Agenda, decisions and 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 67 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 interest 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 7th February 2018
Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7th February 2018 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 Place 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 Place 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: 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, Place 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, Place 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 |
|
Entrance To Claire Place Between 46 and 48, Tiller Road, London (PA/17/02781) PDF 867 KB Proposal:
Installation of automated vehicular and pedestrian entrance gates at the vehicular entrance to Claire Place
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to REFUSEplanning permission for the reasons set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update Report tabled
Jerry Bell (Area Planning Manager (East), Planning Services) introduced the application for the installation of automated vehicular and pedestrian entrance gates at the vehicular entrance to Claire Place
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Lee Tanswell, Carolyn Apcar and Councillor Andrew Wood spoke in support of the application. They stated that the road was a private road and that Claire Place had no pedestrian routes. Apart from this entrance, the development was fully enclosed and there would be no need for anyone to enter the development unless they were visiting the properties. The proposal would therefore not harm pedestrian routes. The installation of gates would also help address the many problems with crime and anti-social behaviour as shown by the crime statistics submitted by the supporters. The site tended to encourage such behaviour due to it’s secluded nature. This was not helped by the lack of CCTV. The Police supported the proposal as a means of reducing crime in the area. The proposals accorded with the Chief Planning Officer’s 2017 guidance regarding the role of Planning in crime prevention.
The proposal would also help minimise instances of illegal parking due to the shortage of car parking space and would therefore address the problems with access by emergency vehicles. Many of the residents supported the proposal.
It was also considered that there would be sufficient space for vehicle access on Tiller Road. With regard to this point, the speakers expressed concern about the proposed reason for refusal on this ground, given the number of other developments that had been approved with much shorter crossings between the site entrance and the highway.
In response to questions, the speakers clarified their concerns about the levels of both reported and unreported crime in the area. They highlighted examples of the types of offences committed, particularly during the last three months. They considered that the perception of crime levels was much higher that the statistics suggested. They also explained in further detail that the proposal would help keep the community safe without harming public access given its layout. In terms of its design and appearance, it was felt that the proposal would be barely noticeable from the street as it would in effect form a continuous boundary with that for nearby properties. In terms of the other solutions explored, it was felt that this proposal would provide the most appropriate solution for this particular development.
Hoa Vong (Planning Services) presented the application highlighting the nature of the location and the site itself. He advised that two previous applications had been received for gates at this site in 2007 and 2010. Both applications were refused under delegated authority. The Committee also noted the outcome of the Council’s consultation resulting in representations expressing support for the application in view of the levels of crime and anti-social behaviour at the site.
The Committee noted the main planning issues. It was reported that the proposal would restrict access and result in ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Bishops Square, Market Street and Lamb Street, London E1 6AD - PA/17/02470 and PA/17/02471 PDF 8 MB Proposal:
The removal of the canopy on Market Street; physical alterations to the existing retail units on the northern side of Market Street, including new shopfronts and extensions to the front and rear of the units, involving the change of use of part of the ground floor from Class B1 to Class A1; the change of use of part of the ground floor from Class B1 to Class A1/A3 on the southern side of Lamb Street, together with new shopfronts; the construction of a new two storey building (flexible Class A1/D2 gym) over the existing vehicle ramp on the northern side of Lamb Street and new hard and soft landscaping.
Recommendation:
That the Committee resolve to GRANTplanning permission and listed building consent subject to, the prior completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and the conditions and informatives in relation to the matters set out in the Committee report.
Minutes: Update report tabled.
Jerry Bell (Area Planning Manager (East), Planning Services) introduced the application for alternations to the existing retail units at Market Street including the change of use of part of the ground floor with the construction of a new two storey building over the existing vehicle ramp on the northern side of Lamb Street and new hard and soft landscaping.
The Chair then invited registered speakers to address the Committee.
Margaret Gordon(St George Residents' Association Spitalfields), Susan Kay and Sandra Go (local residents) spoke in objection to the application. They expressed concerns regarding the suitability of the change of use. They also expressed concerns about the scale of the new building in terms of the amenity impact, including daylight, sunlight and noise impacts. The development would block light, overshadow Elder Gardens, and create a sense of enclosure. It was felt that the assessments were inaccurate in respect of these issues. The proposal would also encroach on properties in Spital Square.
They also expressed concerns about conflict between cyclists and pedestrians from the narrowing of Lamb Street, the impact from the deliveries on Lamb Street and that the development could increase opportunities for crime due to the layout.
In response to questions, they expressed concerns about the lack of consultation by the developer in respect of the revised application and about the accuracy of information in terms of the amenity impacts. They also clarified their concerns about the delivery plans in view of the layout of the area.
Jason Dervin, (Applicant’s representative) spoke in support of the application. He explained that the applicant’s team placed a lot of value on engaging with the community and had sought to engage with the community and heritage groups during the application process. The scheme had been amended to mitigate the visual impact and minimise any impacts in relation to noise, sunlight and daylight and to allow sufficient space for safe movement. Details of the specific changes and the mitigation measures were noted. This included the imposition of restrictions on delivery times. The proposal would deliver a range of public benefits including new jobs. In view of the benefits of the application, the proposal should be granted planning permission
In response to questions, the applicant’s architect discussed the quality of the materials, that had been influenced by the local area. The supporters also provided assurances about the engagement with the community over the amendments, about the natures of changes themselves and the tree planting plans. They also explained the planning history for the site including the aims of the masterplan for the area and the consented applications for two storey development at the site.
Elizabeth Donnelly (Planning Services) presented the detailed report explaining the nature of the site located within the Elder Street Conservation Area and the policy designations for the site. Consultation had been carried out resulting in a number of representations in support and objection as well as late representations as listed in the update report. ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
OTHER PLANNING MATTERS PDF 76 KB None Minutes: None.
|