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 |
---|---|
Order of Business The order of business was varied at the meeting so that agenda item 6.3 Calders Wharf, Saunders Ness Road, London, E14 3EA (PA/12/02784 and PA/12/02785) was considered as the first planning application for decision. The remaining items of business followed the agenda order.
|
|
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.
Minutes: No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made.
Councillors Helal Abbas declared an interest in agenda items 6.2, 6 Boulcott Street, London, E1 0HR (PA/13/00697) and 6.5 St Clement's Hospital Site , 2 Bow Road, London E3, (PA/13/1532, PA/13/1533 and PA/13/1534).This was on the basis that the Councillor had received correspondence from interested parties. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 119 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting of the Development Committee held on 26th November 2013 – To follow.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 26th November 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.
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 AND MEETING GUIDANCE PDF 64 KB To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and meeting guidance. 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. Minutes: Nil Items. |
|
213-217 Bow Road, London, E3 2SJ (PA/13/00862 and PA/13/00863) PDF 549 KB Proposal: Demolition of existing warehouse building and erection of three blocks of three, four and six storeys to provide 36 dwellings together with ancillary parking and landscaping.
Recommendation: GRANT planning permission and conservation area consent subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Update Report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding planning permission and conservation area consent at 213-217 Bow Road, London for the demolition of existing warehouse building and erection of three blocks of three, four and six storeys to provide 36 dwellings together with ancillary parking and landscaping.
Kamlesh Harris (Planning Officer) presented the detailed report and the update. Ms Harris explained the location and surrounding area that was of mixed character within the Fairfield Road Conservation Area. Ms Harris also explained the outcome of the local consultation and the issues raised. She explained the justification for the loss of the existing warehouse building due to, amongst other issues, the lack of demand and changing nature of the area. The building was of low architectural quality so the proposed demolition would not cause any harm to the Conservation Area. The change of use to housing was also supported in policy. Therefore, on land use terms, the scheme was acceptable.
Members were also advised of the key features of the scheme including the design, the materials, the layout, the housing plans including 37% affordable housing (that exceeded the minimum target in policy) and a large number of family sized units. The Committee were also advised of the amenity space, the transport issues, the parking and cycle plans, the service and refuse facilities and the measures to enable fire access. It was considered that the impact on residential amenity was acceptable due to the mitigation measures. The s106 agreement had been subject to independent testing. This showed that the scheme delivered the maximum amount that could be supported in view of the affordable housing offer based on viability.
In summary, the application complied with policy and Officers were recommending that it be granted permission. In response to Members, Officers referred to the planning consent for the neighbouring site at 207-211 Bow Road. It was noted this application sought to replicate and complement the features of that scheme to prevent any undue impact on that site.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission and conservation area consent (PA/13/00862 and PA/13/00863) at 213-217 Bow Road, London, E3 2SJ be GRANTED for the demolition of existing warehouse building and erection of three blocks of three, four and six storeys to provide 36 dwellings together with ancillary parking and landscaping SUBJECT to:
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) within three months of the date of this resolution, to secure the planning obligations set out in the committee report.
3. That the Corporate Director, Development & Renewal and Head of Legal Services is delegated authority to negotiate and approve the legal agreement indicated above.
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to issue the planning permission and conservation area consent and impose conditions plus informative to secure the matters set out in the committee report.
5. That, if ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|
6 Boulcott Street, London, E1 0HR (PA/13/00697) PDF 2 MB Proposal: Demolition of existing building and redevelopment to provide an 8 storey building with a social club (Use Class D2) on the ground and 1st floor with residential (Use Class C3) above, comprising 25 units (9 x 1 bed, 13 x 2 bed and 3 x 3 bed).
Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives
Minutes: Update Report tabled.
Councillors Anwar Khan and Rajib Ahmed left the meeting at 8pm (after the consideration of items 6.1 and 6.3).
