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 of the Committee for 2015/16 To elect a Vice-Chair for the Committee for 2015/16 Municipal year.
Minutes: It was proposed by Councillor Amina Ali and, seconded by Councillor Rajib Ahmed and RESOLVED
That Councillor Shiria Khatun be elected Vice-Chair of the Development Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year 2015/2016
|
|||
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 disclosable pecuniary interests were made.
Councillors Marc Francis, Rajib Ahmed, Suluk Ahmed, Chris Chapman, Amina Ali and Shah Alam declared an interest in the agenda items as they had received representations from interested parties.
Councillor Marc Francis declared an interest in agenda item 8.3 Rear of 459 Roman Road (PA/14/03667) as he lived in the Driffield Road Conservation Area however not near the site.
|
|||
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 108 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 16th June 2015.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 16th June 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.
|
|||
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE, MEMBERSHIP AND MEETING DATES PDF 78 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes: RESOLVED
That the Development Committee’s Terms of Reference, Quorum, Membership and Dates of future meetings be noted as set out in Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to the report.
|
|||
DEFERRED ITEMS There are no items. Minutes: None. |
|||
144-146 Commercial Street, London, E1 6NU (PA/15/00044) PDF 441 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: Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal. By way of context, it was explained that the application was considered at the May 2015 meeting of the Committee and deferred for a site visit. However, given the membership changes at the Annual Council meeting and the unavailability of Members from the May meeting to bring the item back as a deferred item, it had been necessary to bring the application back afresh to avoid a delay in determining the application.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
David Donahue spoke in objection to the proposal representing the adjacent Commercial Tavern public house. He objected to the impact of the proposal on the tavern given it was a stunning asset for the area and its historic importance. In particular, he objected to the impact on the roof line of the tavern and the height difference between the development and the tavern. The images failed to accurately show this. He also expressed concerns about the affordable of the residential units and the displacement of the existing occupants within the development.
Stuart Eaves (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the proposal. He confirmed that the scheme had been amended to minimise the impact on the tavern in consultation with Officers. For example, the height of the building had been reduced and the stairwell altered. The materials would be sympathetic to the host building and the surrounding area. The ground floor use would be retained and improved in compliance with the London Plan. Additional images had been supplied to show the full impact of the development including sky and street views. This showed that the impact would be minimal in this regard. In response to a question about the green roof, it was explained that, given the height of the parapet, that the feature could be concealed.
Beth Eite (Deputy Team Leader, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the application. It was noted that the subject property was locally listed and the Commercial Tavern Public House was a grade 11 listed building. The application had been subject to consultation and the issues raised were explained around intensification of residential accommodation, impact on the surrounding area and neighbouring amenity.
Members were advised of the key features of the scheme including the roof extension that would be largely concealed from view by the existing parapet. They also noted the revised stairwell, the layout of the scheme and the nature of the residential units. All of which would be dual aspect with access to private amenity space. It was also noted that the impact on neighbouring amenity was acceptable in light of the amendments and modest nature of the plans.
In summary, the plans overcame the previous reasons for refusal. In view of the merits of the scheme, Officers were recommending that it be granted permission.
In response to questions, Officers explained in further detail the main changes to the scheme to overcome the previous concerns (in terms of ... view the full minutes text for item 8.1 |
|||
12-14 Toynbee Street, London E1 7NE (PA/14/03376) PDF 186 KB Proposal:
Demolition of existing structures on land adjacent to Duke of Wellington public house and creation of a total of 5 x residential units (C3 use). Replacement outdoor area to be reconfigured to the rear of the site. External alterations to the public house to include dormer and mansard roof extensions and rear extension to first and second floors of building, retaining existing ridge line and mansard roof. Retention of A4 use (Drinking Establishments) on ground floor.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Additional documents: Minutes: Update Report Tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal. The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Dale Ingram (Historic building and planning consultant) spoke in objection to the application on behalf of the tenant of the public house. She drew attention to the strength of opposition to the plans including over 300 individual objections and an online petition with over 500 plus signatures. Many customer of the public house were at the meeting tonight. It was feared the plans would make the public house unviable due to the loss of the outdoor gardens, lack of provision for a bar counter and toilets and the loss of income from the changes. The outdoor area was one of its main assets. Furthermore, due to the changes to the garden space, there would be overspill of customers onto the streets creating noise nuisance, as experienced when the garden was much smaller. She also expressed concern at the overprovision of one bed units. In response to questions about the perceived lack of facilities, Ms Ingram stated that at least two toilets would be needed as well as disabled facilities. She also answered questions of clarity about the loss of outdoor space.
