Agenda, decisions and draft 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 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Note: The agenda order was changed at the meeting but for ease of reference it is set out as on the agenda. |
|||
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: Apologies for absence was received from Councillor Md. Maium Miah and from Councillor Peter Golds for item 6.2 (313 Cambridge Heath Road, London E2 9LQ (PA/12/00623 and PA/12/00624)
Minutes: Apologies for absence was received from Councillor Md. Maium Miah and from Councillor Peter Golds for item 6.2 (313 Cambridge Heath Road, London E2 9LQ (PA/12/00623 and PA/12/00624) |
|||
DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS PDF 56 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 Chief Executive. Decision: No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were declared.
Minutes: No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were declared.
|
|||
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES PDF 125 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 10th October 2012. Decision: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10th October 2012 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 October 2012 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 PDF 42 KB To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee.
The deadline for registering to speak is 4pm Monday 12th November 2012. 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.
|
|||
83 New Road, London, E1 1HH (PA/12/00605) PDF 732 KB Decision: On a vote of 3 in favour and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission PA/12/00605 at 83 New Road, London, E1 1HH be REFUSED for change of use from (A1) retail to mixed use coffee shop and restaurant (A1/A3) with no primary hot food cooking facilities, no associated extract flue system and seating area limited to ground floor only; including retention of No.4 AC units and alterations to shop front including new access door for the reasons set out paragraph 3 of the report.
Minutes: Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal regarding 83 New Road London.
Richard Murrell (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report. At the last meeting on 10th October 2012, Members were minded to refuse the application due to: the impact on residents particularly from noise and nuisance from the premises and the overconcentration of A3 uses in the area.
Officers had since interpreted these reasons and had drafted suggested reasons for refusal as set out in the report. It was pointed out that the reasons were set out in paragraph 3 not 3.3 as set out in the report. Officers considered that these reasons were defendable at appeal.
On a vote of 3 for and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission PA/12/00605 at 83 New Road, London, E1 1HH for Change of use from (A1) retail to mixed use coffee shop and restaurant (A1/A3) with no primary hot food cooking facilities, no associated extract flue system and seating area limited to ground floor only; including retention of No.4 AC units and alterations to shop front including new access door. be REFUSED for the reasons set out paragraph 3 of the report detailed below:
|
|||
313 Cambridge Heath Road, London E2 9LQ (PA/12/00623 and PA/12/00624) PDF 101 KB Additional documents: Decision: It was noted that Councillor Craig Aston could not vote on this item as he had not been present at the previous meeting where this item was considered and deferred (12th September 2012 Committee meeting). The three Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Shiria Khatun and Kosru Uddin.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission PA/12/00623 at 313 Cambridge Heath Road, London E2 9LQ be GRANTED for demolition of existing 3 -storey building and redevelopment of site by construction of a new 5 -storey building with basement and lower ground floor levels to provide 80 bedroom Hotel (Use Class C1) with associated rear servicing bay subject to the following:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report.
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
4. 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.
5. That Conservation Area ConsentPA/12/00624 at 313 Cambridge Heath Road, London E2 9LQ be GRANTED for demolition of existing 3 - storey building in connection with the construction of a 5 – storey building to provide a new 80 bed hotel and associated access and parking arrangements subject to conditions set out in the report.
6. That, if within 3 months of the date of this Committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission and conservation area consent.
Minutes: It was noted that Councillor Craig Aston could not vote on this item as he had not been present at the previous meeting where this item was considered and deferred (12th September 2012 Committee meeting).
Jerry Bell introduced the item regarding 313 Cambridge Heath Road.
The Committee were reminded that on 12th September 2012, Members were minded to defer the application due to concerns over the contemporary design of the northern element of the proposed scheme. Whilst they were satisfied with the scheme in principle including the size and bulk they considered that this element should be redesigned to fit in with the surrounding area including the Museum of Childhood. The applicant had since redesigned the scheme as requested and the revised scheme was before Members for consideration.
Benson Olaseni (Planning Officer) presented the detailed reported. He briefly explained the overall scheme. He described the previous design of the northern elevation of the building and the new design that consisted of more traditional materials. In conclusion, the scheme as a whole complied with policy and officers recommended that planning permission should be granted for the development.