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding planning permission at 6 Boulcott Street, London for the demolition of existing building and redevelopment to provide an 8 storey building with a social club on the ground and 1st floor with residential above, comprising 25 units.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Christopher Hicks spoke in objection acting on behalf of 1-9 Ratcliffe Cross Street. Whilst he was supportive of the development of the site, he considered that the plans would unduly effect the redevelopment of the adjacent Ratcliffe Cross site given the scale of the proposal and the site constraints. The development would be built right next to the boundary. The windows would take light from their site. As a result, it would prevent a large part of the site from being developed.
He also expressed concern at the impact on 3 and 5 Boulcott Street in terms of loss of light. The proposal would also create a ‘cannoning effect’ on Boulcott Street leading to poor outlooks and a sense of enclosure for residents.
Alongside this, there were major issues within the development itself with regard to excessive density, lack of affordable housing, poor outlooks for the future occupants and major sunlight failures within some of the proposed units.
He advised that there had been pre-application discussions with the Council in respect of the redevelopment of 1-9 Radcliffe Cross Street but that the development proposals had been stalled because of the current application. He considered that a joint scheme with the adjacent applicant should be considered that would better address these issues.
Colin Fowler spoke in objection. He expressed concern at the loss of light at 3 and 5 Boulcott Street and loss of privacy to the surrounding residents from the roof garden. The density range was twice the recommended and the proposal would also have an unacceptable impact on highway safety given that it would increase congestion on a very narrow one way street. There were also issues with noise and vibration and, according to the experts, some of the units may be unliveable.
Tony Collins spoke in support acting on behalf of the applicant and the Dockers Club. The applicant had fully taken into account the plans for the adjoining Ratcliffe Cross site and this had informed the plans. There would be no undue impact on such plans. He listed the benefits of the scheme.
Brian Nicholson spoke in support. He highlighted the history of the Dockers Club that had been based in its current location for many years and had always been open to the whole community. The building was in need of replacement. The plans would therefore provide a new purpose built community facility with contributions for health services and the street scene. The plans should be supported as the Dockers Club was an important social ... view the full minutes text for item 6.2 |
|
Calders Wharf, Saunders Ness Road, London, E14 3EA (PA/12/02784 and PA/12/02785) PDF 1 MB PA/12/02784 Proposal: The redevelopment of Calders Wharf community Centre comprising the demolition of the existing building (387sq.m GIA) (Use Class D1) and adjacent boundary wall, railings and planters.The construction of a four storey building to provide a new Community Centre and children's play group facility (494 sqm GIA) (Use Class D1) and 25 new residential units (9x1 bedroom;11x2 bedroom; 5x3 bedroom) with associated disabled parking and cycle parking, landscaped public open space, private amenity space and other associated works.
Recommendation:GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
PA/12/02785 Proposal: Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of an existing modern constructed, single storey community building (387 sq.m. GIA, Use Class D1) (the Calders Wharf Community Centre), a 2.4 metre high brick boundary wall, railings and planters and tree removal.
Recommendation: GRANT conservation area consent subject to conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Update Report tabled
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding planning permission and conservation area consent at Calders Wharf, Saunders Ness Road, London for the redevelopment of Calders Wharf Community Centre to provide a new Community Centre and children's play group facility and 25 new residential units with associated disabled parking and cycle parking, landscaped public open space, private amenity space and other associated works.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Geeta Kasanga spoke in objection. She objected to the impact on the nearby Island Gardens Conservation Area given the height of the proposal. The development would be very high and would harm and encroach on the Island Garden community space. She also questioned the legality of the development, in particularly the right of the developer to build on the land given the landownership disputes. She outlined the various issues relating to this dispute.
