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: Councillor Peter Golds declared a personal interest in agenda item 6.2 Site south west of the junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Ness Road, E14 3EB (PA/15/00360) as he had spoken to residents about the plans in his capacity of ward Councillor for the area. He also declared a personal interest in agenda item 6.3 Wickham House, 69-89 Mile End Road and 10 Cleveland Way, London, E1 (PA/14/03547) as he had seen and commented on plans however had kept an open mind pending consideration of the application at the Committee meeting
Councillor Rajib Ahmed declared a personal interest in the agenda items as he had received representations from interested parties.
Councillor Mahbub Alam declared a personal interest in agenda item 6.3 Wickham House, 69-89 Mile End Road and 10 Cleveland Way, London, E1 (PA/14/03547) as he had raised a Members Enquiry on the proposal and had received representations from interested parties.
Councillor Sabina Akhtar declared a personal interest in agenda items 6.2 Site south west of the junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Ness Road, E14 3EB (PA/15/00360) and 6.4 Balfron Tower, 7 St Leonards Road, London, E14 0QR (PA/15/02554 & PA/15/02555) as she had received representations from interested parties.
Councillor Shiria Khatun declared a personal interest in agenda items 6.1, Vic Johnson House Centre, 74 Armagh Road, London, E3 2HT (PA/15/01601) 6.2, Site south west of the junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Ness Road, E14 3EB (PA/15/00360),6.3, Wickham House, 69-89 Mile End Road and 10 Cleveland Way, London, E1 (PA/14/03547) and 6.4, Balfron Tower, 7 St Leonards Road, London, E14 0QR (PA/15/02554 & PA/15/02555) as she had received representations from interested parties.
Councillor Shiria Khatun declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 6.5 Attlee House, Sunley House, Profumo House and College East, 10 Gunthorpe Street, London (PA/15/02156) as she worked for organisation that had an interest in the properties. She announced that she would be leaving the meeting for the consideration of this item.
Councillor Marc Francis declared a personal interest in agenda items 6.2 Site south west of the junction of Glenworth Avenue and Saunders Ness Road, E14 3EB (PA/15/00360), 6.4, Balfron Tower, 7 St Leonards Road, London, E14 0QR (PA/15/02554 & PA/15/02555) and 6.5 Attlee House, Sunley House, Profumo House and College East, 10 Gunthorpe Street, London (PA/15/02156) as he had received representations from interested parties.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 23 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 28th October 2015
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 28 October 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.
|
|
DEFERRED ITEMS None. Minutes: None.
|
|
Vic Johnson House Centre, 74 Armagh Road, London, E3 2HT (PA/15/01601) PDF 648 KB Proposal:
Part demolition, part refurbishment, part new build (extension) to total 60 age restricted apartments (over 55s) sheltered housing scheme, including new communal areas (lounge, function room, hair salon and managers office), and associated landscape gardens. The proposed use remains as existing. The scheme is on part 2, part 3 and part 4 storeys.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Additional documents: Minutes:
Update report tabled.
Councillor Shiria Khatun (Chair) for this item.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal for the part demolition, part refurbishment, part new build (extension) to total 60 age restricted apartments (over 55s) sheltered housing scheme.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Marcus Cook, resident of the property and Councillor Marc Francis spoke in objection to the scheme. They expressed concern about:
· Impact on the amenity of the existing residents especially during the construction phase. · Loss of valuable community space and green space in view of the proposed increase in units and loss of green space generally in the area. · Appearance of the proposal – unsightly appearance · Affordability of the new units. · Impact on the health and wellbeing of the elderly residents arising from the stress of moving. · Overdevelopment of the site in view of the above.
In response to questions, they reported that whilst there had been a series of consultation meetings, there was a lack of engagement on the substance of this scheme (i.e. the doubling of the number of units, the demolition work and the relocation of tenants). They also clarified their concerns about the loss of amenity space (including the part at the back of the warden’s house and along the bungalows), that was much used by residents. There was a lack of detail in the report about what exactly was being lost. Concern was also expressed about the displacement of the occupant of the warden’s house.
Maureen Jackson(resident) and James Wallace (Applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the application. They stated that many of the residents supported the proposal given the proposed improvements to their living environment. The scheme would also delivery a number of good quality new apartments. Consultation had been carried out with residents and support provided to help them fully understand the plans. There were measures to mitigate the impact on the existing residents, intending to stay, during the construction phase (such as the provision of a separate day lounge and day visits with free transport). One of the reasons why the warden’s houses needed to be removed was to address the drainage problems that it was causing.
The speakers then responded to questions from Members, explaining that the new units would be at affordable rents, the main entrance would be relocated and the vehicle and emergency access points would remain as existing.
They also explained the number of existing residents that would remain on the scheme and that those who had moved would have option of coming back. There would be a net increase in amenity space and private amenity space in the form of balconies.
Jane Jin (Team Leader, Development and Renewal) presented the report and update explaining the nature of the proposal including the number of new units and those to be retained. Consultation had been carried out and the issues raised were summarised in the presentation slide and in the Committee report.
Members were advised of ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|
Proposal:
Construction of a 1,705 GIA sq. m. 3-storey primary school to accommodate 280 pupils and approximately 30 staff.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Councillor Marc Francis (Chair) for the remaining items of business
Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal for the construction of a 1,705 GIA sq. m. 3-storey primary school to accommodate 280 pupils and approximately 30 staff.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Sandra Ireland and Kathy McTasney (local residents) spoke in objection to the proposal, objecting to:
· The lack of benefits for local children. Given this, it was questioned whether the funding would be better spent extending the existing schools for local children. · Impact on neighbouring amenity – due to noise and nuisance from the scheme especially during the construction phase, the proximity of the waste storage for the scheme to residents properties. · Duplication of existing services. · Design was too big for the site · Impact on the highway from the school runs.