In response, Members welcomed the amendments. They commented that it was encouraging to see that the applicant had taken on board Members concerns and had revised the scheme accordingly.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission PA/12/00623 at 313 Cambridge Heath Road, London E2 9LQ be GRANTED for the demolition of existing 3 -storey building and redevelopment of site by construction of a new 5 -storey building with basement and lower ground floor levels to provide 80 bedroom Hotel (Use Class C1) with associated rear servicing bay subject to the following:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
4. 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
5. That Conservation Area ConsentPA/12/00624 at 313 Cambridge Heath Road, London E2 9LQ be GRANTED for the demolition of existing 3 - storey building in connection with the construction of a 5 – storey building to provide a new 80 bed hotel and associated access and parking arrangements subject to the conditions set out
6. That, if within 3 months of the date of this Committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission and conservation area consent.
|
|||
Councillor Anwar Khan joined the meeting at this point 7:10pm for the remaining items of business |
|||
12 Hanbury Street, London (PA/11/01488) PDF 1 MB Decision: On a vote of 4 in favour and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission PA/11/01488 at 12 Hanbury Street, London be GRANTED for partial retention of, with amendment to, new kitchen extract system with duct riser on rear elevation terminating vertically at roof level with Swedish Cowl subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.
Minutes: Jerry Bell introduced the report 12 Hanbury Street, London regarding a new kitchen extract system with external duct riser.
Richard Murrell (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report. He explained the planning and enforcement history including the previous refusal in January 2011. The application was before Members as 12 representations in objection had been received during the local consultation along with a petition containing 19 signatures. The concerns covered: the design, amenity (i.e. noise, odours, fume control) and the impact on highways.
Mr Murrell described the revisions to the proposed flue to address the previous concerns. The flue would now terminate near roof level with a Swedish cowl to disperse the fumes and odours.
Environmental Health were satisfied with the revised scheme subject to an informative regarding maintenance. Highways services were satisfied with the proposal and the height of the under croft in terms of vehicular access to the yard.
It was also proposed that the flue would be painted back to minimise visual impact.
Overall, Officers considered that the scheme was acceptable and that the changes addressed the previous issues. Officers recommended that the planning permission should be granted for the scheme.
On a vote of 4 in favour and 1 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission PA/11/01488 at 12 Hanbury Street, London be GRANTED for partial retention of, with amendment to, new kitchen extract system with duct riser on rear elevation terminating vertically at roof level with Swedish Cowl subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.
|
|||
Decision: On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission PA/12/01817 at Site at South East Junction of Whitechapel Road and New Road, Whitechapel Road (RoyalLondonHospital) be GRANTED for variation of condition 1 of planning permission granted on 26th January 2010, reference PA/09/2608 to enable the retention of a temporary car park for a further limited period subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.
Minutes: Jerry Bell introduced the application. The proposal sought to vary condition 1 of planning permission PA/09/2608 to enable the retention of the temporary car park for a further limited period.
Richard Murrell presented the detailed report. He outlined the planning history of the case. He referred to the plans to redevelop and refurbish the RoyalLondonHospital. To facilitate this, a limited permission was granted for a temporary car park until 2010. The permission was then extended again until November 2012 due to delays with the hospital development.
This application now sought to extend that planning permission for a further period (until 31st December 2015 or the completion of the hospitals new multi-storey car park whichever is the sooner) to allow further time for the hospital development to be completed. The applicant had looked at other sites on the hospital estate but none had proven suitable. The car park was required by the hospital for operational reasons.
One of main issues raised in objection related to the access from MountTerrace. However a new barrier had recently been installed to restrict access from this point and this should address the concerns.
In response, Members sought assurances about the hospital completion date of December 2015. Officers expected that it would be completed by then. It was unlikely that this temporary permission would be extended again at that time as set out in the informative to that effect. The Chair questioned if the car park could be accessed by Whitechapel Road and Mr Murrell explained the reasons why this might not be possible. One reason was the change in level from the road to the car park.