Councillor Peter Golds spoke in objection. Councillor Golds commented that he was speaking as the ward Councillor and on behalf of many residents. He objected to the impact of the development, particularly the height, on the neighbouring World Heritage Site buffer zone. The height of the development would be much higher than that of the surrounding buildings. The proposal was contrary to the regional policy that sought to prevent such damage. He also expressed concern about the plans to build over the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) structures and the ability of the proposal to safely support such works. This would be very dangerous given the risk that the proposed structure could collapse. He questioned whether the plans justified such risks and damage to the setting of the heritage assets especially as there were so few social housing units.
Councillor Gloria Thienel spoke in opposition as a ward Councillor. She commented on the strength of the public opposition to the scheme with 136 letters in objection, a petition against with 490 signatures and an on line petition with 670 objections. Whilst the site was owned partly by the Council and the DLR, it appeared that the proposals would mainly assist the developer in making a profit.
The plans would damage the setting of the heritage assets due the height, the poor design and by removing the boundary wall. A wide range of external bodies including the Friends of Island Gardens had objected to the scheme due to such issues. No noise study had been undertaken.
Councillor Thienel referred to the issues in the surrounding area following the removal of the public toilets in Manchester Road. These problems would spill over to the site when developed. Councillor Thienel also referred to the landownership disputes that were currently being investigated. The proposal should be rejected to preserve this ‘jewel in the crown’.
Heather Peters spoke in support as a local resident with children at the existing nursery. She considered that there was a shortage of nursery and education places on the Isle of Dogs so this proposal was welcomed. Whilst ... view the full minutes text for item 6.3 |
|
Cutty Sark House, Undine Road, London, E14 9UW (PA/13/01306) PDF 1 MB Proposal: Demolition and redevelopment of Cutty Sark House to provide 36 dwellings in two buildings of four and five storeys, together with landscaping, four disabled parking bays and associated works.
Recommendation: GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives
Minutes: Update Report tabled
Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding planning permission at Cutty Sark House, Undine Road, London for thedemolition and redevelopment of Cutty Sark House to provide 36 dwellings in two buildings of four and five storeys, together with landscaping, four disabled parking bays and associated works.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Detlev Munster spoke in objection as a resident of the adjacent development, the Clippers Quay Residential Estate (CQMC). He expressed concern at a number of oversights, leaving Council open to challenge. Firstly, he objected to the lack of a recent bat survey of the site as required by law. It was required that such a survey be carried out before consent could be given. He also objected to the lack of consideration given to the nearby gas unit. The health and safety implications of this should be made clear before the application was considered. He also expressed concern about the impact on CQMC land from the servicing on Undine Road.
He also objected to the loss of privacy to the surrounding properties due to overlooking, the loss of open space and the shortfall in affordable housing.
Jack Benson spoke in objection as a resident of the CQMC. He considered that the plans would impinge on the openness and spoil the unique character of the area. He also expressed concern about the noise impact on future occupants from the DLR and the proximity of the development to the street. He also objected to the lack of family units, the impact on parking from the car free agreement and the servicing and delivery plans. This would lead to trespass on CQMC land. He also objected to the limited separation distances; the lack of play space; the disregard to the loss of habitat and the poor relationship with the setting of the surrounding area. As a result, the proposal would lead to overdevelopment and turn the area into an ‘urban jungle’. He referred to a Parliamentary Undertaking, made in the early 1990s that, in his view, designated the site as an open space zone in compensation for the building of the Mudchute DLR station. The plans conflicted with this.
Councillor Peter Golds spoke in objection. He also emphasised the arguments around the impact of bats, the Parliamentary Undertaking and the impact on parking given the ability of future occupants to transfer existing permits. He also objected to the height of the proposal. The plans would tower over the Chapel House Conservation Area. Therefore, would harm the setting of the Conservation Area.
