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 64 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 interest were made.
Whilst not declaring a pecuniary interest in the item, Councillor Marc Francis declared that he would not sit on the Committee for the consideration of item 6.2, 418 Roman Road, London, E3 5LU (PA/15/00095).
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 99 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 9th April 2015.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9th April 2015 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 94 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 and meeting guidance.
|
|
The Forge, 397 & 411 Westferry Road, London, E14 3AE (PA/14/02753 and PA/14/02754) PDF 67 KB Proposal:
Full Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent for:
- Change of use of part of The Forge from business use (Use Class B1) to convenience retail food store (Use Class A1) with gross internal floor area of 394m² and net sales area (gross internal) of 277m²;
- Change of use of a separate unit of The Forge (Use Class B1) to interchangeable uses for either or financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, drinking establishments, office, non-residential institutions (nursery, clinic, art gallery, or museum), or assembly and leisure (gym), namely change of use to uses classes A2, A3, A4, B1a, D1 and D2 with gross internal floor area 275.71m²;
- The remainder of the ground floor would be for office use split into 3 units (Use Class B1a)
- 297.17m² GFA of new floor space created at 1st floor level (internally) for office use, split into 3 units (Use Class B1a)
- Internal and external changes and maintenance to the Forge to facilitate the change of use to retail convenience store.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and listed building subject to the conditions and informatives in the Committee report
Additional documents:
Minutes: Update Report Tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal that had been deferred at the 11th March 2015 meeting of the Committee by Members for a site visit.
Brett McAllister, (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the report reminding Members of the proposal and representations received since the March meeting including correspondence from a ward Councillor. He also addressed the issues raised at the site visit and drew attention to the additional conditions proposed by the LBTH Conservation Officer to address the issues. The Conservation Officer was present to reassure Members about the impact on the building grade 11 listed building.
The scheme would bring the building back into an active use without harming the special features of the building or the viability of the Town Centre. Officers were therefore recommending that the scheme was granted permission.
In response to questions about the delivery plans, Officers highlighted the measures in the Management Plan to restrict the size of vehicles. Furthermore, in contrast with the nearby store, there would be parking bays adjacent to the loading bay subject to fines. This should also deter large vehicle from overlapping onto adjacent bays
In response to a question about the impact on the character of the building, it was accepted that any changes to the building would have some impact on the building. However, it was felt that subject to careful conditioning, that the impact would be acceptable and would have no adverse impact on the special qualities of the building. Given the purpose of the scheme and the site constraints, it was difficult to see how the scheme could be designed in any other way. A Member did not accept the need for the new opening given the harm this would case to the building.
Regarding the impact on the Town Centre, it noted that at the request of Officers, a sequential assessment had been carried out and independently assessed (noting that the first application was refused due concerns over the impact on the Town Centre). The assessment showed that there was demonstrable need for a retail unit in this area and that it could not be provided in the Town Centre. Accordingly, the scheme complied with Council policy on town centres.
Planning Permission
On a vote of 1 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission and 2 against, the Committee did not agree the recommendation.
Accordingly, the Committee proposed a motion that the planning permission be not accepted (for the reasons set out below) and on a vote of 2 in favour of this recommendation, 0 against and 1 abstention, it was RESOLVED:
That the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission at The Forge, 397 & 411 Westferry Road, London, E14 3AE be NOT ACCEPTEDfor change of use of part of The Forge from business use (Use Class B1) to convenience retail food store (Use Class A1); change of use of a separate unit of The Forge (Use Class B1) to interchangeable ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Bethnal Green Gardens, Cambridge Heath Road (PA/14/02366) PDF 202 KB Proposal:
Change of use to a café with associated alterations including the installation of new glazing, security shutters, kitchen with extract system and toilet facilities.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions in the Committee report
Minutes: Update Report Tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application. The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Tom Ridge spoke in objection to the proposal stating that he was representing the many residents who had objected to the scheme and had signed the petition. He considered that the existing building at the site was an important heritage asset and needed to be protected. However, the proposals would harm the special features of the building given the proposed removal of the teak benches, ceramic tiles, the kiosk and the introduction of unsightly shutters harming the appearance of the building. The 20th Century Society and other parties had raised concerns about the impact of the plans.
