
In accordance with Section 11.4 of the Development Committee Procedural Rules, the Committee resolved to defer this application as there wasn’t enough Members present from the previous meeting to consider it. (The required number being 3). Minutes: RESOLVED
That the item be deferred to a future meeting due to lack of quorum for the item.
In accordance with Section 11.4 of the Development Committee Procedural Rules, the Committee resolved to defer this application due to lack of Members present from the previous meeting. (The required number being three). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Central Foundation School, Harley Grove & 41-47 Bow Road, London Decision: Update Report Tabled.
Councillor Ann Jackson proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Carli Harper Penman, “That a condition be added that details of refuse servicing for the school be submitted in writing to the Council with a view to ensuring refuse servicing takes place on site”. On being put to the vote, the amendment was declared carried.
On a vote of 2 for and 0 against with 1 abstention the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent for the redevelopment of the school, including the following matters, be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informative set out in the report.
Redevelopment of the school including:
(2) That a further condition be added as follows:
That details of refuse servicing for the school be submitted in writing to the Council with a view to ensuring refuse servicing takes place on site.
It was noted that Councillor Eaton could not vote on this item as she had not been present at the beginning of the item. Minutes: Update Report Tabled.
Mr Pete Smith (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application regarding the Central Foundation School, Harley Grove & 41-47 Bow Road, London
The Chair invited statements from persons who had previously registered to address the Committee.
Ms Pat Smith stated that she was speaking on behalf of residents of Coborn Street. She relayed their concerns at the waste collection arrangements and the removal of the parking bays. She reported that at present waste was collected on site at 7am in the morning when nobody was there with the vehicles reversing in. This present system worked well and should be preserved.
Four parking bays would be lost. Would alternatives spaces be found? The area was very congested during term time already. It would be especially busy during construction time. Where would the constructions vehicles park?
She expressed concern at the plans to put refuse bins on the street and that it would obstruct the pavement. How would children get round this when visiting the school?
In summary the refuse collection should still be done out of school hours and the site should have more parking bays.
Ms Isobel Cattermole (Corporate Director, Children Schools and Families) spoke in support of the application. The school was a popular, voluntary aided non denominational school. The school provided a wide training agenda for both children and teachers.
She explained the profile of the school (including a balanced BME student base, the percentage of school meals provided). Whilst attainment was good, the site was less good and in need of renovation. So the funding from government was to renovate the site.
She briefly explain the key elements of the scheme, located over two sites, including the redevelopment of 41-47 Bow Road site to provide a sixth form block, the provision of a new building and refurbishment of existing buildings. The Trustees had purchased 41- 47 Bow Road to redevelop the sixth form block. The block and the college terrace would be managed by the Trustees once the project had been completed.
At present there was poor circulation, little connectivity with the wider community. The Applicant was sympathetic to the objections and the comments of English Heritage, addressing many of them by amending the scheme. In relation to the concerns around refuse collection and parking, Ann Canning, Service Head for Learning and Achievement, would be working with Officers to identify ways to mitigate the concerns.
Ms Ila Robertson (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the report. She described in detail the proposed works including:
She addressed the main planning matters around the demolition of the listed buildings. The buildings were of little heritage value given ... view the full minutes text for item 7.1 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Oakfield House, Gale Street, London Decision: Update Report Tabled.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
(1) That planning permission for the demolition of existing 8 dwellings (4 x bedsit and 4 x one bed flats) and erection of a building up to 5 storeys in height to provide 18 new residential units (5 x 2 bed flats, 6 x 3 bed flats, 7 x 4 bed houses) proposal including the provision of associated parking and landscaped amenity space be GRANTED subject to
(2) The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations listed in the report.
(3) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be granted delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated in (2) above.
(4) That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal be granted delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters listed in the report
(5) That, if by 15th March 2010 the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is granted delegated power to refuse planning permission.
Minutes: Update Report Tabled.
Mr Pete Smith (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application regarding Oakfield House, Gale Street, London
The Chair invited statements from persons who had previously registered to address the Committee.
Mr Charlie Rabicano said that he was representing a large group of residents in the area. They had submitted petition and a report. Whilst they supported affordable housing on the site, this scheme was inappropriate for the site and it did not comply with policy. The site area had been wrongly calculated to include adjacent land. It was unfair to include this as amenity land. The scheme was too high therefore would affect the amenity of the surrounding properties. It would cause loss of light. The figures for sunlight were in access of the BRE requirements. The worst affected windows were the main bedroom windows. Our report showed that there would also be overshadowing in evening when the residents would be coming back from work.
He considered that the internal space between the buildings would create a high fence and a back street. The Council should uphold the Planning guidance and refuse the Application.
(Note: The second registered speaker failed to attend the meeting. Therefore the two supporters were allocated 1 ½ minutes each to address the Committee).
Ms Sunara Begum spoke in support of the Application. She stated that the scheme would provide housing for large families. She and her large family had lived in the Borough for nine years in a tiny overcrowded flat with no play area for her children. Many of her friends and family also lived in similar conditions. Therefore there was a real need for decent family homes in the Borough. Whilst noting the concerns about parking, she considered that many of the parking spaces in the area were underused. The scheme would also provide additional green space.
Mr David Black speaking in support of the application considered that the site area had been calculated in the correct way. The density of the buildings complied with requirements. Mr Black read from the sunlight assessment submitted by the applicant. He objected to the assertion made by the objector that some of the results had not ‘passed’ the BRE tests. The term was not used in the BRE guidance. He argued that proposals met BRE requirements. In relation to the internal space, this would provide communal open space. There would also be balconies providing private amenity space.
Ms Ila Robertson (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) made a detailed presentation explaining the scheme. She explained the site and the outcome of the public consultation. The responses included: 4 individual responses (3 for 1 against), 1 supporting and 1 objecting petition.
She addressed each of the planning issues around land use, density, height, design and appearance, affordable housing, amenity and highways.
The scheme would provide much needed affordable housing given the housing shortages in the Borough. The density calculation complied with the government and the Council’s guidance. It was also considered that ... view the full minutes text for item 7.2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS Additional documents: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phoenix School, 49 Bow Road, E3 4AD Decision: On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the application for the removal of existing low boundary wall and railings to allow partial redevelopment of the site, comprising the erection of a new building fronting onto Bow Road be referred to the Government Office for London with the recommendation that the Council would be minded to grant Conservation Consent subject to conditions as set out in the report.
Minutes: Ms Ila Robertson (Applications Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report regarding proposed works to Phoenix School.
This demolition was required in order to redevelop this area of the site as part of the Government’s Building Schools for the Future (BSF) initiative.
A total of 175 neighbouring properties were invited to comment on the application. No comments have been received.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the application for the removal of existing low boundary wall and railings to allow partial redevelopment of the site, comprising the erection of a new building fronting onto Bow Road be referred to the Government Office for London with the recommendation that if the Council had the power to determine the application, it would be minded to grant Conservation Consent subject to conditions as set out in the report.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Decision:
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the details and outcomes of the appeals be noted.
Minutes: Mr Pete Smith (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) presented the report. The report provided details of appeals decisions and new appeals lodged against the Authority’s Planning decisions.
In response, the Committee discussed the main findings.
Overall the Committee felt that the report was very useful thanked officers for preparing the report.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the details and outcomes of the appeals be noted.
|