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: Councillor Helal Uddin declared a non-pecuniary non-disclosable interest in respect of agenda item 5.1that he was the Ward Councillor in area of the planning application.
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING(S) PDF 167 KB To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 27 September 2018 – Document to Follow Minutes: The Committee RESOLVED
That the minutes of the meeting held on 27 September 2018 be approved as a correct record of proceedings. |
|
RECOMMENDATIONS AND VARIED 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
|
|
Minutes: There were no deferred items. |
|
Caspian Wharf 39 - 75 Violet Road, London E3 3FW (PA/15/01846) PDF 4 MB Minutes: An update report was tabled.
The Development Manager introduced the report which concerned an application to install pedestrian and vehicular gates and relocate a pedestrian gate together with the relocation of refuse storage at the Voysey Square / Seven Seas Gardens development. The application had been presented at Committee on 20 June 2018 at which time the Committee deferred the application for investigation, negotiations and consideration of the proposed amendments presented at that meeting.
The Committee heard from the Planning Case Officer who set out the relevant issues. These were; improved access, permeability and antisocial behaviour (ASB). He noted that residents had objected to the removal of illegally erected gates at Seven Seas Gardens on grounds of ASB and contended that the relocation of the gates at the entrance to Ligurian Walk would address this concern.
The Chair invited the registered speakers to address the Committee. Peter H and Mr P Pavey addressed the Committee highlighting the following matters: · Residents’ objections related solely to the removal of the pedestrian gates at Ligurian Walk which had been installed to address residents’ safety concerns · They were open during daylight hours and the benefits of their removal were unclear in regard to permeability since they gave access to an unlit canal-side wildlife area. Given the reason for their installation, the proposal to keep the gates open permanently or to remove them worked contrary to aim of designing-out crime but would promote predatory behaviour. This was evidenced in the types of serious crimes such as sexual assaults and stabbings which have been recorded. · Crime Prevention Officers’ recommendations around safety had been ignored, nor had there been regard to the Council’s own policies or the Human Rights Act in proposing to remove them. Indeed it would make the area more vulnerable to crime and ASB. · The Council’s approach was inconsistent as gated developments existed elsewhere in the borough and two additional had been proposed.
The Committee then heard from the agent Mr Palman who offered the following information. · Gates had been installed by the developer at Caspian Wharf albeit without permission to address residents fear of crime and ASB. · After considering a range of alternatives, a revised proposal had been submitted at the meeting on 20 June which proposed additional gates at Seven Seas Gardens. · The developer sympathised with residents’ concerns and had therefore sought to provide a form of managed control. · The compromise solution before the Committee was the result of engagement with residents over a number of years intended to rectify the authorised works undertaken and at the same time to mitigate residents’ security concerns.
Following this submission, the Committee heard from Councillor Hassell, the Ward Councillor. He highlighted the following matters: · Residents felt that the security arrangements at the time of development did not offer an assurance of safety. · The gates currently installed and those proposed at Voysey Square were necessary to deter crime and ASB. · The open space within the development did not form part of any through-route to other locations ... view the full minutes text for item 5.1 |
|
Unit G1, Ground Floor, Block F, 15 Hanbury Street, London E1 6QR (PA/18/00459) PDF 5 MB Minutes: An update report was tabled.
The Development Manager introduced the report which concerned an application to use part of ground floor at Unit G1, 15 Hanbury Street E1 as a market on Saturday's trading between the hours of 10:30am and 6:00pm.
At the meeting, three interested parties made late requests to speak against the application. Responding to these requests, the applicant’s agent expressed concern that should Chair exercise discretion to grant the objectors permission to speak the applicant would be disadvantaged since there would not be opportunity to prepare responses. The Chair noting the unprecedented circumstance took officer advice and , taking into account Development procedures for speaking at Committee and having verified the procedures followed by officers in notifying relevant parties of the arrangements for the meeting, determined that speaking rights may not be offered. Then, on the basis of Development procedures around hearing applications that are recommended for approval and where there are no requests to speak in objection, the Committee did not receive any verbal representations but considered the matter on the basis of the written information provided in the report and verbal information provided by the Planning Case Officer.
The Committee heard from the Planning Case Officer who set out the relevant issues. These were; the proposed hours of trading, loss of use of a car park on Saturday's, noise amenity and impact on the night-time economy. He informed the Committee that: · Consultation had been carried out by the Council and by the applicant. 42 letters had been received out of the Council consultation and objections related to ASB and lack of public toilets. · The application proposed to install WC facilities at Unit G1 · There were existing WC facilities at Units G4 and G5 which could be accessed by the public. · The applicant had submitted a transport assessment which mitigated a highway safety objection. · The site was already used as a market on Sundays.
The Planning Case Officer responded to Members’ questions providing the following information:
The type of usage expected was estimated to be that 80% of trips will be shared with existing Saturday markets in the area and that the market extension would generate an additional 20%.
The assessment of the adequacy of the WC provision at Unit G1 had been scrutinised and considered in conjunction with the existing provision in the other Units on the site and also in conjunction with the transport consultation.
Impacts on residents of the merging of the end of market activity with the activity of the night-time economy in the area had been considered in the context of the proposed market activity to occur on Saturday and Sunday and it was acknowledged that activities would flow over from market activity into night-time activity in the area however the transport assessment did not capture this.
Comparing the proposal with a similar application in Commercial Street in 2017; the Committee heard that the former application had been dismissed on grounds of design and conservation and toilet provision but not because ... view the full minutes text for item 5.2 |
|
5 Hollybush Place, London E2 9QX (PA/16/02713) PDF 3 MB Minutes: An update report was tabled and in his introduction the Development Manager informed the Committee that a late representation and request to speak had been made by an objector which concerned the failure to provide suitable replacement premises for a builder’s merchant which was currently operating from the site. The Chair advised that the request had been assessed and since the objection concerned a material planning matter, he had exercised his discretion to grant permission to address the Committee. In accordance with Development procedure rules around speaking at Committee, the applicant was then also permitted to address the Committee and respond to the concerns raised. Development Manager then introduced the report which concerned the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of land to provide 55 residential units over two blocks comprising 1x6 storey building (Building B) and one part 5 and part 7 storey building (Building A) and the provision of 1625 m² (GIA) of commercial floor-space (class B1) at the lower ground and ground level with raised podium and associated landscaping, access and cycle parking at 5 Hollybush Place London E2.
The Committee heard from the Planning Case Officer who informed Members of relevant matters. These were; affordable housing tenure of 35.5%, play space, a S106 offer to mitigate loss of daylight to the nearby allotments and loss of the premises of a builders merchant. 11 objections had been received out of the consultation; these concerned car parking for visitors, amenity and proposed use of the ground floor commercial area. The loss of a builders merchant had been assessed as acceptable since commercial space would be very provided in the block in the ground and lower ground floors and the existing builders merchant would be re-accommodated on an equivalent site elsewhere in the borough.
The Chair then invited the registered speakers to address the committee Mr Pinney made representations on behalf of builders merchant Travis Perkins assisted by Ms A Fenton. Mr Pinney informed the Committee that:
The Committee then heard from agent Mr Brewer. He made the following submission:
|
|