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 |
---|---|
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. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 82 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 24th July 2014.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24th July 2014 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
In response to a Member, Officers confirmed that the deferred application 113-115 Roman Road, London, E2 0QN (PA/14/00662) would be brought back to the 15th September 2014 meeting of the Committee for further consideration.
|
|
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 94 KB To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and meeting guidance.
Minutes: The Committee noted the procedure and guidance.
|
|
DEFERRED ITEMS No Items. Minutes: None. |
|
65 Tredegar Square, London, E3 (PA/14/104) PDF 834 KB Proposal:
Demolition of existing warehouse and erection of 8 no self-contained houses with 2 no on site car parking spaces.
Recommendation:
To GRANT planning permission subject to conditions, variation and informatives in relation to the matters set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update Report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application at 65 Tredegar Square for a development that was very similar to an extant scheme granted by the Development Committee in November 2013.
Katherine Emmett spoke in objection as a resident of Mile End Road. She stated that she was speaking on behalf of many residents of Mile End Road and Tredegar Square on the side nearest the proposal. She was not opposed to the redevelopment of this site. However, she objected to overlooking from the roof terraces to neighbours properties given the separation distances. The terraces would harm privacy. She considered that these problems were due to the overdevelopment of the site. The wall at Mile End Gardens should be retained to protect residents safety and security in view of the history of such issues here.
She also objected to the inconsistences in the information about the increase in the roof height. This would worsen the impact on neighbouring amenity from the proposal. Councillor Peck, who spoke in support of the previous application at the last Committee meeting in October 2013, had concerns with this revised application and had withdrawn his support. In response to a Member, she explained that Councillor Peck’s main concern was the perceived increase in the height of the roof and the lack of clarity about this. Other neighbours had raised objections about the roof terraces from other sides of the development.
Jonathan Freegard spoke in support as the architect for the scheme. He considered that the design of the scheme (i.e. the roof terraces, the size of the gardens, the orientation of the windows) were not atypical for this area. Such features were often standard for an urban setting. Therefore, the impact on existing levels of privacy would be negligible. The amenity space exceeded policy. All of the conditions for the extant scheme would be added to this scheme.
In response to a Member about the measures to protect privacy, he explained that the windows at the northern side of the development would be fitted with opaque glazing due to the proximity to the boundary. On the south side, the roof terraces would be set back to restrict overlooking. The boundary wall would be retained.
Tim Ross (Planning Officer) gave a presentation on the application. He drew attention to the extant scheme for the site. Whilst very similar, this application introduced a number of new features. Specifically: the inclusion of a strip of land leading to a revised design, the introduction of four inset roof terraces and the conversion of the previously approved attic storage rooms into study/bedrooms.
The land use had already been established by the extant scheme given the shortcomings of the site for other uses and the provision of new family housing in a mainly residential area.
It was considered that the impact on amenity was acceptable due to the separation distances, the minor height increase, the opaque glazing and the set back roof terraces amongst other features. The scheme ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS No Items. Minutes: None. |