Agenda 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 68 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.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 72 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 31st August 2016
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 31 August 2016 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS AND MEETING GUIDANCE PDF 87 KB 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.
3) To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and meeting guidance.
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
3) To note the procedure for hearing objections at meetings of the Development Committee and the meeting guidance.
|
|
DEFERRED ITEMS None. Minutes: None
|
|
Proposal:
Partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of all three sites to create 41 residential units and a retail unit along Wapping High Street, together with associated hard and soft landscaping works and the provision of cycle parking across all three sites. Site A would contain the majority of the units, with 27 flats; Site B would contain 10 and Site C, the 4 town houses.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT full planning permission subject to any direction by the London Mayor, the prior completion of a legal agreement, conditions and informatives.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the partial demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of all three sites to create 41 residential units and a retail unit along Wapping High Street, together with associated works.
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee
Max De Vries, Angela Orphanou (residents of Cinnamon Street and Tasman House)and ward Councillors Denise Jones and Julia Dockerill spoke in objection the proposal. Whilst not opposed to the development of the site, they expressed concern about the plans on the grounds that they would harm neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of privacy, loss of sunlight and daylight. The sunlight assessment in the report was inaccurate.
They also questioned the suitability of sites A, B and C for family and disabled housing given the narrowness of the pavement. This could put at risk the safety of the occupants. They also objected to the lack of play space for the affordable housing.
Concern was also expressed about noise disturbance and disruption from the maintenance of the nearby ventilation shafts. This would adversely affect the amenity of the new occupants. They also expressed concerns about flood risk and also land contamination from the former gas works. The speakers pointed to a letter from the owners of Baltic Court questioning the suitability of the site for the development given these issues. The proposal should be deferred for an assessment of the issues.
They also expressed concerns about the height and the density of the proposal and that it would result in the overdevelopment of a constrained site given the above issues. It was also harm the character of the area. Concern was about expressed about the adequacy of the developer’s consultation. It was stated that a petition in objection had been collected containing over 200 signatures.
In response to Members questions, they discussed in further detail their concerns over the developers consultation and the lack of amendments to address the concerns. They also answered questions about the enforceability of the car free agreement, traffic congestion from the proposal given the nature of the streets. They stressed the need for measures to mitigate the highway safety issues.
The speakers also answered questions about the height of the development compared to the previous application, the amenity impact, noise nuisance, the strength of the local opposition and the proximity of parking spaces to the play space.
Julian Shirley and Gareth Watkins, Applicant’s agents, spoke in support of the application. The plans would regenerate a vacant site and the land use had been established. The complexities of developing the site had impacted on the viability of the proposals. The application had been carefully designed to respond positively to the area. The benefits of the plans included a policy compliant level of affordable housing with family housing. The light assessment had been independently tested and was considered to be acceptable and the proposals would safeguard privacy. A number ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Harley House and Campion House, Frances Wharf, London (PA/15/03433) PDF 2 MB Proposal:
Roof extensions at 7th floor and 9th floor levels to provide 6 new residential units along with the reconfiguration of 1 existing unit
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for roof extensions at 7th floor and 9th floor levels to provide 6 new residential units along with the reconfiguration of 1 existing unit
The Chair invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Angus O’Callaghan and Laurence Coman spoke in opposition to the application. They were occupants of the existing building. They expressed concern that the proposal failed to respect the design of the existing building. Constructing apartments on top of an existing development was a very unusual concept. The proposal would also adversely affect the existing occupants amenity. They would see reductions in sunlight and daylight levels from the proposed balconies. The property most affected by the proposal had been excluded from the light assessment so it was inaccurate. There would also be loss of access to properties due to the planned works to the lift and the lack of an appropriate alternative. Occupants would also experience privacy issues and overlooking particularly from the new communal terrace. The plans would also put a strain on the existing buildings infrastructure and the density of the plans exceeded the London Plan density guidance so the plans would result in the overdevelopment of the site. The plans also conflicted with the LBTH policy in respect of roof extensions. The consultation carried out by the developer was inadequate.
In response the Members questions, they further discussed the perceived omissions from the sunlight and daylight report, the lack of consultation by the developer, the planning history of the site involving a number of different applications that had resulted in substantial changes to the building and a considerable amount of disruption.