Members also queried progress with the landscaping works for the site. There was a need to improve the appearance of the site and this should be encouraged. Mr Murrell explained the steps being taken in this area and made suggestions on what else could be done. Officers would pursue this matter further with the applicant to take forward such improvements.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission PA/12/01817 at Site at South East Junction of Whitechapel Road and New Road, Whitechapel Road (Royal London Hospital) be GRANTED for variation of condition 1 of planning permission granted on 26th January 2010, reference PA/09/2608 to enable the retention of a temporary car park for a further limited period subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.
|
|||
Land bounded by Watts Grove and Gale Street, London, E3 3RE (PA/11/03577) PDF 808 KB Decision: Update report tabled
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission PA/11/03577 at Land bounded by Watts Grove and Gale Street, London, E3 3RE be GRANTED for the redevelopment to provide three residential blocks ranging from 4-6 storeys to provide 50 dwellings (11 x 1 bedroom, 25 x 2 bedroom, 9 x 3 bedroom and 5 x 4 bedroom) plus bicycle parking, refuse recycling facilities and access together with landscaping including public, communal and private amenity space and creation of an east-west public walkway from Watts Grove to Gale Street subject to the conditions in the report AND the two additional conditions agreed by the applicant at the meeting as set out below:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement to secure the planning obligations set out in the report.
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above.
4. 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.
5. That if, within three months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning permission. AND
6. The two conditions agreed by the applicant at the meeting requiring:
Minutes: Update tabled.
Jerry Bell introduced the item Land bounded by Watts Grove and Gale Street for the provision of 3 residential blocks and associated works.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the meeting.
Michael Druce spoke in objection to the scheme. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of the freeholder of the commercial units near the proposed scheme. He referred to their letter of objection. The first two points had been addressed with the removal of the disabled car parking bay and the conditions regarding the pedestrian route that were welcomed. However the last two concerns in the letter had yet to be addressed. These related to:
In response to Members about contact with the applicant, Mr Druce stated that he had not discussed directly with them these specific two proposals. However the application had been amended to address the first two points so they were aware of the letter and it had been made public for some time. Regarding the noise impact, the report failed to address this. The report only referred to the noise impact from construction.
Dirk Peltzer also spoke in objection to the scheme. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Residents Association of David Hewitt House. He was not opposed to the principle of scheme. However he was concerned that the scheme would result in overdevelopment due to the close proximity of the scheme to David Hewitt House and the height and scale. As a result, there would be an increased sense of enclosure; a loss of light to such properties and a loss of privacy. The separation distances (17 metres) fell short of the policy requirements. The sun light levels failed to meet the policy requirements. The density exceeded the policy requirements. It was out of character with the area. The proposal should be reduced in height and moved further away from David Hewitt House.
Charles Moran spoke in support of the scheme. He outlined the applicants strong track record in providing similar housing developments with the Council. He stressed the merits of the scheme. The scheme would provide 100% affordable units at genuinely affordable rent levels.
The applicant had worked closely with the Council’s planning department over the last two years and the application was subject to extensive community. This included 1-1 meetings with neighbours and consultation events with opportunities for feedback. The scheme had been carefully designed to prevent overshadowing and overlooking with set backs to aspects of the design. Whilst there would be some impact on light to a small number ... view the full minutes text for item 7.3 |
|||
Royal Tower Lodge, 40 Cartwright Street, London E1 8LX (PA/12/02235) PDF 493 KB Decision: Update report tabled
On a vote of 3 in favour and 2 against, the Committee RESOLVED:
That planning permission PA/12/02235 at Royal Tower Lodge, 40 Cartwright Street, London E1 8LX be GRANTED for the erection of two additional floors on existing building to provide 9 self-contained flats (7 x 2 bedroom, 1 x 3 bedroom flat and 1 x 1 bedroom flats) plus communal amenity space at roof top level subject to the conditions and in formatives set out in the report.
Minutes: Update report tabled
Mr Bell introduced the report regarding Royal Tower Lodge 40 Cartwright Street for the addition of two floors on the existing building.
The Chair then invited the registered speakers to address the Committee.
Rowland Jacks spoke in objection. He stated that he was one of 60 residents of the existing building. He objected to the plans to build on the roof. He especially objected to the actions of the freeholder, in making this application. They did not inform the residents and submitted the first application during the Olympic period at an inconvenient time. There was no need for the additional units; they would be penthouses not suitable for families. There were also cracks in the existing building and this could worsen this. This was also incremental development as the plans were for 9 units just under the 10 required in policy for affordable housing provision. If approved there was little confidence that the applicant would adhere to the conditions.
