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 disclosable pecuniary interests were made.
Councillor Marc Francis declared an interest in the agenda item 7.1, 219-221 Bow Road and 27-31 Payne Road, Bow, E3 2SJ as he had received representations from interested parties and the site was within the Councilor’s ward .
Councillor Shiria Khatun declared an interest in the agenda item 7.1, 219-221 Bow Road and 27-31 Payne Road, Bow, E3 2SJ as she had received representations from interested parties.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 111 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 8th July 2015.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the Committee meeting held on 8th July 2015 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair, subject to the following amendments to page 7 of the minutes:
· Paragraph two ‘eradicate’ to replace ‘irradiate’ · Paragraph four, insertion of the word ‘vote’ to read ‘on a unanimous vote’
|
|
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: To note the procedure and meeting guidance.
|
|
12-14 Toynbee Street, London E1 7NE (PA/14/03376) PDF 84 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: Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item, recommended for approval for the demolition of existing structures on land adjacent to Duke of Wellington public house, the creation of five residential units, a replacement outdoor area, external alterations to the public house and the retention of the drinking establishment.
Tim Ross (Deputy Team Leader, Pre - Application Decisions, Development and Renewal) presented the application. It was reported that the application was previously considered at the last meeting of the Committee on 8th July. Following consideration of the item, the Committee disagreed with the Officer recommendation to grant permission and suggested that the application be refused for the following reasons:
1) Harm to the setting of the pub, from the loss of the pub garden and the proposed residential extension which would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, by reason of it’s overall design, appearance and relationship to the host building.
2) Effect on future viability of the public house, arising from the loss of the outdoor drinking space and erection of residential development
3) Effect on neighbouring amenity arising from increased noise and disturbance.
The Committee were reminded of the key aspects of the scheme including the plans for the outdoor area, the layout and the appearance of the scheme, the quality of the residential units, the cycle and the waste storage area.
On balance, Officers remained of the view that the application was acceptable in terms of the design, the heritage impact, the measures to safeguard the public house, the standard of residential accommodation and the impact on residential amenity. The full reasons were set out in the original Committee report and summarised for the Committee
However, if Members were minded to refuse the scheme, they were directed to the proposed reasons for refusal amalgamating the above indicated reasons. Officers considered that these reasons could be defended on appeal.
On a vote of 1 in favour of the Officer recommendation to grant planning permission, 2 against and 0 abstentions, the Committee did not agree the recommendation.
Accordingly, the Committee proposed a motion that the planning permission be REFUSED (for the reasons set out in 4.2 of the Committee report) and on a vote of 2 in favour of this recommendation, 1 against and 0 abstentions, it was RESOLVED:
That planning permission at 12-14 Toynbee Street, London E1 7NE be REFUSED for the 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 and the retention of A4 use (Drinking Establishments) on ground floor (reference PA/14/03376) for the following reasons set out in 4.2 of the Committee report
1. The proposed development would ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
219-221 Bow Road and 27-31 Payne Road, Bow, E3 2SJ (PA/14/03660) PDF 1 MB Proposal:
Demolition of existing buildings and erection of four blocks of four, five and six storeys to provide 89 dwellings together with ancillary parking and landscaping.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement and the conditions in the Committee report
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item recommended for permission for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of four blocks to provide 89 dwellings together with ancillary parking and landscaping.
Tania Hall (Fairfield Conservation Area Residents Association) spoke in objection. Whilst not opposed to the provision of housing on the site, she considered that, due to its height and scale, that the proposal would harm the setting of the surrounding area that was predominately low rise in nature. She explained that due to its position near the park boundary, the scheme would ‘loom large’ over the Grove Hall Park and Memorial Gardens, resulting in a loss of privacy and overlooking of the park. She also expressed concern about the width of the servicing bay on highway safety grounds.
In response to questions, she considered that, despite the amendments, the plans were much too intrusive, providing an unsympathetic setting for the designated heritage assets. She also clarified her concerns about overlooking to the memorial park and the loss of trees in that park. In response to further questions, she expressed concern about the impact on the highway arising in particularly from the servicing bay given the existing levels of congestion in that area, the impact from the cycle superhighway upgrade, the car free agreement and the increased demand for buses.
Ewout Vandeweghe (Applicant’s Agent) spoke in support of the application, highlighting the Applicant’s successful track record with delivering similar schemes including the adjacent development also owed by the applicant. He outlined the benefits of delivering these two schemes together. He also explained that the Council’s Officers were supportive of the scheme, that the scheme would deliver high quality housing including a policy compliant amount of affordable housing and accessible units. The plans had been amended to address the concerns and these measures were explained. He also explained the highway safety measures.
In response to questions from Members, he clarified the measures to address the objectors concerns, (which included reducing the height of the scheme, setting the taller element back from the park, the restoration of building lines to preserve and enhance the setting of the listed buildings and surrounding area). He further clarified the housing mix and the energy efficiency measures as set out in the s106 agreement.
Jane Jin (Deputy Team Leader, Development and Renewal) presented the scheme and the update explaining the site location, the outcome of the consultation summarising the representations received as detailed in the Committee report.
The Committee were advised of the key features of the scheme including the proposed demolition of the existing buildings and reasons why this could be supported; the new residential development including 35% affordable housing (increased following consultation) and wheelchair accessible units in line with policy. The standard of accommodation fully complied with policy both in terms of the internal and external amenity space.
In terms of amenity, whilst there would be some loss of light to neighbouring properties, there were mitigating circumstances ... view the full minutes text for item 7.1 |
|
461 Bethnal Green Road (PA/15/00756) PDF 3 MB Proposal:
Change of use of lower ground floor from gym (Use Class D2) to 4x serviced apartments (Use Class C1).
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.
Minutes: Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the item recommended for permission for the change of use of lower ground floor from gym to 4x serviced apartments.
Lydia Meeson (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the report explaining the site location, within the town centre, the existing use of the units with residential use on the upper floor. Consultation had been carried out on the proposals and the issues raised were highlighted and addressed. In summary, it was considered that the loss of the gym use was acceptable as there were a number of other such facilities in the area. Furthermore, the provision of short stay accommodation complied with policy, promoting such accommodation in the area where appropriate. In addition, given its modest size, the impact on amenity should be similar to that of a residential use. So it was very unlikely that there would be an increase in disturbance. A Business Management Plan had been submitted and there was a condition restricting the length of stay of occupants.
The plans also involved the removal of the fire door and a number of other minor external alterations. (Installation of new windows frames, bigger external yard). The plans had been assessed by the Council’s Building Control Team and they had raised no objection to the scheme in terms of fire safety despite the lack of accessibility for wheelchair users due to the site constraints.
In conclusion, Officers were recommending that the application be granted planning permission.
In response to Members, Officers referred to the London Plan requirements on accessibility and the reasons why in this case, such adaptions (for example a wheelchair ramp) could not physically be provided. They also answered questions of clarity about the servicing, the waste storage and the retention the on street waste collection service. Due to the size of the scheme, it was unlikely that there would be a significant increase in refuse.
On a vote of 4 in favour, 0 against and 3 abstentions, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission at 461 Bethnal Green Road be GRANTED for change of use of lower ground floor from gym (Use Class D2) to 4x serviced apartments (Use Class C1) ( reference PA/15/00756).
2. That the Corporate Director Development and Renewal is delegated power to impose conditions and informatives on the planning permission to secure the matters set out in the committee report.
|
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS PDF 36 KB None. Minutes: No Items.
|