He also objected to the loss of the public shelter given it was the only one of its type in the area. The scheme should be rejected or the building should be reopened in its original form as a kiosk. In response to questions, he considered that there was a lack of information about certain aspects of the scheme such as the security shutters. He considered that the reopening of the building as a kiosk should naturally reduce any anti-social behaviour in the area. He also commented on the strength of local feeling regarding the loss of the public shelter. The Chair also commented on the problems with nuisance behaviour in the park and that one way of addressing this may be to reactivate this building.
Stephen Murray (Head of Arts and Events, LBTH) spoke in support of the scheme. The plans would bring back the disused building into use, should help address ASB in the area by activating the area and improve the viability of the commercial enterprise. There was no evidence that due to the issues, that the shelter was well used by the public. The design of the scheme was sympathetic to the area having been amended in response to comments from the LBTH Conservation Officer. Whilst the plans would introduce steel shutters, they had been carefully designed to minimise their visual impact. The measures to ensure this were explained that they were necessary to prevent vandalism.
Piotr Lanoszka, (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report explaining the site location, the history of the building that was considered to be an undesignated heritage asset. However, the building had fallen into disrepair and attracted nuisance behaviour in recent years
Consultation had been carried out and the outcome of this was explained as set out in the committee report.
The scheme bore a close resemblance to the previously consented permission that had lapsed in 2014 and the Council’s Cabinet had approved the terms of the lease in 2014.
It was considered that the proposed land use was acceptable and the scheme was financially viable following testing.
The changes to the building would be minimal and be sympathetic to the building. The extent of the works were explained, including the materials, layout and outdoor seating area. ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|
418 Roman Road, London, E3 5LU (PA/15/00095) PDF 890 KB Proposal:
Creation of a ground floor studio flat at the rear of the property within an extended single storey rear extension; New shopfront; Extension of the basement; Erection of a mansard roof extension
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions in the Committee report
Minutes: Update Report Tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Councillor Joshua Peck spoke in objection stating that he was representing the Roman Road Business and Residents Association. He objected to the proposed reduction in retail space, as this would seriously harm the viability of the retail unit and ultimately that of the Roman Road Town Centre. He considered that the viability of the Town Centre was already at risk due the number of other similar proposals. This scheme would worsen this problem. Therefore the scheme should be refused and existing retail unit should be retained.
In particularly, he objected to the proposed width of the retail unit; that meant that it would be unusable for many uses and that a large part of the new retail space would be a basement. He also considered that that proposal conflicted with Council policy that sought to maintain and increase retail space in the Roman Road area.
In response to questions, he expressed concern about the quality of the residential unit given the site constraints and the poor quality amenity space. He made further reference to the adjacent shop, that due to similar conversation, could now only be used as an office space and that the residential unit hadn’t been sold. Should the current owner move on, then the unit would be difficult to lease. There was a shortage of good quality retail units in Roman Road.
Robert Webster (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the application stating that it was a family owned business and the current owners fully intended to stay there. He read out a letter from the applicant explaining this. He considered that the current business could be easily accommodated in the reduced retail unit due to the use of modern technology. So it would remain a viable business unit. The size of the current unit was in fact surplus to requirements.
He also explained the need for the residential unit and that practice of reducing the width of retail units to accommodate residential space was common practice in the area.
In response to questions, he explained that the proposal retail unit would still be larger than many other units on Roman Road and that it was in a secondary location outside the market. He also responded to questions about the need for the new entrance, the quality of the residential accommodation, that the plans would mirror the adjacent property and improve the viability of the unit. The plans would make better use of the rear the site and complied with policy. The applicant would finically benefit from the scheme.
