Agenda, decisions and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Antonella Burgio, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4881, E-mail: antonella.burgio@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 interests were made. |
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 148 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 23 August 2018. Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meetings held on 23rd August 2018 be approved as a correct record of proceedings.
|
|
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: The Committee RESOLVED that:
1. The procedure for hearing objections and meeting guidance be noted.
2. In the event of changes being made to recommendations by the Committee, the task of formalising the wording of those changes be delegated to the Corporate Director, Place along the broad lines indicated at the meeting; and
3. 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 be delegated authority to do so, provided always that the Corporate Director does not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision
|
|
Raine House, 16 Raine Street, London, E1W 3RL - PA/18/01477 and PA/18/01478 PDF 99 KB Additional documents: Minutes: It was noted that: · Councillor Bex White had not participated in the discussion which took place at the previous meeting and therefore she did not participate in the consideration of the item. · Councillor Helal Uddin was not present for the consideration of this item.
An update report was tabled
Councillor Golds:
The Legal Adviser to the Committee advised that speaking rights were governed by the Constitution, Section 5.5 Planning Code of Conduct, Appendix B Rules 11.1 and 11.2. He explained the clause around what constituted substantive information and that the minutes of the previous meeting indicated that the reason for deferral was to undertake a site visit; this aligned with Rule 11.1. The Legal Adviser enquired and the Area Planning Manager advised that there had been no substantive changes relating to the application.
The Committee noted that the reason for deferral had been to undertake a site visit to apprise themselves of heritage issues that had been raised during the discussion of the application at the meeting on 23 August 2018.
Having received advice, the Chair confirmed that speaking rights did not apply and requested that the planning case officer present the technical report.
The Committee heard from the Planning Case Officer who advised that the matters raised at the previous meeting by those who spoke in objection had been investigated; responses to these were provided in the report. Additionally a petition had been received highlighting concerns that the proposal did not include refurbishment of the basement and decant of the building. The Committee was advised that these issues were not planning matters and that officers’ recommendation remained to grant the application on the basis that refurbishment would constitute a benefit to the building and its character over the present arrangements.
Responding to a Member enquiry on what alternative accommodation would be provided to the organisations required to vacate the premises for the refurbishment, the Committee was informed that it had been suggested that groups could re-locate to Glamis Hall however groups were concerned that the venue was not ready to receive them. The Interim Head of Capital Delivery informed the Committee that the venue would be available from 13 October. The Committee noted the Area Planning Manager’s advice that the matters that had been raised by groups were not material planning considerations.
The Chair then proposed and on a vote of 1 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention the Committee did not support the officer recommendation to approve the application.
The meeting was adjourned between 6:52pm and 7:00pm to enable Members to consider what alternative motion ... view the full minutes text for item 4.1 |
|
PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DECISION PDF 72 KB Minutes: VARY PROCEDURE FOR PARTICIPATION
The Chair advised that to facilitate discussion of the applications before the Committee, he had agreed to vary the order of participation. Therefore the following procedure for considering applications would be adopted for each application; the Area Planning Manager would introduce the item following which the Planning Case Officer would present the technical report. Members would ask questions of Planning Case Officer. Afterwards registered public speakers would be invited to make their presentations, objectors first and then supporters and applicant. Members would question each party respectively. Finally the committee would discuss and vote on the application.
|
|
Regency Court, 10 Norman Grove, London, E3 5EG - PA/18/00065 PDF 2 MB Minutes: The report was considered in conjunction with item 5.2.
An update report was tabled
The Committee was informed that the implementation of the proposal at agenda item 5.2 (Appian Court) was contingent upon approval of the application at agenda item 5.1 (Regency Court) and therefore the Chair agreed that the items may be considered concurrently. However each application would be determined individually..
The Area Planning Manager introduced the report which concerned an application to demolish existing buildings at Regency Court, 10 Norman Grove, London, E3 and redevelopment to provide 32 residential dwellings (Class C3) with new hard and soft landscaping, ancillary service and plant, car and cycle parking, and associated works.
At the Chair’s invitation the Planning Case Officer presented a summary of his report outlining the proposed elements of the development and the key attributes. He advised that relevant planning issues to be considered were; the improvement of outdated housing stock, the conservation area adjoining the proposed development site, that the land-use contributed to the council's housing targets, that the design and heritage of the adjoining conservation area had been factored into the revised design, that although the separation distance was 3 metres shorter than that recommended, the Council’s policy did not specify a minimum separation distance, that there were daylight impacts to 2 units to the north but these were within acceptable levels, there would be a loss of sheltered units at the Regency Court development but this would be mitigated by the additional number of units that would be provided through the development of Appian Court. The Officer then presented a summary of the technical report for the development at Appian Court; this is recorded at minute 5.2.
