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 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:
Councillor Andrew Cregan (Chair)
Councillors Danny Hassell and Denise Jones declared a personal interest in agenda item 5.3, William Brinson Centre, 3-5 Arnold Road, London, E3 4NT (PA/16/02789) as they knew one of the registered speakers and a number of the residents present at the meeting.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 81 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 15th December 2016.
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 15 December 2016 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROCEDURE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS 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.
|
|
19 Senrab Street, London, E1 0QE (PA/16/03188) PDF 1 MB Proposal:
Retrospective planning permission for a rear dormer window (with alterations) to facilitate a loft conversion.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to REFUSE planning permission for the reason set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for retrospective planning permission for a rear dormer window (with alterations) to facilitate a loft conversion.
The Chair then invited the registered speaker to address the Committee.
Sarah Skinner (Applicant) spoke in support of the application. She stated that the dormer window could only be partially seen from the public realm (as shown on the applicant’s submitted maps). Apart from this, the proposal could only really be viewed from private properties. Furthermore, the existing roof line of Senrab Street had already been disturbed by the presence of other dormer windows on the street that were much larger and more visible. She also stated that the application had attracted a considerable amount of public support. In response to questions from the Committee, she emphasised these points about the presence of other similar developments on the street and the lack of its visibility from the street scene.
Beth Eite (Planning Services, Development and Renewal) presented the application, describing the location of the property in the Conservation Area. She drew attention to the history of the development. An application was made in 2015 to retain the dormer window at the rear of the property. This was refused and dismissed at appeal for the reasons set out in the Committee report. This application sought to overcome the reasons for refusal by reducing the width of the dormer. The application had been subject to local consultation generating 2 petitions in support with 37 signatures, 1 representative in support as well as 1 representation in objection. In summary, Officers considered that, despite the changes, the retention of the rear dormer would result in an alteration that was unduly dominant and overbearing to the host building. As a result it would harm the setting of the Albert Gardens Conservation Area. There were no public benefits to outweigh the impact. As a result, Officers considered that the application should be refused permission.
In response, Members asked questions about the character of the existing roof line and that of the existing roof dormers in the street. It was reported that no approvals for roof dormers had been granted since the areas designation as a Conservation Area. However, it was noted that another property on the same side of the street featured a dormer, but this was a slightly different style of property and the permission involved a minor increase in the size of the dormer. Despite this, it was stressed that each application should be considered on its own merits. In this case, Officers, (guided by the appeal decision), considered that a dormer in this location would be inappropriate.
Members also asked questions about the visibility of the development from the street scape and the benefits of the development. In response, Officers noted that the impact on such views was negligible. Nevertheless, the impact on private views in the Conservation Area was an important consideration, as set out in the appeal decision findings. Given the impact on such views from Dunelm ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Proposal:
Residential development comprising 20 one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranges from six storeys to nine storeys.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informative as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Paul Buckenham (Development Control Manager) introduced the application for residential development comprising 20 one, two, three and four bedroom flats available for affordable rent. The height of the building ranges from six storeys to nine storeys.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee
Alicia Joseph and Francesco Randon spoke in opposition to the application. The speakers considered that the proposal would result in the loss of publically accessible open space that acted as an informal nature reserve. They also expressed concern about the removal of trees at the site, following the recent clearance of the site that shielded residents from the surrounding environment and noise. Concern was also expressed about the impact of the development on neighbouring amenity due to the separation distances and the consultation process. In response to questions from Members, they expressed concerns about the clearance of the site and lack of consultation on this. They also commented further of the benefits of the green space to residents, potential future uses of the site, and the separation distance to Parnham Street. They felt that the measurement in the report was inaccurate.
John Coker (LBTH Strategic Housing) and John Lineen, (Architect) spoke in support of the application. They drew attention to the need for additional good quality affordable housing in the Borough. They also explained the proposed rent levels for the affordable housing and did not consider that the development would result in an overconcentration of one housing type in the area given the wider profile of the area in terms of housing types. The proposed development would take up about third of the site, and a section of the site would be given over for community gardens. The site had become overgrown. The plans had been carefully designed to preserve amenity. The speakers also provided reassurances about the height of the proposal and the materials in relation to the setting of the surrounding area.
In response to questions by the Committee about the loss of the trees, the speakers reported that no mature trees had been removed and the site carried no protections in this regard anyway. In relation to the clearing of the site, Officers explained that this was not a planning issue and that the completion of such works predated Planning’s involvement in the application. Officers advised the Committee to consider the planning merits of this application. They also reported that, from a planning perspective, there was no requirement to maintain the land as open space given the lack of site designations in this regard. The site was Council owned land held for the purposes of providing housing. So there was no guarantee that it would revert back to open space in the future. In response to further questions, they considered that the plans would have a negligible effect on the setting of Regents Canal tow path. In response to further questions, the speakers explained the proposed biodiversity measures and that the proposed garden would be for the ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
William Brinson Centre, 3-5 Arnold Road, London, E3 4NT (PA/16/02789) PDF 6 MB Proposal:
Demolition of existing building, construction of an 8 storey building and a 6 storey building to provide 62 dwellings (affordable housing tenure) and 398 sq.m B1 floorspace with amenity space, access, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions and informatives as set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update report tabled
Paul Buckenham introduced the application for the demolition of existing building, construction of an 8 storey building and a 6 storey building to provide 62 dwellings (affordable housing tenure) and 398 sq.m B1 floorspace with amenity space, access, cycle parking, landscaping and associated works
The Chair then invited registered speaker to address the Committee.
Sara Stratton and Michael Keith, local residents spoke in objection to the application. They expressed concern about the lack of consultation on the application, and the impact on existing businesses. They also expressed concerns about the scheme’s density being in excess of London Plan guidance, the height, scale and massing of the plans that would be out of keeping with the surrounding building heights and the separation distances to nearby properties. They also expressed concern about the lack of a heritage assessment. The speakers considered that as a result of these issues, the development would harm the setting of the nearby Conservation Area, would harm residential amenity and would impact on the biodiversity value of the site. The speakers also considered that the development was of a poor quality design and the layout had not been adequately thought through. In response to questions, they expressed concerns about the closure of roads due to the plans and the displacement of businesses. They considered that the plans should be redesigned to address the concerns.
John Coker (LBTH Strategic Housing) and Gavin Hale-Brown (Architect) spoke in support of the application. The supporters stressed the need for additional affordable units in the Borough which the application would make a critical contribution to. It was not considered that it would result in an overconcentration of one housing type in the area given the nature of the surrounding area in terms of housing types. Any road closures would be temporary. A significant amount of consultation was carried out. The site was well connected and in a relatively isolated area, in relation to residential developments. The scheme had been designed to fit in with the area and would comprise a generous amount of family sized houses. There was nothing to suggest that the existing businesses would close down.
In response to questions about progress in meeting housing targets, Jen Pepper (Affordable Housing Programme Manager) reported that at present the Council was below target. In response to further questions, the speakers considered that the plans would enliven the area, provide natural surveillance, deliver much needed affordable units and business units and would be secure by design. Furthermore, given the distance between the site and heritage assets, it would not harm the setting of the nearby Conservation Area. A noise assessment had been carried out and there would be noise mitigation measures. The speakers also answered questions about the merits of layout from a security point of view.
Officers reported that the Committee should place no weight on the images submitted by objectors circulated at the meeting as Officers had not had sight of these before the meeting and therefore could not ... view the full minutes text for item 5.3 |
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS None. Minutes: None |
|