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 Marc Francis declared a personal interest in agenda item 6.1Duke of Wellington, 12-14 Toynbee Street, London, E1 7NE (PA/15/02489) as he had received representations from interested parties.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 101 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 9th March 2016.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9 March 2016 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. |
|
Duke of Wellington, 12-14 Toynbee Street, London, E1 7NE (PA/15/02489) PDF 880 KB Proposal:
Change of use from public house (A4) to a mixed public house / hotel use (sui generis). Erection of two storey extension at second floor and roof level and installation of dormer windows to allow the conversion of the first, second and third floor to accommodate 11 hotel rooms.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Manager) introduced the proposal for the change of use from public house (A4) to a mixed public house / hotel use (sui generis) with the erection of two storey extension to allow the conversion of the first, second and third floor to accommodate 11 hotel rooms.
The Chair of the Committee then invited registered speakers to address the Committee
Dale Ingramand VinnyMulhern (tenant of the public house)addressed the Committee in objection to the application speaking on behalf of customers of the public house. They considered that the proposal would harm the viability of the public house, which they submitted was a community asset, potentially leading to its loss given: the uncertainties around the continued use of the garden, (that was a major income generator for the public house), business disruption during construction, the conversation to sui generis use that could open the way up for 100% flats at the site and loss of use of the accommodation upstairs. They also questioned the need for a further hotel in the area given the oversupply of hotel accommodation in the area. The applicant had failed to demonstrate the need for this. They also expressed concern about the quality of the servicing arrangements, that no noise assessment had been submitted and that the proposal would adversely affect residential amenity. The application should be refused planning permission.
In response to Members questions, the speakers clarified their concerns about the servicing arrangements given the restrictions on parking in the area and the highway, the likelihood of complaints from the hotel residents jeopardising the business potential of the pub, the proposed restrictions on the garden, and the impact of these issues on the viability of the public house.
Peter Munnelly addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant. He responded to the points raised by the speaker reassuring Members that the pub space and garden would be retained and the plans included conditions to secure this. The current set up was unsustainable. The two uses would be entirely separate (save for hotel customers checking in and out of the hotel from the public house). The heritage assessment concluded that the impact in this regard would be acceptable. Whilst mindful of the site constraints, the parking and servicing arrangements had been in place for many years and there would be a Servicing and Delivery Plan. In summary, the application differed considerable from the previously refused scheme and echoed many similar developments. Therefore was recommended for approval.
In response to Member questions, he stressed the need to focus on the planning issues, not commercial issues. He also explained that given the modest nature of the proposal, the impact on the highway from trips to and from the development would be minimal. He also stated that it was intended that the garden would be a key feature of the public house and the new hotel. He also answered questions about the size and quality of the proposed hotel rooms and ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|
42-44 Aberfeldy Street, E14 0NU (PA/15/03434 and PA/15/03435) PDF 716 KB Proposal
PA/15/03434 Retrospective planning application for the retention of an ATM (Cash Machine).
PA/15/03435 Retrospective advertisement consent for integral illumination and screen to the ATM fascia and internally illuminated 'Free Cash Withdrawals' sign set above the cash (ATM) machine.
Recommendation
That the Committee resolve to GRANT both planning permission and advertisement consent subject to the conditions in the Committee report. Minutes: Paul Buckenham (Development Manager) introduced the Retrospective planning application/ advertisement consent for the retention of an ATM (Cash Machine) with illuminated features.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Abdul Salam Sheikh addressed the Committee in objection to the proposals. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of many residents. He stated that he lived in the street that was a quiet residential area. Since its installation, there had a noticeable increase in late night nuisance, arising from use of the machine adding to the disturbance from food outlets in the area. There were already cash machines in the local area so this was not necessary. The application should be refused. In response to Members questions, he commented that the existing commercial premises in the area closed at 10pm which meant it was usually quite at night. He also discussed in further detail his concerns about noise disturbance from the machine, (i.e. due to such things as people driving to and from the machine, groups lingering by the machine and light from the sign).
Chris Stacey-Kinchin (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report on the application submitted to the Committee due to the receipt of a petition. The Committee were showed images of the shopping parade comprising a mixture of commercial and residential units. They also noted the shop unit with the cash machine, the standard security features for the ATM and the standard design.
Whilst mindful of the petitioners’ concerns, it was considered that given the location of the cash machine in a shopping parade, that the Police had raised no objections and the negligible impact on the appearance of the shop, Officers did not consider that the plans would cause any demonstrative negative impacts or would harm residential amenity, therefore it was recommended that the planning and advertisement consent be granted.
Members asked questions about the enforcement activity to date given this was a retrospective application and the weight that should be given to the fact that it was a retrospective application. They also asked about the safety and security measures and whether this included CCTV. They also questioned the merits of the application given the concerns about noise and also the available of cash machines nearby.
In response Officers explained that no weight should be given to the fact that it was a retrospective application. If permission was refused, the next step would be to consider enforcement action. Whilst the Council’s Enforcement Team had contacted the applicant, it would not be expedient to commence such enforcement action until this planning application had been determined. It should also been noted that the application was originally submitted to the Committee in October 2015 but withdrawn from the agenda. The application included a number of security measures as set out in the Design and Access statement that were standard measures for cash machines. It was also pointed out that the cash machines in the nearby shop charged for withdrawals unlike this cash machine ... view the full minutes text for item 6.2 |
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS PDF 31 KB None. Minutes: None. |