Gerard McCormack, (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report explaining the site location and that a number of the nearby retail units had been altered in a similar way resulting in a reduction in retail space, in some instances to around 30sq. Given this, the proposal (seeking to retaining 77 sq. of ... view the full minutes text for item 6.2 |
|
221 Jubilee Street, London E1 3BS (PA/15/00116) PDF 2 MB Proposal:
Conversion and refurbishment of existing building to create a three-bedroom house (use-class C3).
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions in the Committee report
Minutes: Application withdrawn from the agenda to check the authenticity of some of the representations.
|
|
144-146 Commercial Street, London, E1 6NU (PA/15/00044) PDF 927 KB Proposal:
A new single storey roof extension within the existing roof void to create a 1 x 1 bed residential unit; Construction of four storey rear extension to facilitate new stair case; Reconfiguration of window arrangement at the rear; Refurbishment of the front façade; Installation of a green roof.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the conditions in the Committee report
Minutes: Update Report Tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
David Donahue spoke in objection to the proposal representing the owners of the adjacent public house. They considered that the tavern was a significant heritage asset. The most important in the area. In view of this, they objected that the proposal, given its bland design would harm the fabric of the historic building with little benefit. They also objected to the impact of the proposed staircase on the restaurant, loss of amenity to that property and nuisance from the ventilation system. The report overlooked these issues. The application should be rejected or deferred for a site visit to assess the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. Note: Another objector had registered to speak. However the second slot was not taken up at the meeting.
David Donahue (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the application. He described that the scheme, including the staircase had been redesigned to minimise the impact on the public house. The plans would protect views of the of the public house and aimed to make better use of the layout by providing a separate entrance to the residential unit. The Applicant had carefully considered the objections and had worked with Officers in addressing the issues. Overall, the applicant considered that the scheme was acceptable and should be granted planning permission.
Shahara Ali-Hempstead (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report explaining the site location in the Conservation Area, the existing use and the proximity to the adjacent public tavern.
Consultation on the proposal had been carried out. The issues arising from this were explained along with the key features of the scheme itself.
The proposed extension would sit comfortably behind the existing parapet rising only 45sqm above the parapet edge. The stairwell at the rear had been reduced in height to minimise the impact on amenity. Conditions had been secured including details of a green roof. Overall it was considered that the proposal would preserve the setting of the surrounding area. The proposals overcame the previous reasons for refusal. Therefore, Officers were recommending that the planning permission should be granted.
In response to Councillors questions about the appearance of the proposal, Officers described the proposed materials, including metal cladding and glazing at the front elevation. It was felt that the contemporary design would work well with the area. There was a condition requiring that samples of the materials be submitted for approval.
In response to questions about the impact on the area, it was confirmed that the proposal as amended would preserve the setting of the Commercial Tavern public house including long views from the south along Commercial Street. In view of this, Officers did not considered that images of the long distance views needed to be included in the presentation, but those submitted with the application were circulated to the Committee on request.
In response, Members requested that ... view the full minutes text for item 6.4 |
|
Flat 1, Shiplake House, Arnold Circus, London, E2 7JR (PA/15/00515) PDF 128 KB Proposal:
Change of use from office (Use Class B1) to single 3 bed residential dwelling (Use Class C3) and associated internal works to facilitate the residential use.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to refer the application to the Government Office for Communities and Local Government with the recommendation that the Council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Paul Buckenham (Development Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the application explaining the need for the application to be referred to the Government Office, as the Council cannot determine its own applications for listed building consent. The Committee took the report as read and on a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That application at Flat 1, Shiplake House, Arnold Circus, London, E2 7JR for listed building consent for change of use from office (Use Class B1) to single 3 bed residential dwelling (Use Class C3) and associated internal works to facilitate the residential use be REFERRED to the Government Office for Communities and Local Government with the recommendation that the Council would be minded to grant Listed Building Consent subject to conditions as set out in the Committee report. (PA/15/00515)
|
|