Joel Ginn and Mr Hinsely spoke in support of the application. Whilst there was no requirement to provide affordable housing as part of the application, the applicant had offered to provide three one bed intermediate units. They explained the proposed changes to the lift, the steps that would be taken to minimise the disruption impact, the proposed construction methods and the length of time that the lift would be out of action for.
In response to questions, the speakers further explained the methods that would be used to minimise the disruption to residents, the anticipated time it would take to complete the works, that only small number of windows failed the sunlighting and daylighting test and that they were happy to look into the concerns about the ‘missing windows’ from the assessment.
Chris Stacey – Kinchin (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) gave a presentation on the application brought to the Committee due to the number of objections received in response to the consultation. He explained the site location, planning history resulting in the addition of units to the existing development. Due to the size of the application, it did not trigger the affordable housing policy, but the applicant had volunteered to provide intermediate housing. The plans involved the extension of the lift of both Harley and Campion House ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
Land Rear to 1-12 Fakruddin Street, London, E1 5BU (PA/16/01012) PDF 890 KB Proposal:
Development of land to the rear of 1-12 Fakruddin Street, including construction of 5 No. dwellings with ground floor commercial unit and associated pedestrian walkway to new community centre and allotments. The development will result in a new crossover to Vallance Road and increase of garden space to the properties at 1-5 Fakruddin Street.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission, subject to the prior completion of a legal agreement in the form of a unilateral undertaking to secure the planning obligation set out in the Committee report, conditions and informatives
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (East Area Manager, Planning Services, Development and Renewal) introduced the application for the development of land to the rear of 1-12 Fakruddin Street, including construction of 5 No. dwellings with ground floor commercial unit and associated pedestrian walkway to new community garden centre and allotments.
The development would result in a new crossover to Vallance Road and increase of garden space to the properties at 1-5 Fakruddin Street.
Hannah Connell (Planning Officer, Development and Renewal) presented the application describing the application site and the surrounds and the outcome of the consultation. Officers considered that the proposed land use was welcomed and that that the design of the development would respond well to the local area. It would provide five family sized units benefiting from private amenity space and good levels of sunlighting and daylighting. All of the new occupants would have access to the proposed allotments and community gardens that would be subject to a management plan. Other features of the application included the provision of renewable energy measures. The site would also have significant natural surveillance. In relation to neighbouring amenity, a small number of properties would experience a reduction in sun lighting and daylighting, but these were dual aspect so would continue to receive acceptable levels of light. Such results were not uncommon for an urban setting.
Officers were recommending that the planning permission be granted consent.
Responding to questions from the Committee, officers clarified the distance between the development and the nearest neighbouring property, the height of the proposal and the nature of the child play within the area. It was noted that given the small child yield from the development, there was no requirement to provide additional child play space. However the children from the development would have access to the nearby play space.
On a unanimous vote, the Committee RESOLVED:
1. That planning permission be GRANTED at Land Rear to 1-12 Fakruddin Street, London, E1 5BU for the development of land to the rear of 1-12 Fakruddin Street, including construction of 5 No. dwellings with ground floor commercial unit and associated pedestrian walkway to new community garden centre and allotments. The development will result in a new crossover to Vallance Road and increase of garden space to the properties at 1-5 Fakruddin Street (PA/16/01012), subject to
2. The prior completion of a legal agreement in the form of a unilateral undertaking to secure the planning obligation detailed in the Committee report;
3. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated authority to recommend the conditions and informatives set out in the Committee report
4. That the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to negotiate the unilateral undertaking indicated above within normal delegated authority
5. Any other conditions(s) considered necessary by the Corporate Director Development & Renewal
6. That, if within 3 months of the date of this committee the legal agreement has not been completed, the Corporate Director Development & Renewal is delegated power to refuse planning consent.
|
|
Bromley Hall School, Bromley Hall Road, London, E14 0LF (PA/16/00884 and PA/16/00885) PDF 2 MB Proposal:
Expansion of existing school to provide 2 Form Entry Primary school and associated nursery, including partial demolition of existing building.
Recommendation
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission and listed building consent subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report and Any direction made by the Secretary of State
Minutes: Application deferred for consideration at the next meeting of the Development Committee due to lack of time.
|
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS None Minutes: None.
|
|
Additional documents: |