Paul Keenan spoke in support on behalf of the applicant. He explained the merits of the application. The alterations (including new residential units) would be in keeping with the original building that was not listed and would be subservient to the existing building. The residential units would have access to balconies with louvres, added to mitigate any direct overlooking. The plans would improve the frontage of the building and the ground floor layout would be reorganised to make better use of the space. It was emphasised that it was intended that the commercial use would remain an A4 drinking establishment. The applicant was happy to accept the condition removing the permitted development rights to ensure this. There were plans showing that a bar counter could be incorporated into the scheme. The plans for the outdoor area had been amended following consultation to increase the size of that area from that originally proposed.
In response to questions, he further explained that the new residential units complied with policy and were of much better quality than the existing properties. He further explained the amendments to address the concerns. This included the addition of louvres to the private balconies, a bigger smoking area and the relocation of the refuse facility. He referred to the difficulties with building the scheme within the existing layout. This would warrant greater changes to the public house to the detriment of the building.
It was emphasized that the internal floor space of the pub would be increased as a result of the changes.
He also answered questions about the design, described as simple and elegant to complement the existing building and respond to the surrounding area. Replicating the existing public house would confuse the building. Consideration had been given to various different housing ... view the full minutes text for item 8.2 |
|||
Rear of 459 Roman Road (PA/14/03667) PDF 130 KB Proposal:
Construction of a mews house to the rear of existing shop/residential building
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions
Additional documents: Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal. The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Peter Dobbin spoke in objection as a resident of a nearby property. He considered that the proposal would worsen the existing problems with parking at the site to the detriment of the occupants quality of life. The erection of a Mews House would also lead to the right of way access strip becoming blocked preventing residents from accessing their car parking spaces. The application should be deferred for a site visit so that Members can fully assess the impact of the proposal. In response to Members, he clarified his concerns.
Kieran Rafferty spoke in support. He drew attention to the revised design following consultation to ensure that the scheme was in keeping with the surrounding properties. He also explained the previous and existing use of the site, the access arrangements and provided assurances regarding the right of way. He also described the measures to protect privacy.
Tim Ross (Deputy Team Leader, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the application. He highlighted the site location, the surrounding area (including the location of the objector’s property that had addressed the meeting) and the access routes. The site was located in the Conservation Area. However there were no listed buildings in the vicinity of the application site.
Consultation had been carried out and the issues raised were explained, especially the concerns about increased car parking from the scheme.
Members were advised of the key features of the scheme including: the layout, the wall to be demolished (that was not a heritage asset) the revised design and the proposed materials that were in keeping with the area. They also noted the quality of the new unit and that the impact on amenity was acceptable.
Given the merits of the scheme Officers were recommending that it be granted permission. In response to questions, Officers noted the objections about parking pressure from the scheme in view of the existing issues in this regard. Therefore, to address the concerns, the scheme would be car free. The right of way was a civil matter. However, it was unlikely that the addition of one property should block access to properties given the car free agreement and the access arrangements. Officers also described the new boundary treatment retaining a similar relationship with the boundary edge as the existing wall. It would be very difficult to park a vehicle in the site boundary. However, to address the concerns about parking in the application site area, an addition condition could be added to prevent this. Accordingly it was proposed by Officers and agreed by the Committee that details of boundary treatment be submitted for approval to prevent car parking within the application site.
The plans should have little impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of daylight, noise etc. The concerns around amenity were more about how the increased parking pressure could affect amenity.
On a unanimous vote, ... view the full minutes text for item 8.3 |
|||
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS None. Minutes: None. |
|||