Charles Moran addressed the committee as the applicant’s architect. He pointed out that the applicant was St James Development (UK) Ltd and had a proven track record in delivering similar developments. They had no connection with Consensus Business Group mentioned by Mr Jacks. The applicant had carried out extensive consultation for over a year with the Council’s Planning Officers and also residents. He referred to the concerns with the previous scheme. As a result the scheme had been amended to overcome the issues. In terms of the consultation, the applicant had held an open forum in March 2012 and a conference in a hotel where they made a presentation. Only 9 of the residents of the existing building attended this.
Members asked about the impact from construction dust on the residents below, for example on balconies and windows, and how this would be prevented to stop any health impacts. Mr Moran responded that it was planned to carry out most of the construction off site. Most of the material would be dry with minimal dust, for example timber framing. It was planned to complete the works as soon as possible.
Angelina Eke (Planning Officer)presented the detailed report. She explained in detail the proposal including the site location, character of the area, proposed floor layout, the materials, the improvements in refuse and servicing and increase in cycling provision. Overall it was considered that the scheme was acceptable with no adverse impact on the main building. In terms of the health impacts, it was possible to require a construction management plan to make certain there was no impact on residents.
In response to Members about sunlight, Officers highlighted the correction in the update regarding paragraph 8.29 of the main report. It stated that the paragraph should read that there would be no undue detrimental impacts on the amenity of adjoining residents (in terms of sunlight and day light). Members were satisfied with this answer.
Questions were raised about the family units, particularly whether more could be provided. ... view the full minutes text for item 7.4 |
|||
Additional documents:
Decision: On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the application PA/12/01642, PA/12/01784, PA/12/01760, PA/12/01790, PA/12/01793, PA/12/01819, PA/12/01877 at the Boundary Estate - Marlow House, Clifton House, Molesey House, Sandford House, Hurley House, Sunbury House, Taplow House, Chertsey House, Shiplake House, Wargrave House, Walton House, Henley House, Hedsor House, Laleham House, and Iffley House for the installation of 7 communal digital TV systems to serve 15 blocks, each comprising three antennas and one satellite dish, with associated external cabling, including the removal of all existing unauthorised satellite dishes be referred to the Government Office for West Midlands with the recommendation that the Council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions set out in the report.
Minutes: Richard Murrell presented the report and gave a brief presentation on the scheme. It was noted that the Council could not determine applications for listed building consent for it own buildings.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the application PA/12/01642, PA/12/01784, PA/12/01760, PA/12/01790, PA/12/01793, PA/12/01819, PA/12/01877 at the Boundary Estate - Marlow House, Clifton House, Molesey House, Sandford House, Hurley House, Sunbury House, Taplow House, Chertsey House, Shiplake House, Wargrave House, Walton House, Henley House, Hedsor House, Laleham House, and Iffley House for the installation of 7 communal digital TV systems to serve 15 blocks, each comprising three antennas and one satellite dish, with associated external cabling, including the removal of all existing unauthorised satellite dishes be referred to the Government Office for West Midlands with the recommendation that the Council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions set out in the report.
|
|||
Lansbury Lawrence Primary School, Cordelia Street, London, E14 6DZ (PA/12/02468) PDF 162 KB Decision: On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the application PA/12/02468 Lansbury Lawrence Primary School, Cordelia Street, London, E14 6DZ for listed Building Consent for the installation of new school entrance gates on Ricardo Street formed within existing school perimeter metal fence and brick wall be referred to the Government Office for West Midlands with the recommendation that the Council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions set out in the report.
Minutes: Amy Thompson (Planning Officer) presented the report and gave a brief presentation on the scheme. It was noted that the Council could not determine applications for listed building consent for it own buildings.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the application PA/12/02468 Lansbury Lawrence Primary School, Cordelia Street, London, E14 6DZ for listed Building Consent for the installation of new school entrance gates on Ricardo Street formed within existing school perimeter metal fence and brick wall be referred to the Government Office for West Midlands with the recommendation that the Council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions set out in the report.
|
|||
Decision: On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the details and outcomes as set out in the report be noted.
Minutes: Jerry Bell presented the report.
On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the details and outcomes as set out in the report be noted.
|
|||