Roger Arkell spoke in support. The proposal would deliver new homes with a policy compliant level of affordable housing. There was an existing planning consent for the site and this proposal was very similar to this. He noted the concerns around servicing from Undine Road. However, it was considered that the servicing routes were acceptable. The applicant had the right to use the road for such ... view the full minutes text for item 6.4 |
|
St Clement's Hospital Site , 2 Bow Road, London E3, (PA/13/1532, PA/13/1533 and PA/13/1534) PDF 1 MB PA/13/01532. Proposal: Full planning permission for the redevelopment of the Grade II listed former St Clement’s hospital site comprising the part demolition (and infill of associated basements), part refurbishment and change of use of the existing hospital buildings and the construction of eight new buildings between two and nine storeys high to accommodate 252 residential units, 306 sqm (GIA) community floorspace (D1 Use Class), 174 sq m (GIA) commercial floorspace (B1/A2 Use Class), 69sqm (GIA) café/restaurant (A3/A4 Use Class,) 32 parking spaces, cycle parking, refuse storage, plant equipment, private and communal amenity space and associated works.
PA/13/001534. Conservation area consent for the demolition of unlisted buildings (post-dating 1948) and removal of and works to trees in association with the redevelopment of Grade II listed St Clement’s site.
PA/13/01533. Listed building consent for the demolition of the Timber Building, Catering Department, Nurses Home and Old Boiler House; the limited partial demolition of the Laundry building, the Bungalow, Administration Block, North Block, South Block, Generator and boundary walls; and the repair and conversion of the retained listed buildings in association with the planning application for the redevelopment of the St Clement’s hospital site.
Recommendation: GRANT planning permission and conservation area consent and Listed building consent subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Jerry Bell (Applications Team Leader, Development and Renewal) introduced the item regarding planning permission, conservation area consent and listed building consent at St Clement's Hospital Site 2 Bow Road, London to facilitate the redevelopment of the Grade II listed former St Clement’s hospital site comprising the part demolition, part refurbishment and change of use of the existing hospital buildings to accommodate 252 residential units, commercial floorspace, parking spaces, cycle parking, refuse storage, plant equipment, private and communal amenity space and associated works.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Dennis Twomey spoke in objection to the application as a resident of a nearby property. Whilst supportive of the redevelopment of the site, his main concern was the impact on light to his property. He considered that the failings in the report (up to 20% to Brokesley Street properties) were significant and would affect the occupants quality of life. He acknowledged that there was an acute need for housing in the area. However, he considered that a different layout and design could solve the issues and should be explored. Therefore, he requested that the Committee reject this application and a better scheme be brought forward.
Katherine Tyrell spoke in objection to the scheme on behalf of the Mile End Residents Association and residents of Brokesley Street. Whilst supportive of the redevelopment of the site, she objected to the impact on Brokesley Street in terms of loss of light. She also expressed concern at the impact on 644 Mile End Road. It appeared that no real consideration had been given to this. A further concern was the impact from night time deliveries, especially on the children sleeping in the nearby houses. This could go on for many years. She requested that all deliveries and construction work take place in normal hours. She also requested clarification around the s106 contribution for education (in terms of how and where it would be spent) in view of the additional pressure on education services.
Adrian Bohr spoke in favour of the proposal. He highlighted the merits of the proposal and the extent of the community consultation where most of the respondents had been broadly supportive of the scheme. In response to the feedback, the developers had amended the scheme to include the community floor space. The impact on 644 Mile End Road had been considered and there would be no undue impact. There would be minimal out of hours deliveries and servicing. Brokesley Street would not be used for this purpose. However, the applicant was willing to review the Construction Management Plan to ensure that such activities mostly took place on site. The community floor space would be in place in perpetuity.
Councillor Rachael Saunders spoke in support of the scheme as the local ward Councillor. She reported that, whilst she did initially lodge objections, having now heard about the scheme during the consultation, she now welcomed the proposals especially the plans for the community centre at the John Denham Building. At ... view the full minutes text for item 6.5 |
|
PLANNING APPEALS REPORT PDF 75 KB Recommendation: To note the report.
Minutes: On a unanimous vote the Committee RESOLVED:
That the details and outcomes as set out in the report be noted. |
|