Anna - Marie Hulme (resident) and Sarah Counter (Applicant’s agent) spoke in support of the scheme. They spoke about the quality of the existing Canary Wharf College and felt that the plans would allow other children to benefit from such facilities. The highway impact would be minimal as detailed in the technical assessment. It was expected that most of the pupils would walk to the school. The scheme would be car free. The measures to mitigate the impact from the school run on the highway were noted.
The plans would be in keeping with area. The new building would be of a high quality design and be a decent distance from the nearest neighbouring properties. The measures to mitigate the construction impact were noted.
In response to questions from Members, Ms Counter described the colour of the proposed brick work. She also explained that that all 50 staff come on foot or public transport that was in their contracts of employment, places are offered by distance to the school and 100 children were in temporary accommodation and it was intended that they would be moved to the new site. She also answered questions about the expected student profile for the college and also their admissions policy. However, at this point, Officers advised that Members must only take into account the material planning matters in considering this application.
Jane Jin (Team Leader, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the application describing the site location and surrounds, the proximity to listed buildings and the St Luke’s School. Consultation on the scheme had been carried out and the issues raised were set out in the presentation slides and the Committee report.
Members were advised of the proposed facilities, expected pupils numbers, the layout of the scheme, the design, height and massing that would accord with the surroundings and the measures to prevent disturbance from the play ground.
In terms of amenity, the scheme met the tests in policy for sunlight and daylight and there would be no direct overlooking from the school. Therefore, no adverse impacts on amenity were anticipated.
The application had been accompanied by ... view the full minutes text for item 6.2 |
|
Wickham House, 69-89 Mile End Road and 10 Cleveland Way, London, E1 (PA/14/03547) PDF 4 MB Proposal:
Refurbishment of former Wickham's department store comprising: retention of facade of former Spiegelhalter's shop at 81 Mile End Road to provide new entrance, change of use of second floor to office (Use Class B1), change of use of ground and basement floors to a flexible retail/leisure use (Use Class A1/A2/A3/A4/B1/D1/D2) and erection of roof extensions at third and fourth storey levels to provide 1,481sqm (GIA) of additional office space (Use Class B1); as well as reconfiguration of internal layout, restoration of external features and other associated works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Additional documents: Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager, Development and Renewal) introduced the proposal for the refurbishment of former Wickham's department store
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Dr Fuad Ali (Friends of Wickham House), Shams Doha (Ebrahim Community College) and Councillor Oliur Rahman, spoke in objection to the proposal. They spoke about the need for the existing D2 use community facility at the development and the lack of evidence that the issues stemmed from that unit. In fact, complaints had been made about other units in the development and the report failed to mention the other incidents of non compliance with planning regulations in the development. Some of the complaints made about the existing community use were immaterial. The application should be deferred for a site visit. In response to Member questions, they also spoke about the merits of the D2 use in terms of size, affordability to community groups, charities etc. its accessibility and the uniqueness of the facilities. Officers reminded Members that whilst they may put weight on the planning enforcement issues and the fire safety issues, the building regulation issues were controlled by separate regulations.
James Mcallister (Agent)and Rupert Scott, (local resident) spoke in support of the scheme. They advised that the proposal would provide new jobs, community and leisure space of a better quality to what was there already. There had been changes to the scheme to retain the frontage and minimise the impact on neighbouring amenity amongst other changes. As a result Historic England and most of the local residents now considered that the proposal was acceptable. Complaints had been received about the community facility about disturbance from the property effecting neighbours and other issues. Yet the issues had not been dealt with. It was evident from this that the unit was not fit for use. They also spoke about the suitability of the site for the proposal given the location and the operation of a similar operation on the first floor of the development.
The speakers then responded to questions of clarification about: the plans for Spiegelhalter House, the complaints about the D2 unit and the evidence that they were the source of the problems, (questioned by some Members) and the highway issues. It was expected that given the nature of the proposal most of the trips would be by foot.
Piotr Lanoszka (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a detailed presentation on the scheme describing the site location, surrounding area in the Stepney Green Conservation Area. Whilst not listed, the subject buildings were non designated heritage assets.
The proposals involved the refurbishment and extension of the department store to create a large co-worker hub for start up and SME businesses. The scheme had been amended to address objections. Images of the scheme before and after amendment were shown. Consultation had been carried out on both the revised proposal and the main issues raised were summarised on the presentation slide and in the Committee report. As ... view the full minutes text for item 6.3 |
|
Balfron Tower, 7 St Leonards Road, London, E14 0QR (PA/15/02554 & PA/15/02555) PDF 888 KB Proposal:
Full Planning Permission and Listed Building Consent for:
External and internal physical alterations and refurbishment works to Balfron Tower, including: - New fenestration - Alterations to flat layouts - Re-instatement of cornice at the top of the building - Replacement of boiler house flues - Alterations to car parking - Cycle parking and refuse storage arrangements - Lighting - Hard and soft landscaping and associated works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Application not considered due to lack of time.
|
|
Proposal:
Demolition of Attlee House, Sunley House and College East (Excluding part facade retention of College East) and construction of ground, basement plus part 3, part 4 and part 5 storey buildings providing 63 Class C3 residential units and 264 sq m (GIA) Class B1 office floorspace. Demolition of Profumo House and construction of a new building comprising basement, ground and 4 storey building comprising 990 sq m (GIA) Class B1 office floorspace 418 sq m (GIA) Tonybee advice services. Provision of car and cycle parking, amenity and play space, with associated plant and works.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT listed building consent subject to the completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Application not considered due to lack of time.
|
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS None.
Minutes: None. |
|