The following relevant matters were highlighted:
In response to member questions The Planning Case Officer, then provided the following information:
|
|
Appian Court, 87 Parnell Road, London, E3 2RS - PA/18/00092 PDF 1 MB Minutes: The application was considered and discussed in conjunction with item 5.1 and the matters discussed relating solely to the proposed redevelopment of Appian Court are recorded here for clarity.
An update report was tabled.
The Planning Case Officer presented his report. He informed the Committee that the application proposed demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a part 4/5, plus lower ground floor, storey building to provide age restricted sheltered housing consisting of 60 units together with the provision of communal amenity space, parking and cycle storage spaces and associated landscaping.
The Committee noted: · That the, there had been no requests to speak in objection to the application at Appian Court and since the application was recommended for approval, the applicant, in accordance with speaking rules, was not invited to make a presentation to the Committee.
The Planning Case Officer, responding to Members’ questions advised that the Appian Court proposal would provide 46 social housing units.
Later, the Agent, responding to Members’ questions advised that disabled parking provision at Appian Court had been assessed to be sufficient..
The meeting was adjourned from 8:36pm to 8:40pm.
Councillor Salva-Macallan requested that, since the applications for Regency Court and Appian Court were linked, it was appropriate to undertake a site visit at Appian Court also to enable the committee to further its work on the issues raised.
The Chair proposed and on a vote of 5 in favour and 1 against, it was
RESOLVED
That the application BE DEFERRED for a site visit. Since the development of Appian Court was linked to the development of Regency Court, the Committee deemed it necessary to visit both sites.
|
|
SUSPEND STANDING ORDERS At 9:20pm, during the consideration of agenda item 5.3, the Chair moved and the Committee
RESOLVED
To suspend standing orders for up to 30 minutes to enable the business of the meeting to be concluded.
|
|
Site Rear of 225 to 347, Hanbury Street, London E1 - PA/18/01776 PDF 881 KB Minutes: An update report was tabled
The Area Planning Manager introduced the report which concerned an application to demolish existing garages at the site rear of 225 – 347 Hanbury Street E1 and construct 4 x three-bedroom and 3 x four-bedroom affordable houses, proposal to develop 7 family-sized dwelling houses with the redevelopment of the existing open space.
The Planning Case Officer presented the technical report which outlined the key features of the application. He highlighted that the proposal would provide 7 affordable family dwellings comprised of 4 social housing units and 3 Local Authority units. The properties would be located in a car free zone; however where applicable, car parking would be provided to those transferring to these dwellings on fire the Council's permit transfer scheme.
The Case Officer, responding to members questions provided the following information:
The Chair then invited 2 objectors which had registered to speak to each make their presentations before the Committee.
The objectors offered the following arguments against the grant of planning permission:
Responding to questions from the Committee objectors provided the following information:
|
|
13-19 Herald Street, London, E2 6JT - PA/17/01808 PDF 2 MB Minutes: The Committee noted that the, there had been no requests to speak in objection to the application and, since the application was recommended for approval, the applicant, in accordance with procedure rules on speaking, was not invited to make a presentation to the Committee.
An update report was tabled.
The Area Planning Manager introduced the report which concerned an application to demolish a two-storey commercial building and scrap metal yard bounded by Herald Street, Witan Street and Glass Street and erect a new residential building ranging between six and nine storeys (including the creation of a basement) to accommodate 553 m² of commercial space (Class D1) at ground floor and 62 residential units (21 x 1-bed, 33 x 2-bed, 8 x 3-bed) at the upper floors together with associated works. The proposal included S106 and CIL contributions.
The Planning Case Officer then presented her technical report which outlined the key features of the application. She informed the Committee that at consultation 794 letters were sent to properties in the locality, in addition to site notices and press notices. 9 objections had been received which expressed concern around the loss of the gallery, that the proposal was not in keeping with the surrounding area, that there was to be separate entrances for the affordable housing and private sections of the development and their unequal amenity. She then responded to Members’ questions and provided the following information:
2 Committee members observed that, in their view, the outcomes achieved, namely the differential entrance arrangements and the delivery of 28% affordable housing were unacceptable in the context of the overall scheme. The Planning Case Officer informed Members that it was not unusual for there to be separate entrance arrangements in developments of this kind for reasons such as differential costs of maintaining entrances and to mitigate potential impacts relating to the building core.
There being no other matters at issue the Committee then moved to vote on the application. The Chair proposed and on a vote of 3 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention, it was
RESOLVED
That the application for demolition of two storey commercial building and scrap metal yard bounded by Herald Street, Witan Street and Glass Street and erection of a new residential building ranging between 6 and 9 storeys (including the creation of a basement), to accommodate 553 sqm of ... view the full minutes text for item 5.4 |
|