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 |
---|---|
Election of Vice-Chair for 2013/2014. To elect a Vice-Chair of the Development Committee for the Municipal Year 2013/2014.
Decision: It was proposed by Councillor Helal Abbas and RESOLVED
That Councillor Anwar Khan be elected Vice-Chair of the Development Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2013/2014
Minutes: It was proposed by Councillor Helal Abbas and RESOLVED
That Councillor Anwar Khan be elected Vice-Chair of the Development Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2013/2014
|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Decision: Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillor Kosru Uddin.
Minutes: Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillor Kosru Uddin.
|
|
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 Monitoring Officer.
Decision: Councillor Helal Abbas declared a personal interest in agenda item 9.4, 86 Brick Lane, London, E1 6RL (PA/13/00494, PA/13/00495). He indicated that his interest was prejudicial and that he would leave the meeting for the consideration of this item.
Councillor Judith Gardiner declared an interest in item 9.3, 225 Armagh Road (PA/13/00683) as she was a tenant of an Old Ford Housing Association property.
Minutes: Councillor Helal Abbas declared a personal interest in agenda item 9.4, 86 Brick Lane, London, E1 6RL (PA/13/00494, PA/13/00495). He indicated that his interest was prejudicial and that he would leave the meeting for the consideration of this item.
Councillor Judith Gardiner declared an interest in item 9.3, 225 Armagh Road (PA/13/00683) as she was a tenant of an Old Ford Housing Association property.
|
|
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES PDF 107 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of Development Committee held on 15th May 2013. Decision: The Committee RESOLVED
That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15th May 2013 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 15th May 2013 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
|
|
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE, QUORUM, MEMBERSHIP AND DATES OF MEETINGS PDF 60 KB Additional documents:
Decision: The Committee RESOLVED that
That the Development Committee’s Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and Dates of future meetings for 2013/14 as set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to the report be noted.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED that
That the Development Committee’s Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and Dates of future meetings for 2013/14 as set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to the report be noted.
|
|
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 at this meeting is 4pm Monday 17th June 2013.
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.
|
|
DEFERRED ITEMS Nil items. Decision: Nil Items. Minutes: Nil Items.
|
|
Additional documents:
Decision: Update Report Tabled.
On a vote of 0 in favour and 4 against the Officer recommendation with 1 abstention, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant Planning Permission and Conservation Area Consent (PA/11/03371 - 3372)at Site At Bow Wharf Adjoining Regents Canal and Old Ford Road, Old Ford Road, London be NOT ACCEPTED for the demolition of existing buildings to facilitate the redevelopment of the site to provide three buildings ranging in height from 3 - 6 storeys to provide 34 residential units comprising 10 x 1 bedroom, 15 x 2 bedroom, 4 x 3 bedroom and 5 x 4 bedroom houses, 74.8 square metres of commercial floor space to be used as either Use Class A1, A2, A3,B1 or D1, including provision of one accessible parking space, cycle parking, public and private amenity space and associated works.
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over:
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Anwar Khan, Tim Archer, Judith Gardiner and Gulam Robbani).
Minutes: Update Report tabled.
The Committee considered the schemes regarding the site at Bow Wharf Adjoining Regents Canal and Old Ford Road, Old Ford Road, London (PA/11/03371 - 3373). The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Tom Ridge of the East London Waterways Group spoke against the scheme. He considered that Bow Wharf was the main asset of this waterway network due to the unique asserts including the canal, bridge and the warehouse. The warehouse was one of the few surviving historic canal side warehouses. Therefore, they needed to be preserved. The plans contradicted the Planning Inspectors report that any scheme should be no higher than the converted warehouse. Therefore, could not be successfully defended on appeal.
He drew attention to the suggested reasons for refusal in the May Committee report - that the bulk, height, mass etc. would fail to protect and the preserve the Regents Canal Conservation Area. The applicant and the Canal Trust had a duty to protect the setting of the Canal so were failing in their duty.
Malcolm Tucker from the Greater London Industrial Archaeology Society spoke against the scheme. He highlighted the key features of the site that made it a unique and special place in the Regent’s Canal Conservation Area, including the historic canal junction and bridge, the warehouse, the old low density quality of the canal side. Therefore, it should be protected.
He considered that the plans would overhang the court yard, dominate and obscure views of the warehouse due to the height and scale of the development.
He expressed concern about overdevelopment, as shown by the lack of space to recess the balconies and the overconcentration of small flats.
The Officers report was biased in terms of the impact on the Conservation Area in favour of the developer. The May 2013 update report was very selective.
The scheme failed to protect the Conservation Area so should be refused.
Kieran Rushe spoke in support of the application as the agent. He reported that the scheme was a joint venture with the applicant and the Canal and Rivers Trust. It was designed to preserve and protect the canal and area. The scheme would generate revenue for the Canal Trust to invest in the canal. The plans were the result of close engagement with Council Officers since 2010 and also community consultation to overcome the previous issues of concern with the scheme.
