Agenda, decisions and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 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 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Please note that the order of business was varied by resolution of the Committee, however for ease of reference the decisions taken are set out below in the order detailed on the agenda.
|
|||||||||||||||||
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Helal Abbas.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor Helal Abbas.
|
|||||||||||||||||
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:
Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||||||
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 16th November 2011. Decision: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16th November 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 16th November 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.
The deadline for requesting to speak at this meeting is 4pm Monday 12th December 2011. Decision: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure for hearing objections, together with details of persons who had registered to speak at the meeting.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Nil Items.
Decision: Nil Items.
Minutes: Nil Items.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Old Ford Lock, 51 Dace Road, London (PA/11/01263) Decision: Councillor Marc Francis moved an amendment to the recommendation, seconded by Councillor Kosru Uddin reducing the time period for the permission to 1st March 2012 to 31st October 2012 (from 1st January 2012 to 31st December 2012). On a vote of 5 in favour 0 against and 1 abstention, this was AGREED.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission be GRANTED for the installation of a 25m temporary lattice mast, complete with 12 antennas and four dish antennas, associated radio equipment cabinets within a secure compound, for a period not exceeding 1st March 2012 to 31st October 2012 (as amended by the Committee) subject the imposition of the conditions and informatives set out in the report; and
2. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the report.
Minutes: Pete Smith (Development Control Manager, Planning Services) introduced the report concerning Old Ford Lock, 51 Dace Road, London
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Francis Luke spoke in objection to the application. Mr Luke reported that he lived near the Old Ford lock around 35 meters from the proposed mast. He considered that the area was largely residential. The view that it was largely industrial was out of date. Over 1000 people lived in the area and the signals from the mast would travel directly over them. Whilst the permission was for a year, the applicant could seek to extend it or could attempt to stay their longer on their own accord. The residents would then be subjected to a lengthy enforcement process trying to get the mast removed. The application should be rejected.
In reply from Members about the perceived health risks, Mr Luke considered that it was a large mast. He felt sure that the signals would affect him and his family.
MrBryan Passmore spoke on behalf of Vodaphone the applicant. He reported that the mast would cover the west of the Olympic Stadium. The Olympics were expected to produce an unprecedented demand for information. The coverage was required to delivery this. The mast would be shared by a number of operators. The applicant had held regular meetings with LOCOG to facilitate the project. Alternative sites around the Olympic Park and the surrounding area had been looked at and discounted as they did not offer adequate coverage. This was the only suitable location within the search area. It would preserve and fit in well with the area.
In reply to Members, Mr Passmore considered that this was a complex project. It was necessary to begin work on the project in January 2012 to allow enough time to properly install the mast.
Mandip Dhillon (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report. Ms Dhillon explained the site and surrounding uses, including the location of the residential properties. She also highlighted the outcome of the local consultation generating 23 objections. The applicant had carried out a full assessment of the area and were of the view that there were no other suitable sites in the defined search area other than the site proposed. Officers did not consider that the scheme would affect pedestrian access, given the reductions in the foot path and that it would impact on the conservation area. There was a condition to ensure that the mast would be removed no later than 31st December 2012 and that at which time, the site would be reinstated to its former standard.
In terms of the health issues, the applicant had submitted an up to date radiation certificate to demonstrate that the radiation levels were safe as required by policy. Therefore the scheme was satisfactory on these grounds. Officers also clarified the need for the preparation time to allow for the mast to be installed and tested before use.
In response, Members sought assurances that ... view the full minutes text for item 7.1 |
|||||||||||||||||
Decision: RESOLVED
That that details and outcomes of the appeals as set out in the report be noted.
Minutes: Pete Smith, (Development Control Manager) presented the report. The report provided details of appeals, decisions and new appeals lodged against the Authority’s Planning decisions.
RESOLVED
That that details and outcomes of the appeals as set out in the report be noted.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Land at Virginia Quay off Newport Avenue, Newport Avenue, London, E14 Additional documents: Decision: On a unanimous vote it was RESOLVED
(1) That the Development Committee formally object to the application made to the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) in relation to Land at Virginia Quay off Newport Avenue, Newport Avenue, London, E14 for the Erection of 12 storey residential building (measuring 42.6m AOD in height) including basement storage/plant area to provide 26 residential dwellings and associated works comprising access, landscaping, car parking and other works
(2) That such formal objection be made on the grounds of:
Minutes: Special Reasons for Urgency Agreed.
Pete Smith (Development Control Manager, Planning Services) introduced the report concerning Land at Virginia Quay off Newport Avenue, Newport Avenue, London, E14. Mr Smith reminded Members that the application fell within the planning functions of the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (LTGDC) therefore it was not for decision by the Authority.
However the Council as a statutory consultee had been invited to make observations on the application. The Committee were therefore asked to considered and endorse Officers recommendations on the application to form the Council’s observations.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the meeting.
Cliff Prior spoke in objection to the proposal. He stated that 650 residents of the area had signed the petition against the scheme. The proposed was far too great for the site, twice in excess of policy requirements. The number of family sized homes and room sizes were inadequate and fell short of policy requirements. There would be inadequate amenity space. The scheme was out of character. The right to light report shows breaches the in the minimum levels. Mr Prior referred to other new developments in the area. In his opinion only two of which included affordable housing. Together with these developments, the proposal would create a sense of overdevelopment.
There were also no parking or deliveries spaces or room for reversing. The site had a poor Public Transport Level Assessment rating. (PTLA) Unauthorised parking was a problem in this area and often a source of hostility. Therefore, this proposal would put additional pressure on parking and could generate further conflict.
In reply to Members, Mr Prior commented on the consultation undertaken with residents. He was of the opinion that everyone who lived by the site objected to the scheme. According to the report, a number of the units exceeded the affordability threshold. Therefore were not affordable.
Dr. Mubeen Khan spoke in objection to the scheme. He also expressed concern over lack of parking, overshadowing, density, and loss of trees. He referred to a previous permission for the site which he considered provided greater amenity space and tree planting. He expressed concern that the original use and Section 106 Agreement could be changed. He questioned the policy and exceptional circumstances justifying this. There was also a lack of children’s facilities in the area and often fights over car parking spaces given the car free nature of area. Currently the green spaces were used by children. However it was now proposed that the some of the amenity space (roof terraces) only be used by the private units reducing community space.
Councillor Gloria Thienel spoke in opposition to the scheme welcoming the opportunity to voice her views at the Committee. She expressed objection at the design, overdevelopment of the area as the population had already reached its maximum potential. It would bloc views to Greenwich. The new development would also place additional pressure on existing infrastructure, (schools, heath services etc) already stretched to full capacity. There ... view the full minutes text for item 8.2 |