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 Sabina Akhtar declared a personal interest in agenda item 5.1, 216-218 Mile End Road London E1 4JL (E1 4JL) as she had received representations from interested parties.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 114 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 8 June 2016 Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 8 June 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.
|
|
216 - 218 Mile End Road, London, E1 4LJ (PA/15/01526) PDF 93 KB Proposal:
Application for variation of conditions no. 5 'hours of operation', 8 'use of rear yard' and 10 'use of rear yard and details thereof' of planning permission ST/96/00059 dated 04/02/1998 for: "Conversion and change of use from light industrial, office and storage into ground floor retail shop, first and second floors into 2 x 2 bedroom flats, demolition of rear single storey buildings to form vehicle parking spaces plus ancillary uses to the retail shop, and the retention of existing warehouse, with access for the rear activities from Beaumont Grove, E1."
Variation of condition 5 is to extend the hours of operation of the shop from 8:00 - 20:00 Mondays to Saturdays to 9:00 to 21:00 Mondays to Sundays. Deliveries to take place between 10:00 - 18:00 Mondays to Saturdays. No deliveries would take place on Sundays.
Variation of conditions 8 and 10 is to allow the rear yard to be used as a customer car park. The rear yard would be in use 9:00 - 21:00 Mondays to Saturdays and 10:00 - 16:00 on Sundays.
[Amended proposal: Rear yard to be in use between the hours of 10:00 - 16:00 on Sundays (opening 1 hour later)]
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement to carry over all of the obligations attached to the original planning permission, taking account of the revised conditions, conditions and informatives on the planning permission as set out in the Committee report.
Additional documents:
Minutes: Update report tabled.
The Chair reported that the Council had received requests for speaking on the application from objectors and the applicant with regards to the updated information. The Council’s Development Procedure rules did not permit further public speaker on deferred items so the Chair had refused this request.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for variation of conditions to extend the hours of operation of the shop and allow the rear yard to be used as a customer car park. He reminded the Committee that at its previous meeting on 8th June 2016, Members were minded to refuse the application due to concerns over the adverse impact on the highway and amenity. The report now before the Committee considered the reasons for refusal and whether these were likely to be sustainable in the event of an appeal.
Piotr Lanoszka (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. The Committee were reminded of the site location, views of the vehicle access tunnel and details of the application itself. There had been one change to the application since it was previously considered by the Committee in June in respect of the opening hours for the read yard. It was now proposed that the yard be in use between the hours of 10:00 - 16:00 on Sundays (opening 1 hour later). In addition since the June meeting, the applicant had submitted additional information, as set out in the updated Committee report and update, including fuller details of a traffic management system, the business case for the development to meet local demand amongst other matters. The Committee also noted images of the store and the applicant’s other premises at Hackney allowing the company to relocate the warehouse element out of the shop.
A further round of consultation had been carried out on the revised proposals. In response, the Council had received an additional petition in objection that had been signed by residents of Louisa Street and also one petition in support of the application. No one had withdrawn their objection.
Officer have examined the Committee proposed reasons for refusal and their comments on the strengths of the reasons were out in the Committee report. The Officers recommendations remained unchanged to grant permission. But should the Committee be minded to refuse the application, they were directed to the suggested reasons for refusal in the updated Committee report.
In response to the presentation, the Committee questioned whether, in view of the concerns raised at the previous meeting about the impact on amenity, that the proposed change would adequately addressed these concerns. Officers responded that Officers did not in the first instance consider that the proposal would have any major adverse impacts, but the proposed revised opening hour for the yard should go some to way to addressing the Committee concerns. It was down to Members to decide how much weight they should place on this additional step.
Members also requested that the proposed highways measures, including ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
43 Thomas Road, London, E14 7EB (PA/16/00993) PDF 2 MB Proposal:
Retention of existing facades and redevelopment of existing building to provide no. 8 residential dwellings including new third floor. Change of use at Ground Floor from A5 (takeaways) to C3 (residential).
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions.
Minutes: Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the retention of existing facades and redevelopment of existing building to provide no. 8 residential dwellings including new third floor, change of use at Ground Floor from A5 (takeaways) to C3 (residential).
Nasser Farooq (Planning Services Team Leader, Development and Renewal) presented a detailed presentation of the application. The Committee noted the site’s location on the corner of Burgess Street and Thomas Road. The Committee also noted the planning history of the site including details of the previously refused applications and the reasons for this. They also noted the proposed layout of the scheme. The scheme would be of a good quality design. All of the proposed units would meet the residential space standards save for one unit. However this would be offset by the fact that it would be provided with a generous amount of amenity space. Representations had been received both in support and against the application which were explained. There would be conditions to preserve the amenity of the future occupants. Given the merits of the application, Officers were recommending that the planning permission was granted.
In response, the Committee stressed the need for images of the application to be included in the Committee reports. Members also asked about the sustainability measures in view of the Energy Efficiency Team’s comments. The Committee wished to understand what exactly would be provided. A Member also asked about the quantity of information supplied in support of such measures given the reasons for refusing the previous scheme.
Members also questioned whether the development complied with the Life time homes standards. The Committee also asked about the loss of the A3/5 use, overlooking into properties, the separation distances, height of the mansard roof, and the servicing arrangements
Officers confirmed that application included energy efficiency measures and complied with the relevant requirements for minor developments given the site constraints. In relation to the energy statement, Officers anticipated that this would involve the completion of a feasibility study to ascertain what measures could be incorporated within the application.
The proposal included one Lifetime Homes unit on site. The applicant had expressed a commitment to provide a disabled parking bay close to the site and given the size of the scheme, it was not considered reasonable to require details of the proposed bay before determining the application. However information on the feasible of which would be secured by condition.
The premises currently operated as an A5 style take away use and at some stage prior to this, functioned as a restaurant and a public house use. There had been no objections to the loss of the public house use. The plans had been amended to address the reasons for refusing the previous application. It was also confirmed that there would be a requirement for amenity screening and there would be adequate separation distances between buildings.
Officers were mindful of the issues around the vehicle turning circle. However, it was required that ... view the full minutes text for item 6.1 |
|
Proposal:
Demolition of a section of internal wall including the introduction of a new archway.
Recommendation:
That the Committee grant Listed Building Consent Minutes: Jerry Bell introduced the application for the demolition of a section of internal wall including the introduction of a new archway.
Nasser Farooq (Planning Services Team Leader, Development and Renewal) presented the detailed report. He advised that no objections to the application had been received. However, the Council’s scheme of delegation required that where the Council was applying for works to a listed building that it owned, the application must be brought before the Committee to determine
The Committee were advised of the application site, the position of the protected buildings and their listed status. They noted the main features of the proposal and the benefits of the proposal to provide access between an existing playground and new play area.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
That the Listed Building Consent be GRANTED at 216 - 218 Mile End Road, London, E1 4LJ (PA/15/01526) subject to the conditions as set out in the Committee report
|
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS No items
Minutes: None |
|