He considered that the impact was acceptable as set out in the report in terms of design, height density etc. He highlighted the merits of the scheme, including 34 new houses, 29% affordable housing with a high percentage of family housing, good public transport links and a full s106. The restrictions on the protected bridge were to be maintained and the Fire Service were satisfied with the access plans from Grove Road.
In reply to Members, he stated that Block C included commercial space that could be used for community facilities. The applicant would be exploring different uses for the building ... view the full minutes text for item 9.1 |
|
11 Solebay Street, London E1 4PW (PA/13/00444) PDF 240 KB Decision: Update Report Tabled.
On a vote of 2 in favour and 3 against the Officer recommendation, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission (PA/13/00444) at 11 Solebay Street, London E1 4PW be NOT ACCEPTED for change of use from office/warehouse use (Use Class B1/B8) to a two form entry primary school (Use Class D1) involving minor alterations to infill existing parking and service bays and a roof-top extension providing additional teaching and external play space.
The Committee were minded to refuse the scheme due to concerns over:
· Health and safety matters. · Congestion. · Noise and Vibration – with relation to the rooftop playspace
In accordance with Development Procedural Rules, the application was DEFERRED to enable Officers to prepare a supplementary report to a future meeting of the Committee setting out proposed detailed reasons for refusal and the implications of the decision.
(The Members that voted on this item were Councillors Helal Abbas, Anwar Khan, Tim Archer, Judith Gardiner and Gulam Robbani).
Minutes: Update Report tabled.
The Committee considered the schemes regarding 11 Solebay Street, London E1 4PW for change of use at the site for a new primary school.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
John Veness spoke in objection to the scheme. He expressed concern about health and safety matters given the proximity of the proposed school to industrial units and other places such as the Council depot and ambulance station. He highlighted the difficulties in educating very young children about the traffic from such units. Therefore, the pupils were at risk of having accidents. He drew attention to the concerns of Environmental Health about the noise from the roof top terrace. This needed to be looked at. It was stated that the site had been marketed since August 2011. However, this was at a very height rate. Based on a more fairer price, it could be occupied and create jobs in the area.
In response to Members, he stated that his premises was an electrical contractor business with entrances that were very close to the entrance to the school. When open, this gave direct access to the shop. Also, their trucks would reverse outwards at a very short distance to the school. He suggested that both entrances be located in Toby Lane to protect pupil safety. He had submitted a written letter of objection to the Planning Department detailing these concerns.
Eion O’Connor spoke in support as the applicant’s agent. He highlighted the need for school places in the Borough and to relocate the existing school on this site as shown by the evidence. The policy stated that new schools should be positively considered. The new guidance on free schools supported this further. The site had been marketed since 2011(without success) and had no site allocation. The relevant professionals including TfL and the Council’s Highways Officers had considered that the scheme was acceptable on highways grounds.
Members sought assurances regarding the health and safety of the pupils. In reply, Mr O’ Connor highlighted the steps to ensure this. It was proposed to provide two entrances with an internal waiting area for pupils and to stagger opening hours. He also highlighted the Voluntary One Way System to manage traffic. All of this would be secured by the Travel Plan and would be constantly monitored. The applicant had explored other sites. However, it was felt that the site was the most suitable given the proximity to the pupil base and for viability reasons.
Members questioned whether both entrances could be located on Toby Lane in view of the safety concerns? In response, it was considered better to have the entrances at separate points and there were measures as listed above to minimise congestion on the street.
Benson Olaseni (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and update. He explained the application site, the existing use, the surrounding buildings, the access routes and the outcome of the statutory consultation. He addressed the main issues raised in objection around land use, ... view the full minutes text for item 9.2 |
|
225 Armagh Road (PA/13/00683) PDF 269 KB Decision: Update Report tabled.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/13/00683) at 225 Armagh Road be GRANTED for the demolition of existing building on site and the erection of No. 8 new residential units and ancillary caretakers facility SUBJECT to:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement, to the satisfaction of the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services) to secure the obligations set out in the report.
3. That the Corporate Director of Development and Renewal is delegated powers to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting with normal delegated authority.
4. That the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services) is delegated power to complete the legal agreement.
5. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters in the report.
6. Any other informative(s) considered necessary by the Head of Development Decisions.
7. That, if within three 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.
Minutes: Update Report tabled.
The Committee considered the scheme at 225 Armagh Road for the demolition of existing building on site and the erection of 8 new residential units and an ancillary caretakers facility.
Iyabo Johnson (Planning Officer) gave a detailed presentation of the scheme covering the site and surrounds, existing use and the outcome of the statutory consultation. The proposal was for eight affordable units with five family sized units. All of the units would be provided with private amenity space and would be made available within the affordable rent tenure. The existing training facility will be relocated nearby. The design comprised three parts of varying heights to reflect the area. The materials were in keeping with area. The details would be submitted for approval. There were some minor failings in sunlight in respect of existing and the proposed units. However, given that the properties were generally dual aspect and have private gardens, it was considered to be acceptable. There were also measures to prevent any undue impact on amenity. Overall, the scheme complied with policy and should be granted.
