Members are reminded to consider the categories of interest in the Code of Conduct for Members to determine whether they have an interest in any agenda item and any action they should take. For further details, please see the attached note from the Monitoring Officer.

Members are reminded to declare the nature of the interest and the agenda item it relates to. Please note that ultimately it’s the Members’ responsibility to declare any interests form and to update their register of interest form as required by the Code.

If in doubt as to the nature of your interest, you are advised to seek advice prior to the meeting by contacting the Monitoring Officer or Democratic Services

Members declared interests in items on the agenda for the meeting as set out below:

Cllr Asma Islam stated that she will not be present for item 4.1 but would be present for discussion on item 5.1.

Cllr Sabina Akhtar would not be voting during item 4.1 as she was not in attendance at the previous meeting, as Cllr Shahaveer Shubo Hussain was present previously for item 4.1 and is also tonight, as substitute.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting of the Development Committee held on 10 August 2023.

The Committee RESOLVED That the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 10 August 2023 be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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.

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

Application for Planning Permission 1

PA/23/00719

Proposal: Provision of a new pedestrian entrance to the Rich Mix from Redchurch Street,  with construction of a new single-storey entrance pavilion in the rear yard, provision of outdoor seating, parking bays and relocation of existing plant.

Summary Recommendation: Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations.

Application for Planning Permission 2

PA/23/00720

Proposal: Material Amendment sought to vary Condition No.7 (servicing and loading area), Condition No. 9 (access doors) and No. 10 (deliveries) to planning permission (Ref: PA/02/00876) granted 25/03/2004 for “Refurbishment of existing building to provide an arts centre (for the improvement of inter-cultural understanding) including provision of music, IT education, performing and visual arts, a new 3 screen cinema together with the erection of a rear five storey building and roof level enclosures”.

Summary Recommendation: Grant planning permission with conditions

Update report noted.

Paul Buckenham, Development Manager, presented the deferred applications for provision of a new pedestrian entrance to the Rich Mix from Redchurch Street, with construction of a new single-storey entrance pavilion in the rear yard, provision of outdoor seating, parking bays and relocation of existing plant.

Adam Hussain, Planning Officer, provided a presentation on the applications. The Officer’s recommendation was to grant planning permission.

Further to questions from the Committee, officers, provided more details on the following elements of the application:

• If the application is refused, what will the purpose of the Redchurch Street entrance be? Officers confirmed that it would remain for internal uses only, for deliveries etc.
• Will the ground floor facilities be open to just ticket holders, or to the public? Officers confirmed that the ground floor will have areas open to the public, but it is up to the applicant what they intend to do with the space.
• The noise assessment submitted by the objectors, does this change the council view of the application. Officers confirmed that while the objectors have a strong view, the council’s own noise assessment remains unchanged and is the view the committee should be considering.
• What is the proposed footfall for the application and where would the main entrance be for events? Officers confirmed that the applicant hopes to return to pre-pandemic numbers of visitors and the Bethnal Green entrance. The Redchurch entrance will close after 9pm.
• Concerns this will add to the noise of an already busy borough street. What noise mitigation will be in place, as the application states large indoor events and outdoor seating? Officers confirmed that as viewed in the site visit and through out the application, there has been sufficient demonstrations of noise mitigation, but also the application will fit in with the other nighttime businesses in the area.

The Committee debated the application, highlighting about the noise from the outdoor seating and large events, the impact of the noise on residents, and the lack of noise mitigation within the application. The committee then moved to the vote.

On a vote of 3 in favour, 2 against and 0 abstentions the Committee, that planning permission is REFUSED.

The reasons for the resolution to refuse are as follows:

• The increased footfall will increase noise for residents.
• The applicant did not demonstrate enough understanding of noise mitigation.

PA/22/01389

Proposal: Single storey upwards extension to provide an additional 4 residential units. Associated amendments to the external fabric and internal arrangements of the building.

Summary Recommendation: Grant planning permission with conditions and planning obligations

Paul Buckenham, Development Manager, presented the application for a Single storey upwards extension to provide an additional 4 residential units. Associated amendments to the external fabric and internal arrangements of the building.

Nicholas Jehan, Planning Officer, provided a presentation on the application. The Officer’s recommendation was to grant planning permission.

At the invitation of the Chair, objections were raised to the committee, highlighting concerns about fire safety, the lack of waste infrastructure, restrictions of communal outside space and cycle storage.

At the invitation of the Chair, the agent for the applicant highlighted the planned upgrades to the building, including upgrading the cladding and increasing the waste infrastructure.

Further to questions from the Committee, officers, members of the council and residents provided more details on the following elements of the application:

• Are officers satisfied with the infrastructure for waste management? Are the waste team aware of the legacy problem of waste for the current residents? Officers confirmed the applicant has offered a calculation for how much waste can be managed in the application, officers asked the applicant to then re-draw the application to ensure the bin storage area is appropriate for use. Officers are aware of the legacy issue and the waste team is satisfied with the current proposals.
• Is there anyway this application should be considered for social housing? Officers confirmed that the local plan would not support this kind of application.
• Are the concerns raised by residents on fire safety considered by the application? Officers stated that the concerns are relevant planning matters, but the application does cover this provision.
• Will the extension be in keeping with the character of the local area? The agent for the applicant highlighted that similar materials will be used, and guidance has been sought from council officers to ensure this issue is respected.
• What outreach was done to engage with residents on the application? The agent for the applicant was unable to confirm.
• Has the applicant considered accessibility of the building? The agent for the applicant stated that the application is improving the lift within the building, which will go to the new roof top area.

The Committee debated the application, highlighting concerns about the impact of the character of the local area, how the application does not address concerns about waste infrastructure nor fire safety to a satisfying level. The committee then moved to the vote.

On a vote of 0 in favour, 7 against and 0 abstentions the Committee, that planning permission is REFUSED.

The reasons for the resolution to refuse are as follows:

• The applicant has not considered the impact of waste infrastructure.
• Concerns over fire safety
• Negative impact on the conservation area.

Nil items.