In reply to Members, it was reported that the scheme would be subject to a car free agreement. However, the occupants could apply for a private parking permit under the estate management scheme. The scheme would also be subject to the Council’s parking permit transfer scheme.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
1. That planning permission (PA/13/00683) at 225 Armagh Road be GRANTED for the demolition of existing building on site and the erection of No. 8 new residential units and ancillary caretakers facility SUBJECT to:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement, to the satisfaction of the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services) to secure the obligations set out in the report.
3. That the Corporate Director of Development and Renewal is delegated powers to negotiate the legal agreement indicated above acting with normal delegated authority.
4. That the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services) is delegated power to complete the legal agreement.
5. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters in the report.
6. Any other informative(s) considered necessary by the Head of Development Decisions.
7. That, if within three 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.
|
|
Councillor Helal Abbas (Chair) left the meeting for the remaining items of business.
As a result, Councillor Anwar Khan, (Vice-Chair) acted as Chair for the rest of the agenda.
Councillor Anwar Khan (Chair)
|
|
86 Brick Lane, London, E1 6RL (PA/13/00494, PA/13/00495) PDF 562 KB Decision: Councillor Helal Abbas (Chair) left the meeting for the remaining items of business.
As a result, Councillor Anwar Khan, (Vice-Chair) acted as Chair for the rest of the agenda.
Update Report Tabled.
Councillor Anwar Khan suggested an additional condition regarding the creation of a taxi bay in view of the impact of taxi drop of/ pick ups. This was agreed by the Committee.
(The Committee voted separately on the Planning Permission and Conservation Area consent but for ease of reference they are recorded together in the decision)
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED
1. That Planning Permission and Conservation Area Consent PA/13/00494, PA/13/00495) at 86 Brick Lane, London, E1 6RL be GRANTED for the demolition of existing building and erection of a part 4 and part 5-storey (plus lower ground floor) building to provide a hotel (5,077sqm) and a ground floor level unit (15sqm) for use as A1 (Shops) or A2 (Financial & professional services) SUBJECT to:
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 if, within three months of the date of this committee meeting the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director of Development & Renewal has delegated authority to refuse planning permission.
5. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the Planning Permission and Conservation Area Consent to secure the matters set out in the report.
6. AND the additional condition agreed by the Committee:
Minutes: Update Report Tabled.
The Committee considered the scheme at 86 Brick Lane for the demolition of existing building and erection of a hotel.
Graham Harrington (Planning Officer) gave a detailed presentation of the scheme. He explained the site location and surrounding area including the Brick Land and Fournier Street Conservation Area. He explained the planning history and the extant schemes for a similar proposal that was a material consideration and could be built out. He explained the outcome of the consultation and the re- consultation on the amended plans (as revised in May 2013). The Conservation and Design Advisory Panel were generally supportive of the revised scheme. The Spitalfields Community Group also welcomed the revisions and had withdrawn their petition subject to the imposition of the s106 to manage the traffic movements on Fournier Street. Mr Harrington described the improvements on the extant scheme. He also highlighted the trip forecast for the development (with worse case scenarios) and the proposed s106 regarding Fournier Street. The amenity impact was considered acceptable. Overall, Officers considered that the scheme was acceptable on planning grounds and should be granted.
Mr Harrington explained that Transport and Highways maintain their long term interest in an improved building line that does not project into the public highway.
In reply to Members, Officers explained the revised layout compared to the extant scheme. A key change was the removal of leisure facilities and an increase in bedroom units. Officers noted the concerns about increased traffic and disturbance from late night visitors to the surrounding residential areas such as Brick Lane. They reported on the measures to minimize this and protect amenity, including restrictions on coach bookings and the opening hours for the retail use. Furthermore, the trip forecast showed that most of the visitors would travel to the facility by public transport and that there would be a major reduction in traffic from the change of use.
The hotel would be fully accessible for disabled people in general and 10% of rooms would be wheel chair accessible. There were parking bays available for disabled people. There were also controls on the hours of construction to be secured under a Construction Management Plan and measures to prevent vehicles travelling the wrong way up Fournier Street. The listed buildings were some distance away, therefore should not be affected by construction.
It was required that details of the materials be submitted including those for the windows that should address the comments of the Spitalfields Community Group. It was considered that the Crossrail funding was acceptable given the full package of contributions and the revisions to the design secured after negotiation. Officers also clarified the waste and servicing plans and the fire access plans. The Fire Authority were satisfied with these plans.
Members raised questions about the taxi drop off/pick up points. It was considered that the streets around the site were very narrow so such activity could cause problems. As a result, support was expressed for the provision of a taxi bay ... view the full minutes text for item 9.4 |
|
PLANNING APPEALS REPORT PDF 85 KB Decision: On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the details and outcomes as set out in the report be noted.
Minutes: On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED
That the details and outcomes as set out in the report be noted.
|
|